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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heimrich (WO2022184697).
Regarding claim 1, Heimrich teaches a compacting tool (Figure 1) comprising: an upper mass; a lower mass coupled to the upper mass (page 15, line 36- page 16, line 17); a driving axis (A-A) extending centrally through the upper mass and the lower mass; a motive source supported by the upper mass, the motive source including an output shaft (page 13, lines 13-17); a battery (202) configured to provide power to the motive source; a handle (104) coupled to the upper mass; a user interface (Figure 9, Page 26, Lines 28-35) supported by the handle and configured to receive an input to control the motive source; and a drive mechanism (page 16, Lines 19-35; gearbox) configured to convert rotational movement of the output shaft to reciprocating movement of the lower mass, wherein the drive mechanism includes a multi-stage transmission operatively coupled between the output shaft of the motive source and the lower mass (page 16, Lines 19-35; gearbox).
Regarding claim 8, Heimrich teaches the upper mass includes an upper mass main body housing and an electronics housing including a battery receptacle (410) that receives the battery, wherein the electronics housing is coupled to the upper mass main body housing by a vibration damping mechanism (230, Figure 4a, 4b).
Regarding claim 9, Heimrich teaches the battery is slidably coupled to the battery receptacle and is attachable and detachable from the battery receptacle by sliding the battery along a battery axis orthogonal to the driving axis (page 48, line 37-page 49, line 9).
Regarding claim 10, Heimrich teaches an electronic control unit supported within the electronics housing, the electronic control unit including a printed circuit board (Column 13, Lines 35-39) and a plurality of switching transistors for controlling a supply of power from the battery to the motive source (Column 6, Lines 10-30).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukushima (2014/0076596).
Regarding claim 16, Fukushima teaches a compacting tool comprising: an upper mass (10a); a lower mass (10c) coupled to the upper mass (10b); a driving axis extending centrally through the upper mass and the lower mass; a motive source (12) supported by the upper mass, the motive source including an output shaft; a drive mechanism configured to convert rotational movement of the output shaft to reciprocating movement of the lower mass (paragraphs [0019] [0020]); a handle (10) configured to be grasped by a user during operation of the compacting tool (Figure 2); an electronic control unit (70) in communication configured to control operation of the motive source; and a sensor (70b) in communication with the electronic control unit, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine occurrence of a safety event based on feedback from the sensor, and to perform a safety action in response to determining that the safety event has occurred, and wherein the safety action includes slowing an operating speed of the motive source or shutting off the motive source (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 17, Fukushima teaches the safety event includes at least one selected from a group consisting of: the user letting go of the handle, the compacting tool changing orientation (tip over), and a portion of the compacting tool coming into contact with a surface (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 18, Fukushima teaches the sensor includes at least one selected from a group consisting of. a biased switch, a tether, an electronic capacitance or resistance sensor, an orientation sensor (accelerometer detects drastic change in speed), and a contact sensor.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (9,580,879) in view of Sprague (2021/0143710).
Regarding claim 1, Williams teaches a compacting tool comprising: an upper mass (4); a lower mass (5) coupled to the upper mass; a driving axis (A, Figure 5) extending centrally through the upper mass and the lower mass; a motive source (2) supported by the upper mass, the motive source including an output shaft (Column 4, Line 63- Column 5, Line 13); a fuel tank configured to provide power to the motive source; a handle (7) coupled to the upper mass; a user interface (11) supported by the handle and configured to receive an input to control the motive source (Column 4, Line 63- Column 5, Line 13); and a drive mechanism configured to convert rotational movement of the output shaft to reciprocating movement of the lower mass (Column 8, Lines 21-43), wherein the drive mechanism includes a transmission operatively coupled between the output shaft of the motive source and the lower mass (Column 4, Line 63- Column 5, Line 13). Williams fails to teach a battery or a multi-stage transmission. Sprague teaches an electric motor for power equipment having a battery (50) and a power take off shaft (38), wherein a multi-stage transmission (128, 1208, 1204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a battery for the power source of Williams and the multi stage transmission for the transmission of Williams as taught by Sprague as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, Williams as modified by Prague teaches the motive source includes a brushless DC motor (Column 2, Lines 59-62) but fails to explicitly teach the brushless DC motor having a nominal diameter of at least 80 millimeters. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the motor of Williams with a nominal diameter of at least 80 millimeters, since such a modification would have involved a mere chance in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Williams as modified by Sprague teaches the multi-stage transmission is a two stage, gear reducing transmission (paragraph [0106], 115, 120).
Regarding claim 4, Williams as modified by Sprague teaches the multi-stage transmission includes a first pinion (128) coupled to the output shaft (106), an idler gear (1204) meshed with the first pinion, a second pinion (1208) coupled for co-rotation with the idler gear, and a driven gear meshed with the second pinion.
