DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Cutting assembly” in claims 1, 8, 10-11, 14-15, 18, 21, 25, and 27.
“Power and drive assembly” in claims 1-3, 8, 17, and 21.
“Guide arm assembly” in claims 1, 3, 21, and 26
“Blade depth positioning system” in claims 21 and 24
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432), in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Kennedy (US4748966), in further view of Chiuminatta (US5305729), in further view of Yelton et al. (US5241946), hereinafter Yelton, and in further view of Zuzelo et al. (US6536422), hereinafter Zuzelo.
Regarding claim 1, Ruffner discloses a concrete saw comprising: a frame (Fig. 1 element 60) having a platform (see annotated Fig. 1 below); a handle assembly extending from the platform (see annotated Fig. 1' below where the combination of the handles and handle attachment corresponds to a handle assembly); a pivot axis (Fig. 1, an axis running through center of each rear wheel (80)); at least two rear wheels (Fig. 1 element 80) coupled to the platform at the pivot axis (Fig. 1); at least one front wheel (Fig. 1 element 70); a power and drive assembly (Fig. 1 elements 30, 40, and 100) disposed on the platform (Fig. 1, 0022), wherein the power and drive assembly includes an electric motor (Fig. 1 element 40) and a battery pack (Fig. 1 element 100) coupled to the electric motor to provide direct current power to the electric motor (0023); and a cutting assembly (Fig. 1 element 20) driven by the power and drive assembly to cut a groove (0022 where grooves corresponds to groove) in a work surface (Fig. 3 element M) as the concrete saw is moved across the work surface (0022); the cutting assembly including a cutting blade (Fig. 1 element 20, where the cutting blade is a subset of the cutting assembly which encompasses the entirety of the cutting assembly); a guide arm assembly (see annotated Fig. 1’ below where the combination of the guide wheel and pivoting guide arm corresponds to a guide arm assembly) including a pivoting guide arm having a guide wheel attached to an end of the pivoting guide arm (see annotated Fig. 1’ below), the guide arm assembly pivotably coupled to the frame and movable between a storage position in which the guide wheel is spaced apart from the work surface and an operating position in which the guide wheel is engaged with the work surface (see annotated Fig. 1’ below where the guide arm assembly is coupled to the frame (e.g. the guide arm assembly and the frame are indirectly connected through various other components of the concrete saw) and is capable of pivotably moving between a storage position and operating position as recited).
Ruffner fails to disclose a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis; the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis; the cutting blade being rotatable in a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction; an inner blade guard coupled to the platform, an outer blade guard coupled to the inner blade guard, and a pressure plate movably coupled to the inner blade guard and including a slit through which a portion of the cutting blade extends; and a lever on the handle assembly, wherein rotation of the lever selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position and the operating position.
Johnson is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches a leg (Fig. 3 element 72) pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis (Fig. 3, 0034-0038, where element 58 corresponds to the platform and where an axis coaxial with the axle for the rear wheels (68) corresponds to the pivot axis) and the at least one front wheel (Fig. 3 element 76) being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis (Fig. 3). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ruffner discloses the invention except that the pivoting motion of the platform is achieved through a hydraulic lift system (150) instead of a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis. Johnson shows that a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. the structure performs the function of pivotally moving the platform). Therefore, because these two structure for pivoting motion were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis for a hydraulic lift system.
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose the cutting blade being rotatable in a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction; an inner blade guard coupled to the platform, an outer blade guard coupled to the inner blade guard, and a pressure plate movably coupled to the inner blade guard and including a slit through which a portion of the cutting blade extends; and a lever on the handle assembly, wherein rotation of the lever selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position and the operating position.
Kennedy is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches the cutting blade being rotatable in a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction (2:40-51, where “saw blade” corresponds to cutting blade). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to make the cutting blade be rotatable in a clockwise direction and a counterclockwise direction, as taught by Kennedy, because Kennedy teaches that switching the direction of rotation of the blade so that the blade runs in one direction for half the time and the other direction the other half of the time maximizes the life of the cutting blade (2:40-51).
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose an inner blade guard coupled to the platform, an outer blade guard coupled to the inner blade guard, and a pressure plate movably coupled to the inner blade guard and including a slit through which a portion of the cutting blade extends; and a lever on the handle assembly, wherein rotation of the lever selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position and the operating position.
Chiuminatta is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches an inner blade guard (Fig. 1 element 96) coupled to the platform (Fig. 1, 9:15-17, where element 24 corresponds to a platform), an outer blade guard (Fig. 1 element 102) coupled to the inner blade guard (Fig. 1, 8:16-21), and a pressure plate (Fig. 5 element 42) movably coupled to the inner blade guard (Fig. 5, Abstract) and including a slit (Fig. 3 element 68) through which a portion of the cutting blade (Fig. 5 element 46) extends (6:35-37). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include an inner blade guard, outer blade guard, and pressure plate as claimed, as taught by Chiuminatta, because Chiuminatta teaches that having an inner blade guard, outer blade guard, and pressure plate as claimed inhibits "raveling of the concrete surface adjacent the groove even when the cutting blade rises partially out of the concrete surface during cutting" (2:28-38).
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose a lever on the handle assembly, wherein rotation of the lever selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position and the operating position.
Yelton is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches a linkage system (Fig. 1 element 97) on the handle assembly (Fig. 1), wherein the linkage system selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position (position discussed in 9:59-68 and shown in dashed lines in Fig. 2) and the operating position (position shown in Fig. 1). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include a linkage system to selectively move the guide arm assembly between a storage position and operating position, as taught by Yelton, because Yelton teaches that the linkage system allows for storage and transport of the concrete saw and also allows for approaching a blocking wall without having to release control of the concrete saw (9:59-68).
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose the linkage system using a lever which is rotated to move the guide arm assembly.
Zuzelo teaches using a linkage system (Fig. 1 element 90) which uses a lever (Fig. 1 element 92) which is rotated to move a structure (Fig. 1, 5:61-63, 6:2-9, and 6:23-25, where element 32 corresponds to a structure). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ruffner, as modified, discloses the invention except that the movement of the guide arm assembly is achieved through pulling on the linkage system (Yelton, 97, see 9:65-68) instead of using a lever which is rotated to cause the movement of the guide arm assembly. Zuzelo shows that a lever being rotated is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. the structure performs the function of allowing pivotal raising and lowering movement of a structure). Therefore, because these two structure for pivoting motion were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a linkage system which uses a lever which is rotated to move a structure for a linkage system which is pulled to move a structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
443
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a control interface (Ruffner, Fig. 1 element 110) coupled to the handle assembly (Ruffner, Fig. 1), wherein the control interface controls the operation of the power and drive assembly (Ruffner, 0023).
Regarding claim 3, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose a cage fixed to the platform and surrounding the power and drive assembly and that the guide arm assembly extends from the cage.
Johnson is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches a cage (Fig. 4 element 204) fixed to the platform (Fig. 3 element 58) and surrounding the power and drive assembly (Fig. 1 element 56 and Fig. 3 element 66) and that the guide arm assembly (see Johnson annotated Fig. 1 below) extends from the cage (Fig. 4). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include a cage where the guide arm assembly extends from the cage because the cage would allow for protection of auxiliary components (e.g. components outside of just the power and drive assembly) and Johnson teaches that the cage is a “lifting cage” and adding a lifting cage to Ruffner would allow the concrete saw to be lifted by external machinery, thus allowing the concrete saw to be transported to different elevations (e.g. to rooftops or into a vehicle).
PNG
media_image3.png
527
600
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a motor housing (Ruffner, see annotated Fig. 1' above where the internal space defined by the handle assembly corresponds to a motor housing), wherein the motor housing includes a battery receptacle for selectively receiving the battery pack therein (Ruffner, Fig. 1, 0008, the structure which keeps the battery pack (100) in an elevated position within the motor housing corresponds to a battery receptacle).
Regarding claim 6, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the battery pack is removable from the battery receptacle (Ruffner, the battery pack (100) is capable of being removed from the battery receptacle).
Regarding claim 28, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the concrete saw can be moved regardless of rotation of the cutting blade (Ruffner, Fig. 8, 0026, where the “first motor 30” is used to operate the cutting blade and “the second motor 40” is used to operate the “drive system 50”).
Regarding claim 29, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and further discloses the front wheel and the rear wheels are non-driven wheels (Ruffner, 0022, where the front wheel and rear wheels are non-driven wheels when the concrete saw is “pushed without assistance from the self-propelled wheel(s)”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432) in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Kennedy (US4748966), in further view of Chiuminatta (US5305729), in further view of Yelton et al. (US5241946), hereinafter Yelton, in further view of Zuzelo et al. (US6536422), hereinafter Zuzelo, and in further view of Deshpande et al. (US20100240286), hereinafter Deshpande.
Regarding claim 7, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the motor is a brushless direct current electric motor.
Deshpande is also concerned with providing an optimized motor and teaches the motor is a brushless direct current electric motor (0012). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to make the electric motor a brushless direct current electric motor, as taught by Deshpande, because Deshpande teaches that a brushless direct current electric motor eliminates the need for a fan within the motor housing and thus eliminates dust and other contaminants from entering the motor (0012).
Claims 8, 10, 14-15, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432), in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Timmons et al. (US20200023553), hereinafter Timmons, in further view of Chiuminatta (US5305729), and in further view of Kennedy (US4748966).
Regarding claim 8, Ruffner discloses a concrete saw comprising: a frame (Fig. 1 element 60) having a platform (see annotated Fig. 1 above), the frame including a motor housing (see annotated Fig. 1' above where the internal space defined by the handle assembly corresponds to a motor housing) defining a battery pack receptacle (Fig. 1,0008, the structure which keeps the battery pack (100) in an elevated position within the motor housing corresponds to a battery pack receptacle) to selectively secure a battery pack to the battery pack receptacle (the battery pack (100) is normally held in the motor housing by the battery receptacle, but he battery pack (100) is also capable of being removed from the battery receptacle, which means that the battery pack (100) is selectively secured to the battery pack receptacle); and a pivot axis (Fig. 1, an axis running through center of each rear wheel (80)); at least two rear wheels (Fig. 1 element 80) coupled to the platform at the pivot axis (Fig. 1); at least one front wheel (Fig. 1 element 70); a power and drive assembly (Fig. 1 elements 30, 40, and 100) disposed on the platform (Fig. 1, 0022), wherein the power and drive assembly includes an electric motor (Fig. 1 element 40) and the battery pack, the battery pack is coupled to the electric motor to provide direct current power to the electric motor (0023), the battery pack receptacle removably receiving the battery pack therein (the battery pack (100) is capable of being received in the battery receptacle and removed from the battery receptacle); a cutting assembly (Fig. 1 element 20) driven by the power and drive assembly to cut a groove (0022 where grooves corresponds to groove) in a work surface (Fig. 3 element M) as the concrete saw is moved across the work surface (0022); the cutting assembly including a cutting blade (Fig. 1 element 20, where the cutting blade is a subset of the cutting assembly which encompasses the entirety of the cutting assembly); and a control system (Fig. 1 element 110) operable to selectively control the power and drive assembly, the cutting assembly, or a combination thereof (0023, 0037, and 0039-0040 where the control system controls the power and drive assembly and cutting assembly).
Ruffner fails to disclose a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis, the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis, the battery receptacle selectively securing the battery pack using a battery pack latch; an inner blade guard coupled to the platform, an outer blade guard coupled to the inner blade guard, and a pressure plate movably coupled to the inner blade guard and including a slit through which a portion of the cutting blade extends; and the control system is operable to selectively control rotation of the cutting blade in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction.
Johnson is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches a leg (Fig. 3 element 72) pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis (Fig. 3, 0034-0038, where element 58 corresponds to the platform and where an axis coaxial with the axle for the rear wheels (68) corresponds to the pivot axis) and the at least one front wheel (Fig. 3 element 76) being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis (Fig. 3). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ruffner discloses the invention except that the pivoting motion of the platform is achieved through a hydraulic lift system (150) instead of a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis. Johnson shows that a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. the structure performs the function of pivotally moving the platform). Therefore, because these two structure for pivoting motion were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis for a hydraulic lift system.
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose the battery receptacle selectively securing the battery pack using a battery pack latch; an inner blade guard coupled to the platform, an outer blade guard coupled to the inner blade guard, and a pressure plate movably coupled to the inner blade guard and including a slit through which a portion of the cutting blade extends; and the control system is operable to selectively control rotation of the cutting blade in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction.
Timmons is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches the battery receptacle (Fig. 9 element 515) selectively securing the battery pack (Fig. 9 element 525) using a battery pack latch (0060, where a latch mentioned in “the battery pack mount 515 includes a latch for securing the removable battery pack 525” corresponds to a battery pack latch). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ruffner discloses the invention except that the connection between the battery pack and the battery pack receptacle is an unspecified structure instead of a battery pack latch. Timmons shows that a battery pack latch is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. the battery pack latch also connects and holds in place a battery pack to a concrete saw). Therefore, because these two structures for connecting a battery pack to a battery pack receptacle were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute battery pack latch for an unspecified structure. Examiner further finds that it 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to replace the unspecified structure connecting the battery pack to the battery pack receptacle with a battery pack latch, as taught by Timmons, because Timmons teaches that having a battery pack latch connection allows for storing a spare battery (525) so that when the main battery (135) runs out of power, the spare battery can replace the spare battery (see 0060) which allows for extended use of the concrete saw, even in areas where an outlet is not readily available.
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose an inner blade guard coupled to the platform, an outer blade guard coupled to the inner blade guard, and a pressure plate movably coupled to the inner blade guard and including a slit through which a portion of the cutting blade extends; and the control system is operable to selectively control rotation of the cutting blade in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction.
Chiuminatta is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches an inner blade guard (Fig. 1 element 96) coupled to the platform (Fig. 1, 9:15-17, where element 24 corresponds to a platform), an outer blade guard (Fig. 1 element 102) coupled to the inner blade guard (Fig. 1, 8:16-21), and a pressure plate (Fig. 5 element 42) movably coupled to the inner blade guard (Fig. 5, Abstract) and including a slit (Fig. 3 element 68) through which a portion of the cutting blade (Fig. 5 element 46) extends (6:35-37). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include an inner blade guard, outer blade guard, and pressure plate as claimed, as taught by Chiuminatta, because Chiuminatta teaches that having an inner blade guard, outer blade guard, and pressure plate as claimed inhibits "raveling of the concrete surface adjacent the groove even when the cutting blade rises partially out of the concrete surface during cutting" (2:28-38).
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose the control system is operable to selectively control rotation of the cutting blade in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction.
Kennedy is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches the control system is operable to selectively control rotation of the cutting blade in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction (2:40-51, where “control system” corresponds to control system and “saw blade” corresponds to cutting blade). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to make the control system be operable to selectively control rotation of the cutting blade in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction, as taught by Kennedy, because Kennedy teaches that switching the direction of rotation of the blade so that the blade runs in one direction for half the time and the other direction the other half of the time maximizes the life of the cutting blade (2:40-51).
Regarding claim 10, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the control system is operable to selectively control a speed of a cutting blade of the cutting assembly (Ruffner, 0023 states that the control system (110) is responsible for the speed of the motors and 0027 states that there is a speed selection lever which controls the speed and therefore the speed selection lever is operable coupled to the control system (110) to cause the control system (110) to selectively control a speed of a cutting blade (20)).
Regarding claim 14, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the control system further includes a control interface operably coupled to the control system and the control interface includes a speed control lever that is operable to selectively control a speed of a cutting blade of the cutting assembly (Ruffner, 0023 states that the control system (110) is responsible for the speed of the motors and 0027 states that there is a speed selection lever which controls the speed and therefore the speed selection lever is a subset of the control interface which comprises the entirety of the control interface).
Regarding claim 15, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses the control system is operable to selectively provide a full speed setting or a half speed setting for the cutting blade of the cutting assembly (Ruffner, 0023 and 0027 where the control system (110) is capable of providing a full speed setting or a half speed setting for the cutting blade of the cutting assembly).
Regarding claim 30, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the concrete saw can be moved regardless of rotation of the cutting blade (Ruffner, Fig. 8, 0026, where the “first motor 30” is used to operate the cutting blade and “the second motor 40” is used to operate the “drive system 50”).
Regarding claim 31, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 30, as described above, and further discloses the front wheel and the rear wheels are non-driven wheels (Ruffner, 0022, where the front wheel and rear wheels are non-driven wheels when the concrete saw is “pushed without assistance from the self-propelled wheel(s)”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432), in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Timmons et al. (US20200023553), hereinafter Timmons, in further view of Chiuminatta (US5305729), in further view of Kennedy (US4748966), and in further view of Araya (JP4615242), attached as a PDF in office action filed 8/14/2024.
Regarding claim 11, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, but fails to disclose the control system is operable to selectively measure a linear cutting distance traveled by a cutting blade of the cutting assembly.
Araya is also concerned with solving the problem of determining blade replacement timing and teaches the control system is operable to selectively measure a linear cutting distance traveled by a cutting blade of the cutting assembly (0005). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to make the control system operable to selectively measure a linear cutting distance traveled by a cutting blade of the cutting assembly, as taught by Araya, because Araya teaches that measuring a linear cutting distance of a blade is known in the art as an automated method to determine the replacement time of the blade.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432), in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Timmons et al. (US20200023553), hereinafter Timmons, in further view of Chiuminatta (US5305729), in further view of Kennedy (US4748966), and in further view of Lindsey (US20070069678).
Regarding claim 12, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, but fails to disclose the control system further includes one or more sensors to monitor and control operation of the concrete saw.
Lindsey is also concerned with solving the problem of controlling a system and teaches the control system (Fig. 2 element 17) further includes one or more sensors to monitor and control operation of the concrete saw (0018 describes a controller (16) used to monitor and regulate operation and 0028 describes one or more sensors which the controller uses for monitoring and therefore also making adjustments to the operation). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include one or more sensors in the control system to monitor and control operation of the concrete saw, as taught by Lindsey, because Lindsey teaches that monitoring a motor with the one or more sensors can reduce the potential for damage to the motor (0004).
Regarding claim 13, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the one or more sensors includes one or more voltage sensors, one or more current sensors, one or more temperature sensors, one or more vibration sensors, or a combination thereof (Lindsey, 0028 shows that each of these sensors could be used individually or together).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432), in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Timmons et al. (US20200023553), hereinafter Timmons, in further view of Chiuminatta (US5305729), in further view of Kennedy (US4748966), and in further view of Yanagihara et al. (US20130314007), hereinafter Yanagihara.
Regarding claim 17, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, but fails to disclose the control interface further includes a display that indicates a status of the power and drive assembly.
Yanagihara is also concerned with displaying status information of a power tool and teaches the control interface further includes a display (Figs. 15a-17c element 132) that indicates a status of the power and drive assembly (0088 where conduction angle, remaining power, and tool load correspond to a status). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include a display that indicates a status of the power and drive assembly, as taught by Yanagihara, to increase the utility of the concrete saw and prevent the electric motor from failure due to force overload by alerting the operator that the electric motor is currently overloaded, which would lead the operator to stop the concrete saw before a failure due to overload occurs. Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide any criticality to the display in the specification.
Regarding claim 18, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses the display selectively indicates a power level of the battery pack, a linear cut distance of a cutting blade within the cutting assembly, a strain of the electric motor, or a combination thereof (Yanagihara, 0088 where the remaining power corresponds to power level and tool load corresponds to strain of the electric motor).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432), in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Timmons et al. (US20200023553), hereinafter Timmons, in further view of Chiuminatta (US5305729), in further view of Kennedy (US4748966), and in further view of Phillips et al. (US20040179829), hereinafter Phillips.
Regarding claim 19, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, but fails to disclose the control system monitors an amperage of the battery pack and selectively limits a speed of the electric motor when the amperage is above a predetermined threshold.
Phillips is also concerned with controlling a motor speed based on detected values from a battery and teaches the control system monitors the amperage of the battery pack and selectively limits the speed of the electric motor when the amperage is above a predetermined threshold (0024 where reducing the voltage corresponds to limiting the speed of the electric motor). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to make the control system monitor an amperage of the battery pack and selectively limit a speed of the electric motor when the amperage is above a predetermined threshold, as taught by Phillips, because Phillips teaches that limiting the speed of the electric motor (e.g. reducing the voltage) prevents damage to a battery powering the electric motor (0024).
Regarding claim 20, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further discloses the control system further comprises an indicator that selectively illuminates to alert a user that a speed of the electric motor is limited (Phillips, 0071 where an indicator light corresponds to an indicator)
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432) in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Hickenbottom et al. (US8955188), hereinafter Hickenbottom, in further view of Yelton et al. (US5241946), hereinafter Yelton, and in further view of Zuzelo et al. (US6536422), hereinafter Zuzelo.
