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 .
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen (6,474,300) in view of Fukushima et al. (2014/0076596) (“Fukushima”).
Regarding claim 15, Steffen teaches a compacting power tool comprising: a housing; a motor (12) mounted within or on the housing; a reciprocating drive mechanism (120) coupled to the motor, wherein reciprocating drive mechanism (crank); a compacting foot (10) coupled to the reciprocating drive mechanism and configured to reciprocate and engage a surface to be compacted when the motor is operating; a user operated switch (column 4, lines 15-20) for starting operation of the compacting power tool; a controller (16) configured to cause, in response to a signal from the user operated switch, the motor to gradually increase in speed up to an operating speed (Column 4, Lines 8-48). Steffen teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the drive includes a reciprocating piston. Fukushima teaches a rammer that has a reciprocal drive mechanism coupled directly or via at least one gear (directly connected to the crankshaft 26) to the engine comprising a reciprocating piston (paragraph [0020]) movable between a first position and a second position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the piston drive of Fukushima for the drive of Steffen as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that Steffen does not teach a reciprocal drive directly connected to the engine or via one gear, the examiner agrees. However, the Fukushima reference does teach a reciprocal drive mechanism directly connected to the engine (via crankshaft 26; paragraph [0020]). Regarding applicant’s argument that Fukushima does not teach an electric engine, the examiner agrees, however, there is no limitation in the claim requiring an electric engine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the closest prior art does not teach the controller being configured to cause the motor to provide a first torque when the reciprocating piston is moving from the first position to the second position and to provide a second torque when the reciprocating piston is moving from the second position to the first position, wherein the first torque is greater than the second torque. These limitations in combination with the remaining limitations in the independent claim read over the prior art.
None of the prior art documents suggests such modulation of torque between for- and backward movement between two positions of the compacting power tool. Abbott teaches modulation of torque in response to user input (paragraph [0142]; fig. 26), or in response to battery charge state (paragraph [0024]) but fails to teach modulation of torque between forward and backward movement.
Wacker teaches monitoring a "dynamic response" with an evaluation device and in response adapt a dynamic parameter such as "torque of the drive motor" (paragraphs [0014], [0022]). There is however no indication to change the dynamic parameter in the way it is required by the features of claim 1, enabling the compaction device to make use of gravitational force.
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 ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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 at 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 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights