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 .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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10-19, 21-34, 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires 1st and 2nd interface components having respective 1st and 2nd geometries that are configured to be interengageable.
Further, as set forth in Applicant’s arguments and Figs. 61-63, the 1st and 2nd interface components are embodied in elements (902) and (950).
However, both elements (902) and (950) appear to be fixed rigid features disposed on opposites sides of a rigid housing (940). Therefore, it is vague and indefinite as to how the 1st and 2nd interface components “are configured to be interengageable”.
Claim 1 recites “A vibration assembly” but does not include any feature that could possibly cause a “vibration” when using the finishing tool (700).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 10-17 is/are rejecte3d under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baratta et al. WO 2017/087577. Baratta discloses a vibration assembly for a concrete finishing tool (700) comprising:
1st & 2nd longitudinally extending, interface components (500A) and (600A) respectively
extending over respective 1st and 2nd surfaces of the vibration assembly.
Wherein the 1st & 2nd interface components (500A) and (600A) have respective 1st and 2nd geometries, such as dovetail protrusions (530) and grooves (654) that are interengageable. See Figs. 16-23.
The 1st interface component (500A) further includes a joining geometry (538) that is complementary to a jointing geometry (702) so that joining the 1st interface component (500A) and the finishing tool (700) occurs in a 1st direction, such as vertical and wherein
engagement of the 1st interface component (500A) and the finishing tool (700) limits relative movement of the vibration assembly and the finishing tool in at least one direction other than the 1st, such as horizontal or transverse. See Pages 39-44.
With respect to claims 10-14 Baratta et al. disclose the use of threaded fasteners and dovetail protrusions (530) and grooves (654) are interengageable. Figs. 16-23; Pgs 1-2.
With respect to claims 15-16 Baratta et al. disclose “The longitudinally extending inter-engagement element may be asymmetric relative to its longitudinal axis”…”the longitudinally extending interengagement element may be assembled by sliding the engagement element in a complementary component”. See Page 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 19, 21-34, 37-41 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 77-80 are allowed.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment to claim 1 filed 10/20/2025 has been fully considered but is anticipated by Barratt et al. See Pages 1-2 and Figs. 16-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are not supported by the specification in that the embodiment of Claims 1, 10-17 claims features that cannot be interengageable.
Claims 18, 19, 21-34, 37-41, 77-80 would be allowable of rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection or are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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, Chris 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 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 need help 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.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 1/14/2026
Prosecution Insights