Regarding claim 21, Ruffner discloses a concrete saw comprising: a frame (Fig. 1 element 60) having a platform (see annotated Fig. 1 above); a handle assembly extending from the platform (see annotated Fig. 1' above where the combination of the handles and handle attachment corresponds to a handle assembly); and a pivot axis (Fig. 1, an axis running through center of each rear wheel (80)); at least two rear wheels (Fig. 1 element 80) coupled to the platform at the pivot axis (Fig. 1); at least one front wheel (Fig. 1 element 70); a power and drive assembly (Fig. 1 elements 30, 40, and 100) disposed on the platform (Fig. 1, 0022), wherein the power and drive assembly includes an electric motor (Fig. 1 element 40) and a battery pack (Fig. 1 element 100) coupled to the electric motor to provide direct current power to the electric motor (0023); and a blade depth positioning system (Fig. 8 element 150) that is operable to selectively adjust a depth of the groove cut into the work surface by a cutting blade (Fig. 1 element 20) of the cutting assembly (0027 where working depth corresponds to depth of the groove); a guide arm assembly (see annotated Fig. 1’ above where the combination of the guide wheel and pivoting guide arm corresponds to a guide arm assembly) including a pivoting guide arm having a guide wheel attached to an end of the pivoting guide arm (see annotated Fig. 1’ above), the guide arm assembly pivotably coupled to the frame and movable between a storage position in which the guide wheel is spaced apart from the work surface and an operating position in which the guide wheel is engaged with the work surface (see annotated Fig. 1’ above where the guide arm assembly is coupled to the frame (e.g. the guide arm assembly and the frame are indirectly connected through various other components of the concrete saw) and is capable of pivotably moving between a storage position and operating position as recited).
Ruffner fails to disclose a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis; the blade depth positioning system including an arm having a first end pivotably connected to the platform and a second end having a knob and pin coupled thereto, wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade, and wherein the knob and pin are movable relative to the arm to selectively position the arm, wherein the first end of the arm is coupled to a cam stop via a shaft that extends through the first end of the arm, wherein the cam stop includes a first stop surface and a second stop surface that are engageable with a stud coupled to the leg, and as the arm is rotated the cam stop moves relative to the stud to position the first stop surface or the second stop surface relative to the stud to position the platform at different angles relative to the leg to change the depth of the cutting blade; and a lever on the handle assembly, wherein the lever selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position and the operating position.
Johnson is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches a leg (Fig. 3 element 72) pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis (Fig. 3, 0034-0038, where element 58 corresponds to the platform and where an axis coaxial with the axle for the rear wheels (68) corresponds to the pivot axis); the at least one front wheel (Fig. 3 element 76) being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis (Fig. 3). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ruffner discloses the invention except that the pivoting motion of the platform is achieved through a hydraulic lift system (150) instead of a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis. Johnson shows that a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. the structure performs the function of pivotally moving the platform). Therefore, because these two structure for pivoting motion were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a leg pivotably coupled to the platform at the pivot axis and the at least one front wheel being coupled to an end of the leg distanced from the pivot axis for a hydraulic lift system.
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose the blade depth positioning system including an arm having a first end pivotably connected to the platform and a second end having a knob and pin coupled thereto, wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade, and wherein the knob and pin are movable relative to the arm to selectively position the arm, wherein the first end of the arm is coupled to a cam stop via a shaft that extends through the first end of the arm, wherein the cam stop includes a first stop surface and a second stop surface that are engageable with a stud coupled to the leg, and as the arm is rotated the cam stop moves relative to the stud to position the first stop surface or the second stop surface relative to the stud to position the platform at different angles relative to the leg to change the depth of the cutting blade; and a lever on the handle assembly, wherein the lever selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position and the operating position.
Hickenbottom is also concerned with raising or lowering a structure and teaches the blade depth positioning system including an arm (Fig. 2 element 202) having a first end (Fig. 2 element 206) pivotably connected to the platform (Fig. 2, 4:16-21, where element 108 corresponds to a platform) and a second end (Fig. 2 element 204) having a knob and pin coupled thereto (Fig. 2 element 210, 4:23-28, where “a spring-loaded knob” corresponds to a knob and “a projecting pin” corresponds to a pin), wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade (4:21-28, where “brush” corresponds to a cutting blade and where each position defined when the knob and pin are inserted into the different positions of apertures (150) corresponds to a plurality of positions), and wherein the knob and pin are movable relative to the arm to selectively position the arm (4:21-28, where the knob being a “spring-loaded knob” meets this limitation), wherein the first end of the arm is coupled to a cam stop (Fig. 2 elements 230 and 240) via a shaft (Fig. 2, 4:40-54, where “a post, projection, standoff, or the like, etc.” corresponds to a shaft) that extends through the first end of the arm (Fig. 2), wherein the cam stop includes a first stop surface (Fig. 3, any one of the side surfaces of the spokes of element 240) and a second stop surface (Fig. 3, any one of the side surfaces of the spokes of element 240 which does not correspond to the first stop surface) that are engageable with a stud (Fig. 2 element 222, 5:3-8) coupled to the leg (Fig. 2 element 220), and as the arm is rotated the cam stop is movable moves relative to the stud to position the first stop surface or the second stop surface relative to the stud to position the platform at different angles relative to the leg to change the depth of the cutting blade (4:16-28 and 5:3-8, where the cam stop is capable of moving relative to the leg). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ruffner, as modified, discloses the invention except that the blade depth positioning system uses a hydraulic lift system (150) instead of an arm having a first end pivotably connected to the platform and a second end having a knob and pin coupled thereto, wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade, and wherein the knob and pin are movable relative to the arm to selectively position the arm, wherein the first end of the arm is coupled to a cam stop via a shaft that extends through the first end of the arm, wherein the cam stop includes a first stop surface and a second stop surface that are engageable with a stud coupled to the leg, and as the arm is rotated the cam stop moves relative to the stud to position the first stop surface or the second stop surface relative to the stud to position the platform at different angles relative to the leg to change the depth of the cutting blade. Hickenbottom shows that an arm having a first end pivotably connected to the platform and a second end having a knob and pin coupled thereto, wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade, and wherein the knob and pin are movable relative to the arm to selectively position the arm, wherein the first end of the arm is coupled to a cam stop via a shaft that extends through the first end of the arm, wherein the cam stop includes a first stop surface and a second stop surface that are engageable with a stud coupled to the leg, and as the arm is rotated the cam stop moves relative to the stud to position the first stop surface or the second stop surface relative to the stud to position the platform at different angles relative to the leg to change the depth of the cutting blade is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both structures perform the function of adjusting a depth of an engaging member (i.e. a blade or brush)). Therefore, because these two structures for adjusting a depth of an engaging member were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a blade depth positioning system having an arm having a first end pivotably connected to the platform and a second end having a knob and pin coupled thereto, wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade, and wherein the knob and pin are movable relative to the arm to selectively position the arm, wherein the first end of the arm is coupled to a cam stop via a shaft that extends through the first end of the arm, wherein the cam stop includes a first stop surface and a second stop surface that are engageable with a stud coupled to the leg, and as the arm is rotated the cam stop moves relative to the stud to position the first stop surface or the second stop surface relative to the stud to position the platform at different angles relative to the leg to change the depth of the cutting blade for a blade depth positioning system having a hydraulic lift system.
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose a lever on the handle assembly, wherein rotation of the lever selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position and the operating position.
Yelton is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches a linkage system (Fig. 1 element 97) on the handle assembly (Fig. 1), wherein the linkage system selectively moves the guide arm assembly between the storage position (position discussed in 9:59-68 and shown in dashed lines in Fig. 2) and the operating position (position shown in Fig. 1). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include a linkage system to selectively move the guide arm assembly between a storage position and operating position, as taught by Yelton, because Yelton teaches that the linkage system allows for storage and transport of the concrete saw and also allows for approaching a blocking wall without having to release control of the concrete saw (9:59-68).
Ruffner, as modified, fails to disclose the linkage system using a lever which is rotated to move the guide arm assembly.
