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
Upon examination of the elected claims, the examiner determined that there was no additional search burden and therefore all claims were examined and no claims are withdrawn.
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) 1-4, 8-9, 23-26, 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farrant (WO 2006/133490).
Regarding claim 1, Farrant discloses a screeding machine for screeding uncured concrete (10), the screeding machine comprising: a base unit (11); a support mechanism disposed at an end portion of the base unit (31); a screed head assembly supported at the support mechanism (16), wherein the screed head assembly comprises (i) a grade establishing member (17) and (ii) a vibrating member (page 25, In 28 - page 26, In 4); wherein the support mechanism comprises a lateral actuator that operates to laterally shift the screed head assembly relative to the base unit in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the base unit (29, 30; page 25, In 21-27); and a control system (page 6, In 7-12), wherein the control system is operable to control the lateral actuator to laterally shift the screed head assembly in the direction orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the base unit (page 6, In 7-12).
Regarding claim 2, Farrant teaches the screed head assembly is positionable at a screeding location adjacent to a wall or structure (the screed head assembly 16 is capable of positioned at a screeding location adjacent to the wall or structure) and is movable over the uncured concrete in a screeding direction via movement of the base unit along the uncured concrete and alongside the wall or structure, and wherein the screeding direction is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the base unit (the screed head assembly 16 is movable over the uncured concrete in the screeding direction via movement of the base unit 11 over the concrete and alongside the wall/structure, with the screeding direction being parallel to the longitudinal axis of the base unit)Regarding claim 3, Farrant discloses the screeding machine of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the control system operates to control the lateral actuator to urge the screed head assembly laterally toward the wall or structure at a starting location of a screeding pass of the screeding machine (Fig. 1-9, 16-19 see how the control system is capable of controlling the lateral actuator to urge the screed head assembly 16 laterally towards the wall/structure at a starting location of the screeding pass).
Regarding claim 4, Farrant teaches the lateral actuator maintains the screed head assembly at the wall or structure as the base unit moves along the uncured concrete and alongside the wall or structure (Fig. 1-9, 16-19; the lateral actuator includes a braking system for preventing undesired movement, such that the actuator maintains the screed head assembly 16 at the wall/structure as the base unit 11 moves along the concrete and alongside the wall/structure; page 25, In 21-27).
Regarding claim 5, Farrant teaches the lateral actuator (29,30) maintains the screed head assembly at the wall or structure irrespective of lateral movement of the base unit toward or away from the wall or structure as the base unit moves along the uncured concrete and alongside the wall or structure (Fig. 1-9, 16-19; the lateral actuator can maintain the position of the screed head assembly 16 at the wall/structure irrespective of lateral movement of the base unit 11 toward or away from the wall/structure; page 26, ln 24-27).
Regarding claim 8, Farrant teaches the control system is operable to control the lateral actuator responsive to an operating mode selection by an operator of the screeding machine (page 6, In 7-12; page 13, In 11-14). The automatic controlling system is enabled by the operator from the remote control unit. The operator simply turns the operation switch from manual to automatic. This will then allow the control board to activate the hydraulic solenoids as required.
Regarding claim 9, Farrant teaches the base unit of the screeding machine comprises a wheeled base unit (11).
Regarding claim 23, Farrant teaches a method for screeding uncured concrete (10; page 18, In 12-20), the method comprising: providing a screeding machine (10) having a base unit (11) and a screed head assembly (16), wherein the screed head assembly comprises (i) a grade establishing member (17) and (II) a vibrating member (page 25, In 28 to page 26, In 4); moving the screeding machine in a screeding direction along the uncured concrete while the screed head assembly screeds the uncured concrete: and laterally adjusting the screed head assembly relative to the base unit in a direction orthogonal to the screeding direction to laterally shift the screed head assembly toward a wall or structure along which the screeding machine moves while screeding the uncured concrete (29, 30, the support mechanism 31 comprises a lateral actuator in the form of a hydraulic motor attached to the support mechanism 31 for laterally shifting the screed head assembly 16 relative to the base unit in a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the base axis).
Regarding claim 24, Farrant teaches laterally adjusting the screed head assembly comprises laterally adjusting the screed head assembly to urge the screed head assembly laterally toward the wall or structure at a starting location of a screeding pass of the screeding machine (the control system is capable of controlling the lateral actuator to urge the screed head assembly 16 laterally towards the wall/structure at a starting location of the screeding pass).
Regarding claim 25, Farrant teaches laterally adjusting the screed head assembly includes maintaining the screed head assembly at the wall or structure as the base unit moves along the uncured concrete and alongside the wall or structure (page 25, In 21-27).
Regarding claim 26, Farrant teaches wherein the screed head assembly is maintained at the wall or structure Irrespective of lateral movement of the base unit toward or away from the wall or structure as the base unit moves along the uncured concrete and alongside the wall or structure (the lateral actuator can maintain the position of the screed head assembly 16 at the wall/structure irrespective of lateral movement of the base unit 11 toward or away from the wall/structure; page 26, In 24-27).
Regarding claim 29, Farrant teaches laterally adjusting the screed head assembly toward a wall or structure is responsive to an operating mode selection by an operator of the screeding machine (the control system Is operable to control the computer between manual or automatic modes; page 6, In 7-12). The automatic controlling system is preferably enabled by the operator from the remote control unit. The operator simply turns the operation switch from MANUAL to AUTOMATIC. This will then allow the control board to activate the hydraulic solenoids as required").
Regarding claim 30, Farrant teaches the base unit of the screeding machine comprises a wheeled base unit (11).
Regarding claim 31, Farrant teaches an elevation actuator (34) operates to adjust elevation of the screed head assembly responsive at least in part to an elevation sensor that senses elevation of the screed head assembly (37; page 30, In 12-27), and wherein, responsive to the elevation sensor, the elevation actuator is controlled to set the grade of the uncured concrete (page 30, In 12-27).
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrant (WO 2006/133490) in view of Quenzi (2007/0116520).
Regarding claim 10, Farrant teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the screed head assembly is supported at the support mechanism via an elevation actuator. Quenzi teaches a screeding machine with a screed head assembly supported at a support mechanism with an elevation actuator (34), and wherein the elevation actuator operates to adjust elevation of the screed head assembly responsive at least in part to an elevation sensor that senses elevation of the screed head assembly, and wherein the control system (paragraph [0024]), responsive to the elevation sensor, controls the elevation actuator to set the grade of the uncured concrete. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an actuator and elevation control system on the screed head of Farrant as taught by Quenzi as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 11, Farrant as modified by Quenzi teaches the actuator is a pair of actuators, with a respective elevation actuator disposed at a respective end region of the screed head assembly, and wherein each elevation actuator is responsive at least in part to a respective elevation sensor (36; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Farrant as modified by Quenzi teaches the elevation sensors comprise laser receivers (36) disposed at respective elevation actuators (34) for sensing an elevation of the respective end region of the screed head assembly relative to a laser generated reference plane.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrant (WO 2006/133490) in view of Quenzi (2007/0116520) and in further view of Halonen (2007/0127985)
Regarding claim 13, Farrant as modified by Quenzi teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach control modes. Halonen teaches a screeding machine with a control system wherein the control system is operable to control a mode adjusting device to set the screeding machine in one of a sensor control mode (paragraph [0078]), where the screed head assembly is adjusted responsive to an elevation sensor, and a float mode, where the vibrating member and grade establishing member float on the concrete or forms at the concrete (paragraph [0069]. 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 control mode on the screeding machine of Farrant as taught by Halonen as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 6-7, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrant (WO 2006/133490) in view of Malone (5,752,783).
Regarding claims 6 and 26, Farrant fails to teach the lateral actuator operates responsive to the control system determining presence of the wall or structure at the screed head assembly. However, Malone discloses a screeding machine (40) comprising a base unit (40); a screed head assembly (46); a lateral actuator configured to laterally shift the screed head assembly (68; The extendable sections 66 are moved laterally by screed extension actuators 68); and a control system (70); and further teaches wherein the lateral actuator operates responsive to the control system determining presence of the wall or structure at the screed head assembly (72, 74, Fig. 1-4; col 4, In 25-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Farrant by employing the lateral sensors as taught by Malone, in order to have allowed for the control system to detect laterally located objects, such as walls, and to control the lateral actuator based on the detected objects and further as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claims 7 and 27, Farrant in view of Malone teaches the control system determines presence of the wall or structure via a sensor that generates an output indicative of presence of the wall or structure at the screed head assembly (72, 74; col 4, In 25-36).
Regarding claim 28, Farrant as modified by Malone teaches presence of the wall or structure is determined via a sensor that generates an output indicative of presence of the wall or structure at the screed head assembly (72, 74; col 4, In 25-36).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrant (WO 2006/133490) in view of Halonen (2007/0127985)
Regarding claim 32, Farrant teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach control modes. Halonen teaches a screeding machine with a control system wherein the control system is operable to control a mode adjusting device to set the screeding machine in one of a sensor control mode (paragraph [0078]), where the screed head assembly is adjusted responsive to an elevation sensor, and a float mode, where the vibrating member and grade establishing member float on the concrete or forms at the concrete (paragraph [0069]. 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 control mode on the screeding machine of Farrant as taught by Halonen as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzi (2007/0116520) in view of Halonen (2007/0127985)
Regarding claim 17, Quenzi teaches a screeding machine for screeding uncured concrete, the screeding machine (12) comprising: a base unit; a support mechanism (14) disposed at an end portion of the base unit; a screed head assembly (16) supported at the support mechanism, wherein the screed head assembly comprises (i) a grade establishing member (20) and (ii) a vibrating member (18); wherein the screed head assembly is supported at the support mechanism via an elevation actuator (34), and wherein the elevation actuator operates to adjust elevation of the screed head assembly responsive at least in part to an elevation sensor that senses elevation of the screed head assembly, and wherein, responsive to the elevation sensor (paragraph [0024]), the elevation actuator is operated to set the grade of the uncured concrete. Halonen teaches a screeding machine with a control system wherein the control system is operable to control a mode adjusting device to set the screeding machine in one of a sensor control mode (paragraph [0078]), where the screed head assembly is adjusted responsive to an elevation sensor, and a float mode, where the vibrating member and grade establishing member float on the concrete or forms at the concrete (paragraph [0069]. 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 control mode on the screeding machine of Quenzi as taught by Halonen as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 21,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzi (2007/0116520) in view of Halonen (2007/0127985) and in further view of
Farrant (WO 2006/133490).
Regarding claim 21, Quenzi teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a lateral actuator. Farrant teaches a screeding machine with a lateral actuator (29,30) that operates to laterally shift the screed head assembly relative to the base unit in a direction orthogonal to a screeding direction. 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 lateral actuator on the screeding machine of Quenzi as taught by Farrant as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further to allow the screeding head to reach the edge of the surface it is screeding.
Regarding claim 22, Quenzi as modified by Halonen and Farrant teaches the lateral actuator, when operated, urges the screed head assembly laterally toward a wall or structure along which the screeding machine moves while screeding the uncured concrete.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16, 18-20 33 are 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. The prior art fails to teach the grade member is adjusted relative to the vibrating member. This limitation in combination with the remaining limitations read over the prior art.
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. Tapio teaches a screeding head with an elevation actuator and control.
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 March 17, 2026