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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on July 2, 2026 was received. Claims 1 and 8-13 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued April 3, 2026.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “rotation of the handle causes the one or more side surfaces to directly act on and cam the post along the slot” which is indefinite because the use of the term “cam” as a verb leaves the full scope of the claim unclear. The term “cam” is usually only a noun referring to a rotatable/eccentric mechanical object, and the scope of the term “act on and cam the post” is unclear because there is no basis in the specification for understanding how the side surfaces can “cam” the post in a way related to a physical, mechanical cam. The only recitation of the term “cam” in the entire specification is in paragraph 32, where it is used as a synonym for “act on”, and since claim 1 uses both of these terms “act on” and “cam” together, it remains unclear exactly what action is being described by the term “cam”, as it cannot be the same synonym relationship as suggested by the specification. For the purposes of examination, the term cam will be ignored, and instead the same synonym relationship as in paragraph 32 will be used (i.e., act on = cam). Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Paine et al. (US 4,335,485) on claims 1-13 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 1: Paine et al. discloses a variable pitch trowel including a blade assembly with a trowel face (8) which is a blade configured to finish a material (i.e. concrete) surface, as well as a pitch mechanism including a geared support structure (6) and pivoting pin (5) about which the mechanism rotates, the pin (5) and structure generally extending in an axis parallel to the trowel (8), and also a handle assembly coupled to the blade assembly and extending along a second axis transverse to the first, the handle rod (4) being rotatable about the second axis in order to effect rotation of the blade assembly, and therefore the trowel (8), about the axis of the pivoting pin (5) (col. 2 lines 1-64, figures 1-2). Paine et al. discloses that the handle assembly includes a shaft (4) and a worm thread cylinder (7) on a side surface, the cylinder (7) having a slot into which the geared posts of the geared support structure (6) extend, such that rotation of the handle shaft (4) causes the side surface defining the worm thread cylinder (7) to move in the direction of the handle axis and therefore act directly on the geared posts of the geared support structure (6) to “cam” the posts along the slot, thereby rotating the pitch mechanism about the axis of the pivot pin (5) (col. 2 lines 1-64, figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 2: Paine et al. discloses that the pivoting of the trowel (8) about the pin (5) axis changes its pitch angle relative to the surface (col. 1 lines 27-40).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6: Paine et al. shows that the trowel (8) has a front and a rear edge (see figure 1) and while Paine et al. does not explicitly state or show that the front and/or rear edge pivot away from or toward the material surface, the disclosure of Paine et al. teaches that the trowel (8) pivots along the axis defined by the pivoting pin (5) such that when the worm thread cylinder (7) advances or retreats along the geared support structure (6) by rotation of the handle (4) in either direction, it will necessarily pivot the front and/or rear edge of the trowel (8) either towards or away from the surface, depending on the direction of advancement of the worm thread cylinder (7) (col. 2 lines 1-64, figures 1-2).
Regarding claims 5 and 7: Paine et al. shows that the front and rear edges of the trowel (8) both extend parallel to the axis defined by the pivot pin (5) (see figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 8: Paine et al. shows that the worm thread cylinder (7) has two lateral ends which define the extent of rotation of the mechanism, as the threads are larger in diameter than the hole in the rear of the housing (1) (col. 2 lines 47-57, figure 1).
Regarding claim 9: Paine et al. shows that the geared posts of the geared support structure (6) extend in a direction parallel to the pivot pin (5) while also extending into the worm thread cylinder (7) above it (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 10: Paine et al. discloses that the worm thread cylinder (7) slot is a spiral groove (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 11: Paine et al. shows that the slot of the worm thread cylinder (7) is recessed into the housing (1) which can be considered the claimed shaft (see figure 1).
Regarding claims 12-13: Paine et al. shows that the groove of the worm thread cylinder (7) has a first end and a second end (see figure 1) and teaches that advancing or retreating the worm thread cylinder (7) will push each individual geared post of the geared support structure (6) either to the first or second end of the worm thread cylinder (col. 2 lines 1-64, figures 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Paine et al. as applied to claims 1-13 above and further in view of Suckow (US 6,374,569) on claims 14-16 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
Regarding claim 14: Paine et al. fails to explicitly disclose any vibration device configured to generate vibrations that vibrate the blade. However, Suckow discloses a similar screed apparatus (i.e., trowel) which includes a motor (88) with rechargeable battery (84) as a vibration mechanism to vibrate the screed plate surface (18) (col. 3 lines 46-59, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a vibration mechanism like that of Suckow for the apparatus of Paine et al. because Suckow discloses that this helps the user consolidate the concrete being spread using vibration without the need for heavy combustion engines or dangerous wires (col. 1 lines 8-49).
Regarding claim 15: Paine et al. and Suckow teach the above combination in which the vibration mechanism includes a rechargeable battery (84) powering the motor (88) (Suckow col. 3 lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 16: Paine et al. and Suckow show that the vibration motor (88) can be arranged along the center of screed plate surface (18) (Suckow figure 1) and while they do not explicitly disclose that it is arranged to be centered on the pivot pin (5) axis of Paine et al., it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of parts when making the above combination and winding up with the motor at least crossing that axis, which can mean it is centered on it, because simple rearrangement or parts is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and because trying from a finite number of locations is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the worm thread cylinder and gear of Paine et al. do not satisfy the claimed features because they do not perform the claimed function of the side surfaces defining a slot directly acting on a post.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are incorrect. The arrangement in Paine et al. performs the exact same function as claimed- the side surface of the worm thread cylinder (7) has a number of slots, the posts of the gear structure extend into those slots, and rotation of the cylinder (7) does cause the side surface of the cylinder to directly act on these posts to “cam” them along the slot. See annotated figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is reading the claims too narrowly, particularly the specific mechanical requirements for the terms “slot” and “post”. The arrangement in Paine et al. clearly reads on both these structural components as well as their function, in almost an identical way. If Applicant wishes to more distinctly claim the structural differences between the instant invention and the Paine et al. reference then further and clearer description of these structural differences is needed in the claims, such as detailed description of the shapes of the slot, post, or other components as they relate to other features like the shaft of the handle or the pitching mechanism.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
8/1/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights