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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments, the previous rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein and made final.
Please note claims 7-10 are still considered withdrawn as they are drawn to non-elected embodiments as discussed in the Office action dated 9/26/2025.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold (US 5,098,278) in view of Brown (GB 457,061).
Regarding claim 1, Brandvold discloses a concrete finishing edger tool, comprising:
a handle (Item 10);
a shaping element (Item 12) comprising concave a rounded portion defining a semi circular arc (Item 16) with a radius from around 1/8 inch to around 1 inch (Column 3 Lines 57-59); and
a tang (Item 11), wherein the tang, the handle and the shaping element are coupled.
Brandvoid fails to explicitly disclose a semi circular arc opening away from the handle.
Brown teaches a concrete finishing tool, wherein a semi circular arc opening away from the handle (Figure 2 Item b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the direction in which the shaping element was facing such that the shaping element was facing away from the handle. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one killed in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the situation in which the tool is intended to be used, an inside corner might require a handle of a particular orientation, while an outside corner might require a handle of a different orientation.
Regarding claim 5, Brandvold in view of Brown disclose the concrete finishing edger tool of claim 1, wherein the shaping element is configured to shape vertical edges of a concrete structure, while the concrete structure is wet and supported by forms, to create a uniform finish (without arguing the intended use aspect, Brandvold Column 1 Lines 50-68).
Regarding claim 6, Brandvold in view of Brown disclose the concrete finishing edger tool of claim 1, wherein the shaping element is configured to fit in limited access areas of a concrete structure while supported by forms, wherein the limited access areas include one or more of pipe penetration, post penetration, slab edge, cut line, cut joint, instance and irregular angle (without arguing the intended use aspect, Brandvold Column 1 Lines 50-68). .
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold (US 5,098,278) in view of Brown (GB 457,061) in view of Murray (US 7,784,143).
Regarding claim 2, Brandvold in view of Brown disclose the concrete finishing edger tool of claim 1. Brandvold fails to explicitly disclose wherein the shaping element is constructed from around 16 gauge to around 20 gauge high-carbon steel metal.
Murray teaches a finishing tool wherein the shaping element is constructed from around 16 gauge to around 20 gauge high-carbon steel metal (Column 3 Lines 18-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material and thickness in which the shaping element of Brandvold is constructed of to be as taught by Murray. Such a modification is viewed as a change in material, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Brandvold in column 3 Lines 6-7 discusses how any material. Using the material and thickness as taught by Murray leads to a tool with a long life (Column 1 Lines 41-46).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold (US 5,098,278) in view of Brown (GB 457,061) in view of Linville (US 961,302).
Regarding claim 3, Brandvold in view of Brown disclose the concrete finishing edger tool of claim 1. Brandvold fails to explicitly disclose wherein the length of the shaping element is between around 7 inches and around 11 inches.
Linville teaches a shaping element that has a length of the shaping element is between around 7 inches and around 11 inches (Page 1 Lines 48-55 discusses the length of 10-12 inches but it up to the user). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the shaping element of Brandvold to be roughly the same size as taught by Linville. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). A common stair is roughly 7” tall. Since Brandvold is related to helping forming a stair, having a shaping element closer to this dimension would make sense. That way it would take less material to produce and would take up less room for storage.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandvold (US 5,098,278) in view of Brown (GB 457,061) in view of Turner (US 3,608,944).
Regarding claim 4, Brandvold in view of Brown disclose the concrete finishing edger tool of claim 1. Brandvold fails to explicitly disclose wherein the tang is offset from the handle by around 1 inch to around 2 inches.
Turner teaches a finishing tool wherein the tang is offset from the handle by around 1 inch to around 2 inches (Column 2 Lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the tank such that the offset from the handle to the blade was roughly 1-2 inches. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see mpep 2144.04). Such a modification would allow for the handle to be offset from the shaping element, but not long enough that would cause wrist strain while carrying cement (or mortar) while on the shaping element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723