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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 12-15, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen US 2013/0279980 in view of Hartmann et al. US 2020/0332481. Steffen discloses a soil tamper aka “jumping jack” (1) comprising:
A housing (2), An electric motor (3), a 1st electrical storage device (13), such as an accumulator or a rechargeable battery; A reciprocating drive (6/7); a compacting foot (10) driven by the reciprocating drive (6/7) and a generator (20) configured to drive the compacting foot and utilize the electric motor (3) to charge the battery (13). Fig. 2; [0053-0056]. What Steffen does not disclose is the use of a 2nd electrical storage device. However, Hartmann et al. teach a soil compacting machine comprising:
A compacting foot (3), a housing (7), and IC engine (not shown, [0051), a battery (13) configured to provide electricity to a starter of the IC engine, to control devices and/or the electric drive of the compacting foot (3); and an additional battery such as a “traction battery” configured to independently, alternatively or in parallel with the battery (13), to drive the electric drive of the compacting foot. [0013-14, 0018-19, 0023, 47-62, 74-75].
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 Steffen with an additional energy storage device in order to create a higher overall capacity. [0075].
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen US 2013/0279980 in view of Hartmann et al. US 2020/0332481 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steffen DE 102011112711. Steffen in view of Hartmann et al. disclose essentially all that is claimed, except for a linear electric generator. However, Steffen ‘711 teach it is known rotary and linear electric generators are art recognized equivalents that allow energy harvesting during the working movement of the device. The linear generator including a magnet. 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 Steffen in view of Hartmann et al. with a linear generator as taught by Steffen as a matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen ‘980 in view of Hartmann et al. ‘481 and Steffen DE 102011112711, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Konig et al. US 3,775,019. Steffen et al. in view of Hartmann et al. and Steffen disclose essentially all that is claimed, except for the use of a capacitor. However, Konig et al. teach a soil compacting machine including a soil sensing element, such as an accelerometer in the form of an electro-magnet (60) and 1st & 2nd excitation circuits (62, 72, 82) the 2nd excitation circuit can only be increased to the power limit of the apparatus relative to the soil being compacted. A capacitor (76) forms a differentiating element together with a resistor (78) the pulse from a pulse former (80) charges an capacitor (82) involves storage which is limited with respect to
time during which a control means (90) activates a trigger stage (86). Col. 7, lns. 15-43. 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 “additional battery” of Steffen et al. in view of Hartmann et al. with the 2nd excitation circuit taught by Konig et al. in order to accommodate variations in the soil being compacted.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen US 2013/0279980 in view of Hartmann et al. US 2020/0332481 and Steffen DE 102011112711 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Steffen US 2013/0251452. Steffen in view of Hartmann et al. and Steffen ‘711 disclose essentially all that is claimed except for removable batteries. However, Steffen ‘452 teaches it is known soil compacting machines (1) can be provided with electric motors and replaceable batteries/energy storage devices such that when 1 is empty it can be removed and introduced to a charger while a 2nd battery can be installed to power the device. 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 Steffen in view of Hartmann et al. and Steffen ‘711 with replaceable, rechargeable batteries as taught by Steffen ‘452 as a matter of design choice.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen US 2013/0279980 in view of Hartmann et al. US 2020/0332481 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukushima et al. 2014/0076596. Steffen et al. in view of Hartmann et al. disclose essentially all that is claimed, except for a controller
configured to monitor the motor. However, Fukushima et al. teach a soil tamper, such as a jumping jack (10). The jumping jack comprising:
A housing (10a) including a reciprocating drive (10b).
A motor (12), A compacting foot (10c), an on/off switch (56), an ignition switch (62) and;
A controller (70) configured to receive a signal from said switches (56, 62) as well as an engine speed signal from an engine speed sensor; determine the current engine speed is below an idling speed, indicating a machine tip-over event; and send a control signal stop the engine. [0018-23, 30-0038, 0045-56]. 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 Steffen in view of Hartmann et al. with a control circuit as taught by Fukushima et al. in order to reduce wasted energy usage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. 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 2/27/2026