Regarding claim 5, Williams as modified by Sprague teaches the drive mechanism includes a crankshaft coupled to the driven gear, a connecting rod coupled to the crankshaft and the lower mass, a piston having a first end coupled to the connecting rod and a second end opposite the first end, the piston configured to reciprocate along the driving axis to reciprocate the lower mass relative to the upper mass in response to rotation of the crankshaft, a spring cylinder defined in the lower mass and having a spring assembly supported therein (Column 8, Lines 21-43), and a plate (13) coupled to the lower mass and configured to impart impacts to a surface in response to reciprocation of the lower mass. Although Williams fails to explicitly teach a crankshaft and connecting rod, the examiner takes official notice that a crankshaft and connecting rod are old and well known elements in a drive mechanism for a compactor and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a crankshaft and connecting rod in the drive mechanism of Williams as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (9,580,879) in view of Sprague (2021/0143710) and in further view of Steffen (2010/0284746)
Regarding claim 6, Williams as modified by Sprague teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the idler gear and the driven gear are each rotatable about respective axes orthogonal to the driving axis. Steffen teaches a compactor with a driven axis that is orthogonal to the rotational axis (Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the driving axis of Williams orthogonal to the rotational axis as taught by Steffen as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same.
Regarding claim 7, Williams as modified by Sprague teaches the output shaft defines a rotational axis but fails to teach it is orthogonal to the driving axis. Steffen teaches a compactor with a driven axis that is orthogonal to the rotational axis (Figure 1) and wherein the driving axis intersects the motive source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the driving axis of Williams orthogonal to the rotational axis as taught by Steffen as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (9,580,879) in view of Sprague (2021/0143710) and in further view of Sina et al. (2003/0175078) (“Sina”)
Regarding claim 11, Williams as modified by Sprague teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the handle is coupled to the upper mass main body housing by a handle vibration damping mechanism. Sina teaches a compactor having a handle and an upper mass main body housing coupled together by a handle vibration damping mechanism (24, paragraph [0016,0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include handle dampers on the tamper of Williams as taught by Sina as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (9,580,879) in view of Sprague (2021/0143710) and in further view of Fukushima (2014/0076596)
Regarding claim 12, Williams as modified by Sprague teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a sensor for determining a safety event. Fukushima teaches a compactor and an electronic control unit (70) in communication with the user interface and configured to control operation of the motive source; and a sensor (70b) in communication with the electronic control unit, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to determine occurrence of a safety event (tip over) based on feedback from the sensor, and to perform a safety action in response to determining that the safety event has occurred, and wherein the safety action includes slowing an operating speed of the motive source or shutting off the motive source (paragraph [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the safety sensor and control on the compactor of Williams as taught by Fukushima as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further to prevent harm to the user.
Regarding claim 13, Williams as modified by Sprague and Fukushima teaches the sensor includes at least one selected from a group consisting of. a biased switch, a tether, an electronic capacitance or resistance sensor, an orientation sensor (accelerometer detects sharp decline in speed), and a contact sensor.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (9,580,879) in view of Sprague (2021/0143710) and in further view of Motl (5,340,233).
Regarding claim 14, Williams as modified by Sprague teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a clutch. Motl teaches a compactor having a clutch mechanism operatively coupled between the output shaft and the drive mechanism, wherein the clutch mechanism is configured to decouple the output shaft from the drive mechanism in response to a rotational speed of the output shaft being below a threshold speed (Column 1, Lines 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a clutch on the compactor of Williams as taught by Motl as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (9,580,879) in view of Sprague (2021/0143710) and Motl (5,340,233).
Regarding claim 20, Williams teaches a compacting tool comprising: an upper mass (4); a lower mass (5) coupled to the upper mass; a driving axis (A, Figure 5) extending centrally through the upper mass and the lower mass; a motive source (2) supported by the upper mass, the motive source including an output shaft (Column 4, Line 63- Column 5, Line 13); a fuel tank configured to provide power to the motive source; a handle (7) coupled to the upper mass; a user interface (11) supported by the handle and configured to receive an input to control the motive source (Column 4, Line 63- Column 5, Line 13); and a drive mechanism configured to convert rotational movement of the output shaft to reciprocating movement of the lower mass (Column 8, Lines 21-43); a plate (13) coupled to the lower mass, the plate configured to impart impacts to a surface in response to reciprocating movement of the lower mass. Williams fails to teach a battery or a clutch. Sprague teaches an electric motor for power equipment having a battery (50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the multi stage transmission for the transmission of Williams as taught by Sprague as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Motl teaches a compactor having a clutch mechanism operatively coupled between the output shaft and the drive mechanism, wherein the clutch mechanism is configured to decouple the output shaft from the drive mechanism in response to a rotational speed of the output shaft being below a threshold speed (Column 1, Lines 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a clutch on the compactor of Williams as taught by Motl as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (2014/0076596) in view of Sprague (2021/0143710) and in further view of Motl (5,340,233).
Regarding claim 19, Fukushima teaches the invention but fails to teach a multi stage transmission or a clutch. Sprague teaches an electric motor for power equipment having a battery (50) and a power take off shaft (38), wherein a multi-stage transmission (128, 1208, 1204). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the multi stage transmission for the transmission of Fukushima as taught by Sprague as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Motl teaches a compactor having a clutch mechanism operatively coupled between the output shaft and the drive mechanism, wherein the clutch mechanism is configured to decouple the output shaft from the drive mechanism in response to a rotational speed of the output shaft being below a threshold speed (Column 1, Lines 50-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a clutch on the compactor of Fukushima as taught by Motl as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. White teaches a compactor with a battery powered motor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 October 16, 2025