CTNF 18/375,411 CTNF 84229 DETAILED ACTION DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 19 is 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 . 07-34-03 AIA The term “ properly ” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ properly ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 10-11, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mork US4418759 . Regarding claim 1 , Mork teaches a pneumatic lawn level 10 comprising: a handle 45 having a bottom handle portion 44 and a top handle portion 40; a gas strut 60/61 (Column 6: 13-16 “In place of hydraulic cylinder 61, a pneumatic cylinder”, in which pneumatic and gas are the same thing. The cylinder forms a strut since it extends downwards as shown in Figure 5); and a level base (including frame 11, wherein 11 is the frame for soil leveling, which is considered the claimed level base). Regarding claim 2 , Mork teaches that the bottom handle portion and the top handle portion are attached together through welding a U-joint (30 is u shaped as shown in Figure 3). The term “welded” is considered a product-by-process. Therefore, other methods of shaping the U-joint are considered to meet the claim limitation. See MPEP 2113 I. Regarding claim 3 , Mork teaches the bottom handle portion further comprising: a through-hole 43 capable of receiving hardware to mount to the handle or to the level base. Regarding claim 6 , Mork teaches that the handle is hollow (wherein at least 40 is channel shaped, thus is considered to be hollow). Regarding claim 8 , Mork teaches that the bottom handle portion 44 has a through-hole that receives a fastener 31 and provides a mounting point for the gas strut (as shown in Figure 3). Regarding claim 10 , Mork teaches that a portion of the gas strut fastened to the bottom handle portion aligns with a relief channel (inside hollow portion of 44) at a base of the bottom handle. Regarding claim 11 , Mork teaches a tightening mechanism fastened on the fastener (pin on 31 shown in Figure 3) to further secure the gas strut to the bottom handle portion. Regarding claim 17 , Mork teaches that the gas strut applies down force (towards 50, shown in Figure 5) to the level base to inhibit free motion backward toward a user (upwards). Regarding claim 18 , Mork teaches that the gas strut provides an auto- retracting feature for storage (wherein retraction of 60 can place the device into a storage position). Regarding claim 19 , Mork teaches that the gas strut applies pressure on the level base to reduce an amount of force and effort needed to level ground properly (via placing force from 60 onto 50) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mork alone . Regarding claim 4 , Mork teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the through-hole is positioned approximately 8 inches from the welded U-joint. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the though hole such that the through hole is approximately 8 inches from the U-joint, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) . See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. ). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) , 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. Regarding claim 7 , Mork teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the gas strut is affixed approximately 12 inches from the level base. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the though hole such that the gas strut is affixed approximately 12 inches from the level base, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) . See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. ). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) , 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. Regarding claim 14 , Mork teaches that the gas strut is mounted to the frame of the level base approximately 4 inches from a mounting point of the bottom handle portion to the frame of the level base. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the though hole such that the gas strut is mounted to the frame at approximately 4 inches from the mounting point of the bottom handle portion to the frame of the level base, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mork in view of Giles US6045022 . Regarding claim 9 , Mork teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the fastener is a stainless steel hex head bolt. Giles teaches that stainless steel hex head bolts are conventional off-the-shelf hardware Column 6: 2-4, thus are well-known fasteners. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fastener for Mork to use the stainless steel hex head bolt of Giles with a reasonable expectation of success to provide rust-resistant fasteners, which are notoriously well-known fastener types . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 7, 10, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele US1122549 in view of Nicholson GB2340018 and Mork . Regarding claim 1 , Steele teaches a lawn level (Figure 1) comprising: a handle 2 having a bottom handle portion (bottom part of 2) and a top handle portion (top end of 2); a spring strut 14; and a level base 6. Steele does not teach the lawn level is pneumatic, and does not teach the strut is gas. Nicholson teaches that it is well known to select a piston instead of a spring 3 to connect handle 5 to a level base 1, page 2: 11-14. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steele’s spring in view of Nicholson’s piston connection with a reasonable expectation of success to provide desired actuation for the handle. Mork teaches that a piston 60 can be hydraulic or pneumatic to provide desired actuating means Column 6: 13-16. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steele’s strut and Nicholson’s piston in view of Mork’s pneumatic/gas piston with a reasonable expectation of success to provide desired actuating means. Regarding claim 2 , Steele teaches that the bottom handle portion and the top handle portion are attached together through welding a U-joint 3 (3 generally forms a u-shape, thus is considered a u joint, and wherein “welding” is considered a product-by process, as described above). Regarding claim 7 , Steele teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the gas strut is affixed approximately 12 inches from the level base 6. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the though hole such that the gas strut is affixed approximately 12 inches from the level base, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) . See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. ). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) , 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. Regarding claim 10 , Steele teaches that a portion of the gas strut fastened to the bottom handle portion aligns with a relief channel 16 (wherein 16 is considered a channel since it provides at least nominal indented portions as shown in dashed lines in Figure 3) at a base (bottom adjoining 5) of the bottom handle . Regarding claim 15 , Steele teaches that the handle is manipulated to a 90- degree angle (Figure 1 versus Figure 3 shows a 90 degree angle) from a starting position (Figure 1) when the level base 6 is connected to the handle. Steele does not teach that the handle is manipulated to a 100- degree angle from a starting position when the level base 6 is connected to the handle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the range of motion limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 . Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 16 , Steele teaches that a degree of motion is presented toward a front portion (such that 6 can be rotated forward from the position shown in Figure 1 to the position shown in Figure 3) of the level base 6 to avoid abrupt motion or jamming from a front side of the pneumatic lawn level (Figure 1). Regarding claim 17 , Steele teaches that the strut applies down force (by pulling on 13 towards the handle) to the level base 6 to inhibit free motion backward toward a user (such that 7 tends not to fold to the right of Figure 3). Regarding claim 18 , Steele teaches that the gas strut provides an auto- retracting feature for storage (by being biased to the position shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 is interpreted to be the retracted storage position, since the claim does not describe what this position should be). Regarding claim 19 , Steele teaches that the gas strut applies pressure on the level base 6 to reduce an amount of force (by providing biasing towards the position shown in Figure 3) and effort needed to level ground properly . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-5, 8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele in view of Nicholson and Mork as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao US2009/0297258 . Regarding claim 3 , the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the bottom handle portion further comprising: a through-hole capable of receiving hardware to mount to the handle to the level base 6. Liao teaches a connection with a through hole (holding 80) for receiving hardware 80 to connect a handle 60. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steele of the combination’s handle in view of Liao’s though hole to receive hardware for mounting the handle to the level base with a reasonable expectation of success of providing commonly-known mounting for a handle. Regarding claim 4 , the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the through-hole is positioned approximately 8 inches from the welded U-joint. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the though hole such that the through hole is approximately 8 inches from the U-joint, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that those of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a modification such as a mere change in size of a component would be obvious. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) . See also, MPEP § 2144.04 which states: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148. ). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) , 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. Regarding claim 5 , Steele of the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the handle is approximately 70 inches in length. Liao teaches that it is known in the art for a yard working handle to be 60-72” ¶0022, which is interpreted to be approximately 70” in length, as suitable length for a handle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steele’s handle length in view of Liao’s 60-72” handle length with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a suitable handle length for an operator to use the device. Regarding claim 8 , the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the bottom handle portion has a through-hole that receives a fastener and provides a mounting point for the gas strut. Liao, as described above, teaches that it is known in the art to provide a though hole to receive a fastener to provide mounting points. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s bottom handle portion to have a through hole in view of Liao with a reasonable expectation of success to provide pivotable mounting points for the gas strut with a fastener. Regarding claim 11 , Liao teaches a tightening mechanism 70 fastened on the fastener (in which Figure 4 shows exploded view of fastener 80), wherein the combination would further secure the gas strut to the bottom handle portion. Regarding claim 12 , the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the level base 6 further comprising: holes to accept at least one fastener that adjoins the bottom handle portion to the level base 6. Liao teaches a connection with a through hole (holding 80) for receiving hardware 80 to connect a handle 60. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steele of the combination’s handle in view of Liao’s though hole to receive hardware for mounting the handle to the level base with a reasonable expectation of success of providing commonly-known mounting for a handle. Regarding claim 13 , the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the gas strut is mounted to a frame of the level base using a fastener. Liao teaches that it is known to connect a strut 2 to a frame 44 using a fastener 24 ¶0019. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination’s strut in view of Liao’s fastener to connect the strut to a frame with a reasonable expectation of success to provide desired connection for the strut and the frame. Regarding claim 14 , the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the gas strut is mounted to the frame of the level base 6 approximately 4 inches from a mounting point of the bottom handle portion to the frame of the level base 6. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the though hole such that the gas strut is mounted to the frame at approximately 4 inches from the mounting point of the bottom handle portion to the frame of the level base, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose , 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele in view of Nicholson and Mork as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong US5205122 . Regarding claim 6 , the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the handle is hollow. Wong teaches that it is known in the art for handle 11 to be made of a hollow metallic tube to form a light-weight handle Column 11: 48-50. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Steele’s handle to be the hollow metallic tube of Wong with a reasonable expectation of success to have a light-weight handle . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steel in view of Nicholson and Mork as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Giles . Regarding claim 9 , the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the fastener is a stainless steel hex head bolt. Giles teaches that stainless steel hex head bolts are conventional off-the-shelf hardware Column 6: 2-4, thus are well-known fasteners. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fastener for the combination to use the stainless steel hex head bolt of Giles with a reasonable expectation of success to provide rust-resistant fasteners, which are notoriously well-known fastener types . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Richards US3225837 teaches a typical lawn level with base 12 and handle 14, but does not teach the gas strut. Kleinhuizen US4886124 teaches a soil grading apparatus with a piston rod 112 attached to a handle 98. Meyer, et al. US4827706 teaches a leveling device 10 with a handle 48 attached to 34, and stationary struts 52. McConnel US3146831 teaches a leveling device 10 with handle 11 attached to struts 18, and extendable strut 22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM 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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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. /CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 12/4/2025 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 2 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 3 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 4 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 5 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 6 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 7 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 8 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 9 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 10 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 11 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 12 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 13 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 14 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 15 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 16 Art Unit: 3672 Application/Control Number: 18/375,411 Page 17 Art Unit: 3672