DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal (U.S. Patent 4,925,341) in view of Quenzi et al. (Canadian Patent 2 462 885).
Neal discloses a concrete trowel (column 1, lines 6-9) having a frame (Figure 1) a drive assembly including a motor (not shown) and a rotatable rotor (3) configured to receive torque from the motor (column 3, lines 1-3, for example). There is a plurality of rotor arms (4) radially extending from the rotor hub (Figure 1) and a plurality of blades (1) selectively attached on respective rotor arms. Each blade is a multi-piece blade that includes a trailing edge portion (2). The rotor hub and drive hub configuration are not described, as the invention is directed to the blades (column 3, lines 14-17, for example); however, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to configure rotor hubs and drive hubs as claimed in rotary trowels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Neal in the claimed manner in order to obtain an operational machine suitable for its intended purpose. Neil leaves the motor configuration to one skilled in the art. Quenzi teaches an electric motor with a battery pack on a concrete working device (page 14, line 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the motor and pack supported on the frame of Neal since Quenzi teaches this to be an effective manner of powering a working device. Regarding the new recitations in claim 9 of the co-planar upper and lower surfaces, see Figure 8.
Claims 10 and 11 are met as discussed in the most recent Office action.
Regarding claim 12, Neal discloses locating dowels, rather than tongue and groove. It is clear from applicant’s specification and previous versions of claims 12 and 21 that there is not only no criticality in this feature, but also that these are obvious alternatives. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a tongue and groove connection since this is a known alternative and the present specification essentially equates these connections.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 14, 16-22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal (U.S. Patent 4,925,341) and Quenzi et al. (Canadian Patent 2 462 885), as applied above, and further in view of Whiteman (U.S. Patent 2,662,454).
Neal discloses bolts for blade attachment. Whiteman teaches an over-center cam lock (37) to be an optional blade attachment (Figures 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the lock of Whiteman as an attachment in Neal, since Whiteman teaches this to be an effective attachment mechanism on a power trowel blade. This meets the recitations of “toolless.”
Regarding the material of the blade, Neal leaves the decision to one skilled in the art. The sheet metal (column 3, lines 22-23) of Whiteman is deemed to meet recitations of “steel.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the material of Whiteman as the material of Neal, since these are both blades for troweling machines.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16, 17, 18-22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal (U.S. Patent 4,925,341) in view of Whiteman (U.S. Patent 2,662,454), Quenzi et al. (Canadian Patent 2 462 885) and Marx et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0268504).
Neal discloses a concrete trowel (column 1, lines 6-9) having a frame (Figure 1) a drive assembly including a motor (not shown) and a rotatable rotor (3) configured to receive torque from the motor (column 3, lines 1-3, for example). There is a plurality of rotor arms (4) radially extending from the rotor hub (Figure 1) and a plurality of blades (1) selectively attached on respective rotor arms. Each blade is a multi-piece blade that includes a trailing edge portion (2). Neal discloses bolts for blade attachment. Whiteman teaches an over-center cam lock (37) to be an optional blade attachment (Figures 2 and 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the lock of Whiteman as an attachment in Neal, since Whiteman teaches this to be an effective attachment mechanism on a power trowel blade. This meets the recitations of “toolless.” The rotor hub and drive hub configuration are not described, as the invention is directed to the blades (column 3, lines 14-17, for example); however, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to configure rotor hubs and drive hubs as claimed in rotary trowels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Neal in the claimed manner in order to obtain an operational machine suitable for its intended purpose. Neil leaves the motor configuration to one skilled in the art. Whiteman teaches powering a concrete trowel with an electric motor (10, see column 2, line 33). Marx teaches a concrete trowel which supports a battery (30) on the frame (paragraph 23). Quenzi teaches a concrete working device having optionally corded or battery powered motor (page 14, line 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an electric motor, since Whiteman exemplifies that this is known in the art. to have powered the electric motor with a battery, since Quenzi exemplifies that there is no patentable distinction between corded and battery powered motors; and to have supported the battery on the frame, since Marx teaches that this is known.
Regarding claim 2, there are a plurality of mounting portions (Figures 8-13, for example).
Regarding claim 5, there is a curved leading edge portion (8) and a removable (Figures 2-7, for example) trailing edge portion (2).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, there is a quick-connect coupling (12, 15, 18) for removably connecting the trailing edge portion (column 3, lines 24-31).
The manner in which this coupling is configured meets claim 7 and 20 recitations regarding the alignment feature, as well as the dowels of claim 21.
Regarding claims 12 and 21, Neal discloses locating dowels, rather than tongue and groove. It is clear from applicant’s specification and previous versions of claims 12 and 21 that there is not only no criticality in this feature, but also that these are obvious alternatives. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a tongue and groove connection since this is a known alternative and the present specification essentially equates these connections.
Regarding the material of the blade, Neal leaves the decision to one skilled in the art. The sheet metal (column 3, lines 22-23) of Whiteman is deemed to meet recitations of “steel.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the material of Whiteman as the material of Neal, since these are both blades for troweling machines.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a voltage and power output suitable for proper operation. Because Neal is used for the same purpose, given the inclusion of an electric motor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the voltage and power output as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Regarding claim 9, applicant has referred to Figures 2 and 4 of Neil, which do not meet claim recitations; however, the embodiment of Figure 8 does meet these limitations.
The “toolless” configurations are met by Whiteman and this reference has been added in all rejections of claims 1 and 16, and dependents thereof.
The drawing objection was implemented based upon the previous assertions that the prior art cam device was not commensurate with the present arrangement. Because the arrangement that was distinct from the prior art was not shown, the drawing objection was made. The current response appears to negate that assertion; therefore, this objection has been omitted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Sebesta can be reached on 571 272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GARY S HARTMANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671