Zuzelo teaches using a linkage system (Fig. 1 element 90) which uses a lever (Fig. 1 element 92) which is rotated to move a structure (Fig. 1, 5:61-63, 6:2-9, and 6:23-25, where element 32 corresponds to a structure). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ruffner discloses the invention except that the blade depth positioning system is a hydraulic system (150) instead of an arm having first end pivotably connected to the platform and a second end having a knob coupled thereto, wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade. Johnson shows that an arm having first end pivotably connected to the platform and a second end having a knob coupled thereto, wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. the structure performs the function of adjusting a blade depth). Therefore, because these two structures for adjusting a blade depth were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute an arm having first end pivotably connected to the platform and a second end having a knob coupled thereto, wherein the arm is movable between a plurality of positions to adjust the depth of the cutting blade for a hydraulic system.. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Ruffner, as modified, discloses the invention except that the movement of the guide arm assembly is achieved through pulling on the linkage system (Yelton, 97, see 9:65-68) instead of using a lever which is rotated to cause the movement of the guide arm assembly. Zuzelo shows that a lever being rotated is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. the structure performs the function of allowing pivotal raising and lowering movement of a structure). Therefore, because these two structure for pivoting motion were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a linkage system which uses a lever which is rotated to move a structure for a linkage system which is pulled to move a structure.
Regarding claim 24, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 23, as described above, and further discloses the pin is a spring biased pin coupled to the knob (Hickenbottom, 4:23-28, where the pin is biased by the “spring-loaded knob”) and extending through the second end of the arm (Hickenbottom, Fig. 2), wherein the spring biased pin selectively engages one of a plurality of apertures (Hickenbottom, Fig. 2 elements 150) formed in a motor housing (Hickenbottom, Fig. 1 element 104) to prevent the arm from rotating relative to the motor housing (Hickenbottom, 4:21-28).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432) in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Hickenbottom et al. (US8955188), hereinafter Hickenbottom, in further view of Yelton et al. (US5241946), hereinafter Yelton, in further view of Zuzelo et al. (US6536422), hereinafter Zuzelo, and in further view of Baratta (US20170274489).
Regarding claim 25, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 21, as described above, but fails to disclose at least one work light coupled to the cutting assembly and positioned to illuminate a work surface.
Baratta is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches at least one work light (Fig. 17 element 1632) coupled to the cutting assembly and positioned to illuminate a work surface (0127 where a circular saw blade corresponds to the cutting assembly). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include at least one work light coupled to the cutting assembly and positioned to illuminate a work surface, as taught by Baratta, because Baratta teaches that the work light provides an indication of location, peripheral boundary, and direction of travel of the cutting assembly (0127).
Regarding claim 26, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 25, as described above, and further discloses wherein the guide arm assembly is illuminated by the work light when the guide arm assembly is in the operating position and the work light is energized (Baratta, 0127, where the indication of peripheral boundary of the tool corresponds to the guide arm assembly being illuminated when the guide arm assembly is in the operating position).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffner (US20180099432) in view of Johnson et al. (US20070163566), hereinafter Johnson, in further view of Hickenbottom et al. (US8955188), hereinafter Hickenbottom, in further view of Yelton et al. (US5241946), hereinafter Yelton, in further view of Zuzelo et al. (US6536422), hereinafter Zuzelo, and in further view of Shima et al. (US20110303060), hereinafter Shima.
Regarding claim 27, Ruffner, as modified discloses the limitations of claim 21, as described above, but fails to disclose a laser guide system coupled to the cutting assembly to project a laser beam onto the work surface to assist in aligning the concrete saw on the work surface.
Shima is also concerned with a concrete saw and teaches a laser guide system (Fig. 1 element 50) coupled to the cutting assembly (Fig. 1 element 22 corresponds to a cutting assembly and Fig. 2 shows the laser guide system being coupled to the cutting assembly through elements 368, 366, 365, and 36) to project a laser beam (Fig. 1 element 52) onto the work surface to assist in aligning the concrete saw on the work surface (0164). It 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 to modify the concrete saw of Ruffner, as modified, to include a laser guide system coupled to the cutting assembly to project a laser beam onto a work surface to assist in aligning the concrete saw on the work surface, as taught by Shima, because Shima teaches that the laser guide system provides ease of operation and a reliable cutting method (0096) and makes it easy to align the blade with the cutting path (0164).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection rely on a different combination of prior art as the combination of prior art challenged by Applicant in the Arguments/Remarks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights