OFFICE ACTION after ELECTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Election/Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of SPECIES A - claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 22 OCT 2025 is acknowledged. Nonelected claims 9-20 have been cancelled without prejudice.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract is objected to because in line 3, “motor s” should apparently be --motor is--. Review and correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (MPEP 606.01). The title should include reference to the strap and messenger bag orientation configuration of the instant concrete vibrator tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b).
All occurrences of “the shaft” throughout the claims lacks antecedent basis - any relationship to the “flexible shaft” or an additional shaft?
All occurrences of “the motor” throughout the claims lacks antecedent basis - any relationship to the “electric motor” or an additional motor?
The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted - MPEP 608.01(o). Such as “shaft” vs. “flexible shaft”, etc.
Also see 37 CFR 1.121(e) Disclosure consistency. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
For purposes of the rejections below, the elected and pending claims are presumed to have an effective filing date of:
PNG
media_image1.png
84
237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2018-100567 A that discloses a concrete vibrator comprising a housing 9, 21, 23; a strap 27 coupled to the housing; an electric motor 5 coupled via 15 to the housing 9; a flexible motor shaft between 5 and 7 having a first end coupled to the motor and an opposite, second driven end; a vibrator head 33 coupled to the second end of the shaft, the vibrator head configured to receive torque from the motor and the shaft to cause the vibrator head to vibrate; wherein the concrete vibrator is capable of being operable in a messenger bag configuration in which the strap is used to carry the concrete vibrator with the housing in a horizontal orientation by an operator as seen in the sole Figure reproduced below; and a battery pack 11 disposed within a battery receptacle defined on the housing, the battery pack 11 configured to provide electric current to the electric motor 5 to drive the motor 5 and the shaft and the vibrator head; a handle 21a extending from the housing;
and a handle 21a extending from the housing, wherein the concrete vibrator is operable in a briefcase configuration in which the housing is supportable in the horizontal orientation with the handle providing the support for the concrete vibrator.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by STEFFEN et al. (US 2020/0037735 A1) that discloses a concrete vibrator tool (Fig. 8) comprising: a housing (1, 8, 10); a strap (4 or 6, ¶ 59-63) coupled to the housing; an electric motor (3) coupled to the housing; a flexible shaft (13, Figs. 8,9) having a first end coupled to the motor and an opposite, second end; a vibrator head (15, ¶ 65) coupled to the second end of the shaft, the vibrator head configured to receive torque from the motor and the shaft to cause the vibrator head to vibrate; and a battery pack (2) coupled to a battery receptacle (implicit) defined on the housing, the battery pack configured to provide electric current to the electric motor to drive the motor and the shaft (¶ 65); wherein the concrete vibrator is operable in a messenger bag configuration (if hanging from one of the straps 4) in which the strap is used to carry the concrete vibrator with the housing in a horizontal orientation; a handle 4, 5, or 6 extending from the housing that permits an operator to carry the tool in any desired orientation, including resembling a messenger bag or briefcase; Figure 8 showing multiple surfaces with a handle 4, 5, or 6 extending from such surfaces; and the strap 4 or 6 coupled to one of the side surfaces.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/102226 A1 that discloses a concrete vibrator (210, Figs. 1, 2, 7, 8) comprising: a housing (14, 214); a strap (34, 38, or 234) coupled to the housing; an electric motor (18, 218) coupled to the housing; a flexible shaft (26, 226) having a first end coupled to the motor and an opposite, second end; a vibrator head (30, 230) coupled to the second end of the shaft, the vibrator head configured to receive torque from the motor and the shaft to cause the vibrator head to vibrate; and a battery pack (22, 222) coupled to a battery receptacle (215) defined on the housing, the battery pack configured to provide electric current to the electric motor to drive the motor and the shaft; wherein the concrete vibrator is operable in a messenger bag configuration (hanging from one of the straps) in which the strap is used to carry the concrete vibrator with the housing in a horizontal orientation; a handle (one or more of 34, 38, 54, 234, 256A, 256B) extending from the housing that permits an operator to carry the tool in any desired orientation, including resembling a messenger bag or briefcase; the Figures showing multiple surfaces with a handle (one or more of 34, 38, 54, 234, 256A, 256B) extending from such surfaces; and the strap 34, 38, or 234 coupled to one of the side surfaces.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YUEDA (US 2022/0021065 A1) that discloses a concrete vibrator (1 [0046] - [0047]) comprising: a housing 2; a strap (or belt - [0059]) coupled to the housing; an electric motor 10 coupled to the housing; a flexible shaft 47 (within 14) having a first end coupled to the motor and an opposite, second end; a vibrator head ([0054]) coupled to the second end of the shaft, the vibrator head configured to receive torque from the motor and the shaft to cause the vibrator head to vibrate; and a battery pack 90 coupled to a battery receptacle 7 defined on the housing, the battery pack configured to provide electric current to the electric motor to drive the motor and the shaft; wherein the concrete vibrator 1 is capable of being operated in a messenger bag configuration by an operator (hanging from the belt/strap) in which the strap is used to carry the concrete vibrator with the housing in a horizontal orientation; a handle (one or more of 2, 6, 60, 61) extending from the housing that permits an operator to carry the tool in any desired orientation, including resembling a messenger bag or briefcase; the Figures showing multiple surfaces with a handle (one or more of 2, 6, 60, 61) extending from such surfaces; and the strap/belt coupled to one of the side surfaces at one or more of 62, 62; wherein the handle (one or more of 2, 6, 60, 61) includes a first end 2a having a first attachment feature at 62 (reference character 62 located at the 3 o’clock position in Figure 1 and at the 2 o’clock position in Figure 2) and a second end having a second attachment feature at 62 (reference character 62 located at the 9 o’clock position in Figure 2), the strap/belt having a first strap end configured to be coupled to the first attachment feature 62 and a second strap end configured to be coupled to the second attachment feature 62 [0059]; and wherein the first end 2a of the handle 60 is bifurcated at the first end to define a first arm and a second arm spaced from the first arm bifurcated by 62 and the first attachment feature is a post 62 extending between the first arm and the second arm as seen in Figure 1 at the 9 o’clock position.
PNG
media_image2.png
617
818
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
640
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/088440 A1 in view of SHEEKS et al. (US 2019/0006980 A1) or ROBKAMP et al. (US 2010/0218386 A1) or YUEDA (US 2022/0021064 A1).
YUEDA discloses a concrete vibrator 1 comprising: a housing 10; a strap 9 coupled to the housing - Figure 1; an electric motor 3 coupled to the housing; a flexible shaft (within 40) having a first end coupled to the motor and an opposite, second end; a vibrator head coupled to the second end of the shaft “Here, the vibrating bar 8 connected to the second gear housing 12 will be described. However, since the basic configuration of the vibrating bar 8 is well known, detailed description and illustration are omitted. The vibrating bar 8 typically includes a flexible hose 81, a flexible shaft (not shown), an unbalancer (not shown), and a tip cap (not shown). The flexible shaft is rotatably disposed in the flexible hose 81. The unbalancer is connected to the tip of the flexible shaft within the flexible hose 81. The tip cap is placed on the tip of the flexible hose 81. When the vibrating rod 8 is attached to the concrete vibrator 1, the base end portion of the flexible hose 81 is fitted into the connection hole 121, and the base end portion of the flexible shaft (not shown) is fitted into the fitting hole 40 of the spindle 4.” - from the translation; the vibrator head configured to receive torque from the motor and the shaft to cause the vibrator head to vibrate; wherein the concrete vibrator 1 is capable of being operated in a messenger bag configuration by an operator (hanging from the belt/strap) in which the strap is used to carry the concrete vibrator with the housing in a horizontal orientation; a handle (the outer surface of housing 10) extending from the housing that permits an operator to grip or carry the tool in any desired orientation, including resembling a messenger bag or briefcase; the Figures showing multiple outer surfaces with a handle (one of the outer surfaces of housing that can be gripped by an operator); and the strap 9 coupled to one of the side surfaces at 22 and 23; wherein the handle includes a first end 103a having a first attachment feature at 23 and a second end having a second attachment feature at 22; the strap 9 having a first strap end 92 configured to be coupled to the first attachment feature 23 and a second strap end 92 configured to be coupled to the second attachment feature 22; and wherein the first end 103a of the handle is bifurcated at the first end to define a first arm and a second arm spaced from the first arm bifurcated by 23 and the first attachment feature is a post 23 extending between the first arm and the second arm as seen in Figures 1-3.
YUEDA does not disclose a battery pack coupled to a battery receptacle defined on the housing, the battery pack configured to provide electric current to the electric motor to drive the motor and the shaft.
SHEEKS et al. in Figure 2, ROBKAMP et al. in Figure 2, and YUEDA in Figures 1-5 discloses motorized tools including an electric motor driven by a battery power supply; the battery is inserted into the battery receptacle of the tool along an axis of the receptacle to couple to the battery to the tool. YUEDA discloses a concrete vibrator tool with a rechargeable battery power supply in the Figures 1-5.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to substituted the drive means in YUEDA with rechargeable battery power supply for the purposes of providing a satisfactory power supply providing adequate operating time; to reduce noise, weight and emissions inherent to other forms of drive means; to obviate the need for a fuel supply required by other types of drive means; to improve safety, and to enable full portability of the vibrator tool via the battery power supply of SHEEKS et al. and ROBKAMP et al. (see at least ¶ [0146] of SHEEKS et al. and [0005] of ROBKAMP et al. and Figures 1-5 of YUEDA).
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108277986 A in view of SHEEKS et al. (US 2019/0006980 A1) or ROBKAMP et al. (US 2010/0218386 A1) or YUEDA (US 2022/0021064 A1).
CN 108277986 A discloses a concrete vibrator comprising a housing to the right of 14 in Figure 1; a strap 23 coupled to the housing; an electric motor 11 coupled to the housing; a flexible shaft 13 having a first end coupled to the motor and an opposite, second end; a vibrator head 33 coupled to the second end of the shaft, the vibrator head configured to receive torque from the motor and the shaft to cause the vibrator head to vibrate; wherein the concrete vibrator is capable of being operable in a messenger bag configuration in which the strap is used to carry the concrete vibrator with the housing in a horizontal orientation by an operator;
a handle 10 and/or 20 extending from the housing;
wherein the handle includes a first end having a first attachment feature 22 (e.g., below 20 as seen below) and a second end having a second attachment feature 22 (just above 10 as seen below), the strap 23 having a first strap end configured to be coupled to the first attachment feature (one of buckles 231) and a second strap end configured to be coupled to the second attachment feature (another of the buckles 231);
PNG
media_image4.png
648
820
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
474
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the handle 10 and/or 20 extending from the housing, wherein the concrete vibrator is capable of being operated in a briefcase configuration in which the housing is supportable in the horizontal orientation by an operator with the handle providing the support for the concrete vibrator;
wherein the housing includes a front surface from which the first end of the flexible shaft protrudes at 14, an opposite rear surface at 20, and a plurality of side surfaces between and spanning the front surface and the rear surface - Figure 1;
a handle 20 extending from one of the side surfaces;
wherein the strap 23 is configured to be coupled via a buckle 23 to one of the side surfaces at 22, 22.
CN 108277986 A does not disclose a battery pack coupled to a battery receptacle defined on the housing, the battery pack configured to provide electric current to the electric motor to drive the motor and the shaft.
SHEEKS et al. in Figure 2, ROBKAMP et al. in Figure 2, and YUEDA in Figures 1-5 discloses motorized tools including an electric motor driven by a battery power supply; the battery is inserted into the battery receptacle of the tool along an axis of the receptacle to couple to the battery to the tool. YUEDA discloses a concrete vibrator tool with a rechargeable battery power supply in the Figures 1-5.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to substituted the drive means in CN 108277986 A with rechargeable battery power supply for the purposes of providing a satisfactory power supply providing adequate operating time; to reduce noise, weight and emissions inherent to other forms of drive means; to obviate the need for a fuel supply required by other types of drive means; to improve safety, and to enable full portability of the vibrator tool via the battery power supply of SHEEKS et al. and ROBKAMP et al. (see at least ¶ [0146] of SHEEKS et al. and [0005] of ROBKAMP et al. and Figures 1-5 of YUEDA).
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CH 689598 A5 in view of SHEEKS et al. (US 2019/0006980 A1) or ROBKAMP et al. (US 2010/0218386 A1) or YUEDA (US 2022/0021064 A1).
CH 689598 A5 discloses a concrete vibrator comprising a housing 7; a strap 10 coupled to the housing; an electric motor 6 coupled to the housing; a flexible shaft within 3 having a first end coupled to the motor and an opposite, second end; a vibrator head 2 coupled to the second end of the shaft, the vibrator head configured to receive torque from the motor and the shaft to cause the vibrator head to vibrate; wherein the concrete vibrator is capable of being operable in a messenger bag configuration in which the strap is used to carry the concrete vibrator with the housing in a horizontal orientation by an operator as seen in the sole Figure reproduced below;
a handle 9 extending from the housing;
the handle 9 extending from the housing, wherein the concrete vibrator is capable of being operated in a briefcase configuration in which the housing is supportable in the horizontal orientation by an operator with the handle providing the support for the concrete vibrator as seen in the sole Figure reproduced below;
wherein the housing includes a front surface 5 from which the first end of the flexible shaft protrudes, an opposite rear surface attached to 11, and a plurality of side surfaces at 7 between and spanning the distance between the front and rear surfaces;
the handle 9 extending from one of the side surfaces;
wherein the strap 10 is configured to be coupled to one of the side surfaces as seen in the Figure below.
PNG
media_image6.png
465
793
media_image6.png
Greyscale
CH 689598 A5 does not disclose a battery pack coupled to a battery receptacle defined on the housing, the battery pack configured to provide electric current to the electric motor to drive the motor and the shaft.
SHEEKS et al. in Figure 2, ROBKAMP et al. in Figure 2, and YUEDA in Figures 1-5 discloses motorized tools including an electric motor driven by a battery power supply; the battery is inserted into the battery receptacle of the tool along an axis of the receptacle to couple to the battery to the tool. YUEDA discloses a concrete vibrator tool with a rechargeable battery power supply in the Figures 1-5.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to substituted the drive means in CH 689598 A5 with rechargeable battery power supply for the purposes of providing a satisfactory power supply providing adequate operating time; to reduce noise, weight and emissions inherent to other forms of drive means; to obviate the need for a fuel supply required by other types of drive means; to improve safety, and to enable full portability of the vibrator tool via the battery power supply of SHEEKS et al. and ROBKAMP et al. (see at least ¶ [0146] of SHEEKS et al. and [0005] of ROBKAMP et al. and Figures 1-5 of YUEDA).
* * *
With regard to the above 103 rejections, the base references disclose all of the recited subject matter with the exception of the power supply for the driving motor being in the well-known form of a rechargeable battery pack coupled to a battery receptacle defined on the housing of the vibrator tool. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the power supply in the base references with a rechargeable battery pack within a battery receptacle on the housing of the vibrator tool since SHEEKS et al., ROBKAMP et al., and YUEDA each teach that a rechargeable battery power supply for a power tool such as a concrete vibrator was well-known in the art and thus one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known type of power supply for another, and the results of the substitution would have been wholly predictable. Accordingly, the rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness is that the substitution of one known power supply for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Furthermore, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the power supplies in the applied prior art above are all well-known types of power supplies employed in the power tool art, and that such power supplies are generally alternative mechanical structures used for driving components of a machine, such as a driving motor, in the prior art and as claimed by applicant. Moreover, Applicant's specification does not indicate that the type of power supply employed produces any new or unexpected result. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the particular type of power supply implemented in the base references above would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
From MPEP 2143: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
PNG
media_image7.png
18
19
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the elected claims stand allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses vibrator devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 4 MARCH 2026