United States Patent and Trademark Ofhce
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark OtBce
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
32192 7590 09/
BRADLEY N. RUBEN
503 MITCHELL COURT
CHAMPAIGN, IL 61821-3535
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
NGUYEN, DUNG V
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
KJttiVrXi nvrliyjts OUff Iff fcff Jr
MAY ET AL.
Dung Van Nguyen
- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address —
Period for Reply
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1 .136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
- If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
eamed patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
1 )□ Responsive to communication(s) filed on .
2a )□ This action is FINAL. 2b)|3 This action is non-final.
3) D Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
Disposition of Claims
4) ^ Claim(s) 1 and 4-20 is/are pending in the application.
4a) Of the above claim(s) is/are withdrawn from consideration.
5) n Claim(s) is/are allowed.
6) IEI Claim(s) 1.4-6.14.19 and 20 is/are rejected.
7) 13 Claim(s) 7-13 and 15-18 is/are objected to.
8) 0 Claim(s) are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
9) 0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
10)^ The drawing(s) filed on 19 May 2005 is/are: a)^ accepted or b)^ objected to by the Examiner.
Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held In abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
1 !)□ The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
12)S Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
a)^ All b)n Some * c)^ None of:
1 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
2. n Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. .
3. n Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
1 ) ^ Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 4) □ Interview Summary (PTO-41 3)
2) □ Notice of Draftspereon's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) Paper No(s)/IVIail Date.
3) ^ Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08) 5) □ Notice of Informal Patent Application
Paper No(s)/Mail Date 5-19-2005 . 6) □ Other: .
Office Action Summary
Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20080907
Application/Control Number: 10/535,594 Page 2
Art Unit: 3723
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) which forms the basis for all
obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
the phor art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 1,4-6, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belleau et al (USP 5,842,488) in view of Rolleri (USP 5,003,658).
Belleau et al discloses a hand held utensil 20 comprising an extendable elongated
handle with a working head 108 at one end of the handle, the handle having a first
length 32 to which the working head 108 mounted and a second length 22 coupled to
the first length 32 remote from the working head 108, the second length 22 movable
from a first position in which the first length 32 stowed along side with the working head
108 not obstructing, to a second position in which the second length 22 substantially
aligned with the first length 32 to provide an extended overall handle length, wherein the
second length 22 is pivotally mounted to the first length 32, wherein the working head
108 is releasably mounted to the first length of the handle (note Fig. 1-2, col. 3, line 28
to col. 4, line 3, col. 5, lines 36-47). Belleau does not disclose the pivot being slidingly
movable during alignment, wherein the pivot comprises a pair of opposing axle stubs
cooperate with a slot in the second length. Rolleri discloses a first length slidably
pivoted mounted to a second length, wherein the pivot comprises a pair of opposing
axle stubs 58 cooperate with a slot 60 in the second length 54 (note Fig. 3, col. 3, line
Application/Control Number: 10/535,594 Page 3
Art Unit: 3723
51 to col. 4, line 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to modify the hand held utensil of Belleau et al with a
slidably pivot mount disclosed by Rolleri in order to provide a connection between the
lengths of the handle for easily extending and collapsed the handle.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 7-13 and 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. Wachtel et al, Pelfrey and Padula are cited to show related
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Dung Van Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-
4490. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP Program.
6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Joseph J. Hail can be reached on 571-272-4485. The fax phone number for
the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Application/Control Number: 10/535,594 Page 4
Art Unit: 3723
7. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Dung Van Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723