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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abbott et al. US 2020/0076337.
Abbott et al. disclose a compacting power tool, such as rammer (624), see Fig. 32.
The rammer comprising:
A housing (14), an electric motor (10) or in the alternative (36). [0081].
A reciprocating drive assembly (636/650) coupled to the electric motor (10, 36).
A compacting foot (632) coupled to the drive mechanism (636/650) such that the
motor drives the compacting foot in oscillatory motion. [0190-0196].
A controller (302/620) in communication with sensors (314, 318, 642) disposed on the
rammer (624) and to determine a change in the operational load of the electric
motor (10) based on said signals. [0022-0024, 0105, 0111].
Wherein the “electronic processor (302) can also input data from sensors (642) on the rammer (624) to detect whether the frequency and/or amplitude of the vibrating plate is within a predetermined range, such that the control electronics (42) can precisely control the speed of the motor unit (10)…the electronic processor (302) can prevent amplified vibration or resonance and ensure that the rammer (624) in under control”. Wherein the current sensor (318) may detect the current level at discrete time intervals, for example every 2 milli-seconds and provide the control signals indicating the current level at the discrete time intervals to the electronic processor (302)”.
With respect to claims 1, 19 although Abbott et al. does not explicitly recite the controller is configured to determine a change in the operational load of the electric motor….when the compacting foot is not engaging the surface to be compacted.
It would have been obvious, if not inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art that with the current sensor providing current-load data every 2 milli-seconds, the processor (302) would in fact determine a change in the operational load when the compacting foot is at several different positions in its oscillatory compacting motion.
With respect to claims 2, 16-17 Abbot et al. disclose wherein the “electronic processor (302) can also input data from sensors (642) on the rammer (624) to detect whether the frequency and/or amplitude of the vibrating plate is within a predetermined range, such
that the control electronics (42) can precisely control the speed of the motor unit
(10)…the electronic processor (302) can prevent amplified vibration or resonance and ensure that the rammer (624) in under control”. [0124].
With respect to claims 3-6, 18 Abbot et al. disclose “the electronic processor (302) can simply monitor the current drawn by the motor (36) to determine whether to slow down or stop the motor (36). [0155]. “the electronic processor (302) determines whether the measured current is below a current threshold corresponding to a…pre-determined period of time” and determine the motor unit is operating in a no-load condition. [0022, 0126, 138]
With respect to claims 7-13 Abbot et al. disclose the use of a kill switch mounted on the handle to send a switch deactivated signal to the control electronics (42) such that the control electronics sends a stop signal to the motor after a predetermined amount of time and maintains power the power electronics (42) so that the motor unit (10) may be kept in an armed or ready state [0101-0103].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. US 2020/0076337 in view of Fukushima et al. EP 2725144.
Abbott et al. disclose essentially all that is claimed except for a tip over sensor.
However, Fukushima et al. teach it is known to provide jumping jack soil compaction machines (10) with a tip over discriminator (70b) that uses motor speed data to determine if the instant motor speed is at or near a predetermined threshold value and motor shutdown unit that shuts down the motor when the tip over discriminator sends a signal indicating a tip over event has occurred. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the jumping jack of Abbott et al. with a tip over discriminator as taught by Fukushima et al. in order to increase safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 7/14/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see
http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights