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. This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/299284 filed April 12, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. Election/Restrictions Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 13, 2026. 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 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Paine et al. (US 4,335,485) . 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). 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. discloses that the handle assembly includes a shaft (4) and the worm thread cylinder (7) which has a slot into which the geared posts of the geared support structure (6) extend, such that rotation of the handle shaft (4) causes the slot of the worm thread cylinder (7) to move and therefore act on the geared posts of the geared support structure (6) to rotate the pitch mechanism about the axis of the pivot pin (5) (col. 2 lines 1-64, figures 1-2). 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 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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paine et al. as applied to claims 1-13 above and further in view of Suckow (US 6,374,569). 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). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A number of other references found use the same rotation of the handle to pivot a trowel blade, including Kraft (US 4,856,932), Jarvis (US 5,393,168) and Maggio et al. (US 6,227,750). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7681 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 Kitt Examiner, Art Unit 1717 3/31/2026 /Dah-Wei D. Yuan/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717