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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments of 4/24/26 has been entered. The amendments have resolved the previously presented claim objections and 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “second housing axis” identified by the examiner is inconsistent with how the recited axis should be understood. Applicant in part assert that “the term “housing axis” would be understood to mean a longitudinal axis of the housing”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the claim requires two houses axes. And so, it the term housing axis must refer to a single axis, as applicant posits in applicant’s arguments, it would require a claim interpretation in which there are two coextensive axes.
The examiner additionally notes that the term “axis” is defined as e.g. from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/axis “a fixed line against which the positions of points are measured, especially points on a graph”. An axis, or housing axis, does not require any particular axis to be identified only a line which meets the claim limitation (which is not contested by applicant).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “a maximum radial extension of the base plate.” The claim indirectly depends from claim 7, which already recited “a maximum radial extension of the base plate.” The appropriate antecedent term should be used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eitzen (US 6200065 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Eitzen teaches an apparatus for surface processing of plastically deformable masses, fresh concrete, mortar or screed, comprising:
an L-shaped housing comprising a first housing axis (Fig 3, axis of handle 120) and a second housing axis (Fig 3, second axis from 100 to 85), wherein the first housing axis and the second housing axis intersect each other at an angle (a) (Fig 3, an angle is seen), wherein:
the L-shaped housing comprises a handle arranged along the first housing axis (Fig 3, handle 120), a receptacle for an energy storage device arranged and formed at a free end of the handle (Fig 3, energy device 135 at free end of handle 120), and
the L-shaped housing comprises a head portion arranged along the second housing axis (Fig 3, head portion at 100), and a base plate arranged at a free end of the head portion (Fig 3, base plate is mounting, seemingly labelled as 99/98 in Fig 8), and
a vibration unit arranged at least partially within the head portion (Fig 3, vibrator 100), the vibration unit configured such that the base plate may be arranged thereon (Fig 3, 8, base plate as defined is arranged on the vibrator 100).
Regarding claim 4, Eitzen teaches wherein: a center of gravity of the apparatus is located in a center of gravity plane defined by the first housing axis and by the second housing axis (Fig 3, plane defined by the axes as defined), and the center of gravity is arranged between the second housing axis and the free end of the handle (Fig 3, center of gravity would be between the second housing axis, as the second housing axis is at the farthest bottom and the free end at the farthest top of the tool and the center of gravity must fall between these).
Regarding claim 5, Eitzen teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a damping element configured to damp vibration caused by the vibration unit between the L- shaped housing and the base plate (Fig 5, bar 85 at least acts as a dampener by virtue of contributing mass to the system).
Regarding claim 6, Eitzen teaches wherein the damping element is arranged in a first plane orthogonal to the second housing axis between the L-shaped housing and the base plate (Fig 3, 5, bar 85 is in a first plane as seen at the top of the bar).
Regarding claim 7, Eitzen teaches wherein a maximum radial extension of the damping element with respect to the second housing axis is greater than a maximum radial extension of the base plate (Fig 3, 5, bar 85 has a greater radial extent as seen).
Regarding claim 8, Eitzen teaches wherein the L-shaped housing comprises a sealing element arranged in a second plane parallel to and spaced from the first plane (Column 5, lines 40-45, housing 105 has seals/a cover, this is in a second plane. Note the plane may be selected and defined such that the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 11, Eitzen teaches wherein the base plate is configured to be supported in a decoupled manner from the head portion (Fig 5-6, bolted/selectively coupled as seen).
Regarding claim 12, Eitzen teaches a system for surface processing of plastically deformable masses, fresh concrete, mortar or screed, comprising:
an apparatus (see following elements) comprising an L-shaped housing comprising a first housing axis (Fig 3, axis of handle 120) and a second housing axis (Fig 3, second axis from 100 to 85), wherein the first housing axis and the second housing axis intersect each other at an angle (a) (Fig 3, an angle is seen), wherein:
the L-shaped housing comprises a handle arranged along the first housing axis (Fig 3, handle 120), a first receptacle for an energy storage device arranged and formed at a free end of the handle (Fig 3, energy device 135 at free end of handle 120), and
the L-shaped housing comprises a head portion arranged along the second axis (Fig 3, head portion at 100), and a base plate arranged at a free end of the head portion (Fig 3, base plate is mounting, seemingly labelled as 99/98 in Fig 8), and
a vibration unit arranged at least partially within the head portion (Fig 3, vibrator 100), the vibration unit configured such that the base plate may be arranged thereon (Fig 3, 8, base plate as defined is arranged on the vibrator 100); and
a processing plate comprising a bottom side arranged and configured to face the plastically deformable mass fresh concrete, mortar or screed (Fig 3-4, plate 75), and a top side arranged opposite to the bottom side (see fig 3-4) and comprising a fastening device configured to fasten the apparatus to the processing plate (Fig 6, 8-9, at least bolts seen and bracket/frame 132/134, 94/96).
Regarding claim 13, Eitzen teaches wherein the fastening device comprises a second receptacle for the base plate (Fig 6, 8, 9, bracket 132/134, 94/96 is an A-frame in which the base plate is received in between).
Regarding claim 14, Eitzen teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to be inserted into the second receptacle in a first position and in a second position, the first position differing from the second position by a rotation of the apparatus about the second housing axis relative to the processing plate (Fig 6, 8, 9, bracket 132/134, 94/96 is an A-frame in which the base plate is received in between. The apparatus can be rotated 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 15, Eitzen teaches wherein
the second receptacle comprises a rotationally symmetrical basic shape in a top view (Fig 5-6, the receptacle is symmetric along the rotated top views of Fig 5-6), and
the base plate comprises a corresponding basic shape configured so as to facilitate arrangement of the apparatus in the second receptacle in different positions (Fig 2, the base plate as defined as a shape which permits arrangement in different positions along 85/86/70).
Regarding claim 16, Eitzen teaches wherein a depth of the second receptacle is greater than the distance from a bottom edge of the base plate to the second plane supporting a sealing element (Column 5, lines 40-45, housing 105 has seals/a cover and the receptacle is larger than the seal, and therefore has a greater depth. Please see the 112b rejection).
Regarding claim 17, Eitzen teaches wherein the fastening device comprises a locking unit configured to fix the apparatus in the second receptacle (Fig 2, bracket 132 locks/retains shaft 120).
Regarding claim 18, Eitzen teaches wherein the fastening device comprises a further receptacle configured as a base plate of another apparatus (Fig 2, bracket 132 is capable of use as a receptacle/base plate for “another hypothetical” apparatus).
Regarding claim 19, Eitzen teaches wherein the bottom side configured to be faced towards a plastically deformable mass, fresh concrete, mortar or screed to be processed of the processing plate comprises at least one shaping profile (Fig 3-4, bottom side has a flat shaping profile 80).
Regarding claim 20, Eitzen teaches a method of surface processing plastically deformable masses, fresh concrete, mortar or screed comprising the steps of:
providing an apparatus comprising an L-shaped housing comprising a first housing axis (Fig 3, axis of handle 120) and a second housing axis (Fig 3, second axis from 100 to 85), wherein the first housing axis and the second housing axis intersect each other at an angle (a) (Fig 3, an angle is seen), wherein:
the L-shaped housing comprises a handle arranged along the first housing axis (Fig 3, handle 120), a receptacle configured as an energy storage device and arranged and formed at a free end of the handle (Fig 3, energy device 135 at free end of handle 120), and
the L-shaped housing comprises a head portion arranged along the second housing axis (Fig 3, head portion at 100), and a base plate arranged at a free end of the head portion (Fig 3, base plate is mounting, seemingly labelled as 99/98 in Fig 8), and
arranging a vibration unit at least partially within the head portion (Fig 3, vibrator 100), the vibration unit configured such that the base plate may be arranged thereon (Fig 3, 8, base plate as defined is arranged on the vibrator 100);
arranging a processing plate comprising a bottom side arranged and configuring to face the plastically deformable mass fresh concrete, mortar or screed (Fig 3-4, plate 75), and a top side arranged opposite to the bottom side (see fig 3-4) and comprising a fastening device configured to fasten the apparatus to the processing plate (Fig 6, 8-9, at least bolts seen and bracket/frame 132/134, 94/96);
applying the bottom edge of the processing plate to a surface to be processed (Fig 3, bottom edge applied to surface of 60),
assuming a tilted position of the housing, wherein the top edge of the processing plate is spaced from the surface to be processed (Fig 4, tilted position seen),
activating the vibration unit (Column 6, line 34-35), and
moving the system over the surface to be processed, wherein an end of the housing lying rearward in a direction of movement represents a bottom edge (Column 4, line 36-40; see also direction of movement 55 in Fig 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitzen (US 6200065 B1), in view of Heimrich (US 20230392326 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Eitzen is silent on wherein the apparatus comprises a control unit configured to monitor a state of charge of the energy storage device.
Heimrich teaches a control unit configured to monitor a state of charge of the energy storage device (Para 0388).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Eitzen by having a battery operated power source as well as the corresponding controller with its functionality as disclosed by Heimrich because it would be a simple substitution of one known element (the manually controlled ICE) for another (the controller operated battery) to obtain predictable results (providing power to a powered tool).
Regarding claim 3, Eitzen teaches wherein the control unit is arranged within the handle (Column 5, line 60-65, internal control shaft which is within shaft 120).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitzen (US 6200065 B1).
Regarding claim 9, while Eitzen teaches a sealing cover/sealing element (Column 5, lines 40-45, housing 105), Eitzen does not depict this sealing element and is therefore silent on wherein a maximum radial extension of the sealing element with respect to the second housing axis is greater than the maximum radial extension of the base plate.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Eitzen by having the relative dimensions/radial extent of the sealing element relative to the base plate since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.05(IV)(A). In this case having the relative sizing of the sealing element relative to the base plate would not result in different performance of the prior art device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitzen (US 6200065 B1), in view of Davis (US 5857803 A).
Regarding claim 10, Eitzen is silent on wherein the L-shaped housing comprises one piece from a cast aluminum.
Davis teaches wherein the L-shaped housing comprises one piece from a cast aluminum (Column 8, line 14, “parts are preferably cast aluminum.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Eitzen by having at least one piece of the L-shaped housing formed from cast aluminum as disclosed by Davis because Davis teaches that use of cast aluminum is the “preferable” material used for construction in a similar device. One would look to Davis’s teaching because it is a known material used in the same field of endeavor and Davis demonstrates that it would work with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm ET.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights