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.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Finland on May 14th, 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claims 1 & 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 contains the trademark/trade name Velcro ™. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe Hook and Loop fasteners and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeffery L. Snyder et al, (U.S 2005/0141962) herein referred to as Snyder in view of Ahonen (US 2022/0088736) herein referred to as Ahonen-736.
Regarding Claim 1: Snyder teaches a hand-operated, walk-behind (see Fig. 2) or ride on (see Fig. 1) concrete power trowel comprising actuator including one or more operating heads (see Figs. 1 & 2) comprising a rotor consisting of two or more attachment arms (see Fig. 3), whereby troweling elements made of substantially plastic-based material (see paragraphs 0027, 0029 & Fig. 6, (70) & Fig. 7 (100)), such as a circular trowel pan (see Fig. 3) are detachably coupled to the actuator rotor, in particular to prevent discoloration of the treated floor surface during treatment (see Fig. 3, (38-removable attachment bolt for blade to rotor arm)).
Snyder does not teach wherein in a water-soluble silica-based medium is applied onto the surface of uncured concrete prior to troweling the surface as part of a method to mechanically treat concrete surface, or wherein, a silica-based medium is applied to the surface of the concrete prior mechanical troweling/polishing of the concrete surface and Snyder further does not specifically state wherein the silica medium reacts with the excess lime (calcium hydroxide) in the cement (not concrete).
Additionally, Ahonen-736 teaches (see paragraph 0035) wherein, a water-soluble silica-based medium is applied to the surface of the concrete after which the concrete surface is mechanically troweled. Ahonen-736 further teaches (see paragraph 0023) wherein, the silica-based medium impedes water evaporation from the concrete surface, thus sealing the treated surface and allowing the concrete to have sufficient moisture content and wherein the silica based medium (see paragraph 0023) reacts with the excess lime that is present in the cement.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Ahonen-736 with the machine use of Snyder, to provide the finished concrete mass a more resilient concrete finish that will be better able to withstand against knocks and soiling (see paragraph 0009).
Regarding Claim 2: Snyder & Ahonen-736 teach the method of claim 1. Ahonen-736 further teaches (see paragraph 0024) wherein, the silica-based medium that is applied to the surface of the concrete prior to troweling is preferably a nano silica-based medium. In light of the modification to use a silica-based compound, Ahonen-736 further teaches that the medium can include a nano silica based medium (Paragraph 0024). Additionally, Ahonen-736 teaches the use of nano silica allows a dry shake dosage as high as 10-15 kg/m.sup.2, thereby further improving the strength of a dry shake surface and smoothing the color differences yet without increasing the duration of floor surface processing.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the use of a nanoparticulate silica-based medium to the method use of Snyder and Jones as described in claim 1 to benefit from the improving the strength of a dry shake surface and smoothing the color differences yet without increasing the duration of floor surface finishing.
Regarding Claim 3: Snyder & Ahonen-736 teach the method of claim 1. Snyder further teaches (see paragraphs 0027 & 31) wherein the plastic trowel blade is preferably made of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene plastic that is part of the polyethylene family of plastics.
Regarding Claim 5: Snyder & Ahonen-736 teach the method of claim 1. Snyder further teaches (see paragraphs 0014, 15 & 27 and Figs. 6 & 7, 72 & 102) wherein metal-reinforced troweling elements can be used with walk behind and ride on power trowel machines.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder and Ahonen-736 as applied to Claim 1 above and in further view of Mika Ahonen (US 2022/0364375) herein referred to as Ahonen-375.
Regarding Claim 4: Snyder & Ahonen-736 teach the method of claim 1. However, Snyder & Ahonen-375 fail to teach wherein, the concrete troweling elements made from a plastic composite material are being used. However, Ahonen teaches (see Figs. 1a-c & 2a-b and paragraph 0041) wherein the troweling element tool (1b) is fabricated from a substantially thin-walled metal, plastic, composite, ceramic material and/or the like.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the plastic composite fabrication of trowel blades as taught by Ahonen-375, into the finishing blades of the concrete trowel machine of Snyder as utilizing a composite fabrication can improve wear resistance of the blades (see Ahonen-375 paragraph 0016).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder and Ahonen-736 as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Harold L. Neal (U.S 4,925,341) herein referred to as Neal.
Regarding Claim 6: Snyder & Ahonen-736 teach the method of claim 1. However, Snyder & Ahonen-736 fail to teach wherein, the concrete troweling elements capable of being connected to the actuator operating head by a quick-locking principle, such as form-locking, Velcro ™-type attachment and/or the like are being used.
However, Neal teaches (see Figs. 2-7 and Column 3=> Lines 18-24) a replaceable trowel blade wherein the blade has a quick disconnect trailing edge (2) that allows the wearing edge to be quickly changed out.
It would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the quick disconnect feature of Neal to the concrete trowel machine of Snyder, to avoid replacement of full trowel blades due to uneven wear between the front and rear edges (see Column 1=>Lines 32-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT C. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3053. The examiner can normally be reached 7.30am to 5pm.
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, Christopher 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.
/K.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights