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 .
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.
Claims 3, 5-6, 9, 11, and 14-15 (and any claims depending from these claims) 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the locked condition" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is written to be dependent on claim 5, which is an improper dependent claim. A dependent claim must depend from a preceding claim. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that claim 5 depends from claim 3 since claim 3 introduced the pin which is recited in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the locked condition" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the modular comprising…”, which appears to be missing some words following the word “modular”. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Applicant intended “the modular isolation apparatus comprising…”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the locked condition" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the locked condition" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “the collar is coupled to the at least one plate is coupled to at least one plate of said plurality of plates” which appears to erroneously contain some extra words.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al., US 12,163,341 B2 alone.
Regarding claim 1, Reed teaches an isolation apparatus capable of being modular for a concrete finishing machine comprising a frame (shown in Figure 1) supporting at least one motor (30) adapted to rotate a concrete finishing tool (trowel blades 22), the modular isolation apparatus comprising:
at least one plate (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) capable of being temporarily coupled to the frame above the tool (22, Figure 1) and isolate the at least one motor from debris generated by rotation of the tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Reed fails to disclose at least one temporary fastener adapted to temporarily lock the at least one plate to the frame, there must be some fastening means for attachment/locking of the plate to the frame, otherwise the plate would detach in use. The limitations “temporary” and “temporarily” are seen as a matter of intended use; any mechanical structure can be taken apart at any time based on a user’s will. Applicant has not claimed any structure that distinguishes “temporarily” from otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, as shown in Reed’s Figure 2, the at least one plate is adapted to slide into at least one channel (formed in upper portion of 14) formed in the frame and said at least one temporary fastener is further adapted to temporarily prevent the at least one plate from moving relative to the at least one channel.
Regarding claim 9, Reed teaches an isolation apparatus capable of being modular for a concrete finishing machine comprising a frame (shown in Figure 1) supporting at least one motor (30) adapted to rotate a concrete finishing tool (trowel blades 22), the modular isolation apparatus comprising:
a plurality of plates (see reproduction of Figure 1 provided below with Examiner’s annotations) each capable of being temporarily coupled to the frame above the tool (22, Figure 1) and isolate the at least one motor from debris generated by rotation of the tool.
PNG
media_image2.png
430
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Reed fails to disclose a plurality of temporary fasteners each adapted to temporarily lock a plate of said plurality of plates to the frame, there must be some fastening means for attachment/locking of the plates to the frame, otherwise the plates would detach in use. The limitations “temporary” and “temporarily” are seen as a matter of intended use; any mechanical structure can be taken apart at any time based on a user’s will. Applicant has not claimed any structure that distinguishes “temporarily” from otherwise.
Regarding claim 10, as shown in Reed’s Figure 2, the at least one plate is adapted to slide into at least one channel (formed in upper portion of 14) formed in the frame and said at least one temporary fastener of said plurality of temporary fasteners is further adapted to temporarily prevent the at least one plate of said plurality of plates from moving relative to the at least one channel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 11-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If Applicant amends the claims in a way which would broaden the scope, allowability will be reconsidered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Several references are cited for disclosing a plate located between a motor and trowel blades, such as Scwartz, US 2021/0140181 A1 and Fielder, US 2015/0093194 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671