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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (Claims 1 and 2, drawn to “A mobile resurfacing machine”) in the reply filed on 7/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/25/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of claim 1, “the interior of cylinders” should be changed to “the respective interior of each of a plurality of cylinders,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On each of lines 3, 12, 27, 41, 53, and 60 of the claim, a respective “:” should inserted after “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Throughout claim 1, on each of lines 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, and 65 of the claim, each instance of “A” should be changed to “a” and each instance of “An” should be changed to “an”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 23 of the claim, “holed” should be changed to “holes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 24 of the claim, “read” should be changed to “rear”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 32 of the claim, “the taper lock” should be inserted before “configured such that the driver pulley cannot rotate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 45 of the claim, two commas should be inserted such that line 45 reads: “hand wheel assembly, affixed to the input shaft, having a wheel and a handle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 56 of the claim, “driven” should be inserted before “pulley being connected”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of claim 2, “the interior of cylinders” should be changed to “the respective interior of each of a plurality of cylinders,”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On each of lines 3, 12, 24, 35, 46, and 51 of the claim, a respective “:” should inserted after “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Throughout claim 2, on each of lines 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, and 55, of the claim, each instance of “A” should be changed to “a” and each instance of “An” should be changed to “an”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 49 of the claim, “driven” should be inserted before “pulley being connected”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 2 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.
Line 7 of claim 1 states, “the assembly holes of the outside flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 4 that “the assembly holes of the outside flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the outside flange”.
Line 10 of claim 1 states, “the assembly holes of each”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 4 and the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 6 that “the assembly holes of each” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the respective plurality of assembly holes of each”.
Line 11 of claim 1 states, “the guide shafts”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular guide shafts of the “plurality of guide shafts” of line 9 that “the guide shafts” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of guide shafts”.
Lines 14-15 of claim 1 states, “the assembly holes of the outside flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 4 that “the assembly holes of the outside flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the outside flange”.
Line 15 of claim 1 states, “the assembly holes of the mounting flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 6 that “the assembly holes of the mounting flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the mounting flange”.
Lines 18-19 of claim 1 states, “the assembly holes of the outside flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 4 that “the assembly holes of the outside flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the outside flange”.
Line 19 of claim 1 states, “the assembly holes of the mounting flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 6 that “the assembly holes of the mounting flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the mounting flange”.
Line 22 of claim 1 states, “the tie holes of each”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular tie holes of the “plurality of tie holes” of lines 15-16 and the “plurality of tie holes” of line 20 that “the tie holes of each” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the respective plurality of tie holes of each”.
Lines 23-24 of claim 1 states, “the guide holed of the forward bearing plate and read bearing plate”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular guide holes of the “plurality of guides holes” of line 13 and the “plurality of guide holes” of line 17 that “the guide holed of the forward bearing plate and read bearing plate” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the respective plurality of guide holes of the forward bearing plate and the rear bearing plate”.
Line 24 of claim 1 states, “the guide shafts”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular guide shafts of the “plurality of guide shafts” of line 9 that “the guide shafts” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of guide shafts”.
Line 25 of claim 1 states, “said bushings”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular bushings of the “plurality of bushings” of line 25 that “said bushings” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “said plurality of bushings”.
Lines 35-37 of claim 1 state, “A mounting plate which is rigidly affixed to the foot assemblies which is configured to be affixed to the rear bearing plate and the stabilizer bar”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if it is the claimed “mounting plate” or the claimed “foot assemblies” that are “configured to be affixed to the rear bearing plate and the stabilizer bar.”
Line 35 of claim 1 states, “the foot assemblies”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular foot assemblies of the “plurality of foot assemblies” of line 34 that “the foot assemblies” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of foot assemblies”.
Line 49 of claim 1 states, “the secondary assembly holes”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular secondary assembly holes of the “secondary assembly holes” of lines 4-5 that “the secondary assembly holes” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of secondary assembly holes”.
Lines 51-52 of claim 1 state, “is movably attached to the lead screw such that the lead screw may be threaded in and out of the lead nut”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because by use of the term “may”, it is unclear if the limitation following “may” is actually required. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “is movably attached to the lead screw such that the lead screw is capable of being threaded in and out of the lead nut”.
Lines 54-55 of claim 1 state, “the central bores of the front bearing plate and rear bearing plate.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it appears that Applicant is setting forth that the front bearing plate and the rear bearing plate each have “central bores” as in each has plural central bores, for example, However, as claimed, in line 13 and in line 17, it appears that the front bearing plate and the rear bearing plate each only have one circular central bore. As such, as written in lines 54-55, it is unclear as to whether the front bearing plate and the rear bearing plate each have one respective central bore or if instead, for example, each have plurality central bores. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the circular central bore of the front bearing plate and through the circular central bore of the rear bearing plate.”
Line 7 of claim 2 states, “the assembly holes of the outside flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 4 that “the assembly holes of the outside flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the outside flange”.
Line 10 of claim 2 states, “the assembly holes of each”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 4 and the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 6 that “the assembly holes of each” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the respective plurality of assembly holes of each”.
Line 11 of claim 2 states, “the guide shafts”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular guide shafts of the “plurality of guide shafts” of line 9 that “the guide shafts” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of guide shafts”.
Lines 14-15 of claim 2 states, “the assembly holes of the outside flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 4 that “the assembly holes of the outside flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the outside flange”.
Line 15 of claim 2 states, “the assembly holes of the mounting flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 6 that “the assembly holes of the mounting flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the mounting flange”.
Lines 18-19 of claim 2 states, “the assembly holes of the outside flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 4 that “the assembly holes of the outside flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the outside flange”.
Line 19 of claim 2 states, “the assembly holes of the mounting flange”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular assembly holes of the “plurality of assembly holes” of line 6 that “the assembly holes of the mounting flange” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of assembly holes of the mounting flange”.
Line 22 of claim 2 states, “the tie holes of each”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular tie holes of the “plurality of tie holes” of lines 15-16 and the “plurality of tie holes” of line 20 that “the tie holes of each” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the respective plurality of tie holes of each”.
Lines 30-31 of claim 2 state, “A mounting plate which is rigidly affixed to the foot assemblies which is configured to be affixed to the rear bearing plate and the stabilizer bar”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if it is the claimed “mounting plate” or the claimed “foot assemblies” that are “configured to be affixed to the rear bearing plate and the stabilizer bar.”
Line 30 of claim 2 states, “the foot assemblies”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to which particular foot assemblies of the “plurality of foot assemblies” of line 29 that “the foot assemblies” is intended to reference. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the plurality of foot assemblies”.
Lines 44-45 of claim 2 state, “is movably attached to the lead screw such that the lead screw may be threaded in and out of the lead nut”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because by use of the term “may”, it is unclear if the limitation following “may” is actually required. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “is movably attached to the lead screw such that the lead screw is capable of being threaded in and out of the lead nut”.
Lines 47-48 of claim 2 state, “the central bores of the front bearing plate and rear bearing plate.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written, it appears that Applicant is setting forth that the front bearing plate and the rear bearing plate each have “central bores” as in each has plural central bores, for example, However, as claimed, in line 13 and in line 17, it appears that the front bearing plate and the rear bearing plate each only have one circular central bore. As such, as written in lines 47-48, it is unclear as to whether the front bearing plate and the rear bearing plate each have one respective central bore or if instead, for example, each have plurality central bores. In order to overcome this particular rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Examiner suggests the following amendment: “the circular central bore of the front bearing plate and through the circular central bore of the rear bearing plate.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended (without broadening) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722