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 without traverse of Group I, claim 1-9, in the reply filed on 02 June 2026 is acknowledged.
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 4-9 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:
In claim 4, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the electrical power supply”.
In claim 5, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the converter device”.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the electric motor”.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the supporting device”.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the energy storage device.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the converter device”.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the operating hose”.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the switching device”.
In claim 7, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the energy storage device”.
In claim 7, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the converter device”.
In claim 7, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the current”.
In claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the energy storage device”.
In claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the converter device”.
In claim 9, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the measurement device”.
In claim 9, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the evaluation device”.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunze (US 2008/0012165):
Regarding claim 1, Kunze discloses a concrete compaction system, comprising: an unbalance exciter (see [0045]) that is configured to compact concrete; a compaction detection device (6 and/or 10) that is configured to detect progress of the compaction of the concrete; and a vibration device that is configured to generate a haptic feedback upon detection of a prescribed progress of the compaction by the compaction detection device (see [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, the system further comprises an electric motor (see [0045]) that is configured to drive the unbalance exciter; an electric power supply (4); and a converter device (15) that is configured to convert an electric current that is drawn from the electric power supply to a drive current for the electric motor; wherein the compaction detection device comprises a measurement device that is configured to measure the current drawn from the electric motor (see [0023] and [0037]); and wherein the compaction detection device comprises an evaluation device (10) that is configured to evaluate the current draw measured by the measurement device, to determine therefrom a progress of the compaction of the concrete, and to detect whether a prescribed progress of the compaction has been reached.
Regarding claim 3, the unbalance exciter is arranged in a housing (2); and an operating hose (1) is fastened to the housing
Regarding claim 6, the vibration device stops the rotation of an electric motor (see [0039] and [0045]).
Claim 7 solely discusses items that are not required elements of the claimed system. Nonetheless, see [0054] and Fig. 2 concerning a measurement device and a converter.
Claim 8 solely discussed items that are not required elements of the claimed system.
Regarding claim 9, data transmission is provided between a measurement device and an evaluation device (see [0014]).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze (US 2008/0012165) in view of Lindley (US 2008/0253221). The system of Kunze was discussed above:
Regarding claim 4, an electrical energy storage device is not disclosed by Kunze. Lindley teaches providing a concrete vibrator with a battery (213). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a battery to facilitate portability.
Regarding claim 5, Lindley further teaches a supporting device including a strap (142). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a supporting device comprising a strap to facilitate portability.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze (US 2008/0012165) in view of Le Pape (US 2013/0075942). Although this claim is anticipated by Kunze due to sole concerning item that are not positively recited as required elements of the claimed system as explained above, Le Pape is cited for teaching a separately located mobile device (14 or 26) for the evaluation of data from a concrete vibrator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a separately located mobile device so that a person at a remote location can interact with the data.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/225,383 in view of Kunze (US 2008/0012165). The copending claims do not specify that feedback is haptic, such as through turning off a motor. As explained above, Kunze teaches such feedback as an alternative other forms of feedback.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/225,383 in view of Kunze (US 2008/0012165) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lindley (US 2008/0253221). Lindley further teaches a supporting device including a strap (142). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a supporting device comprising a strap to facilitate portability.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights