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 Objections Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 44 lists the “the laser-operated device;” however, the series of claims from which claim 44 depends do not list a laser-operated device . Appropriate correction is required. 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 30-36 and 38-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears, US 2020/0002909 A1, in view of Dankers , WO 2007/059553 A1 . As per Claim 30, Sears teaches a sports field maintenance system (¶ 19; vehicle 12 of Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) comprising: a remotely operated sports field maintenance device comprising a body (¶ 26; resurfacing unit 48 of Figure 1) and, supported on said body, remotely operated moving devices for moving the maintenance device on the surface of the maintained field at a desired route and speed (¶ 38); at least one remotely operated actuator for maintaining a first part of the field as desired (¶ 28; actuator 63 of Figures 1, 2 and 3); remotely used actuator control devices for controlling position, working height and/or location of the actuator as desired in relation to the body and/or a fixed point outside the maintenance device (¶ 25; through control circuit 36 of Figure 7); a shell, for protecting the maintenance device and/or for attaching the actuator (¶ 28; arm above actuator 63 of Figures 2 and 3); a remote control for entering and/or monitoring control information of the maintenance device (¶ 24; communicated through electronic sensor); a computer for processing control information of the maintenance device (¶ 24; “RAM memory, a hard disk drive and any other type of electronic memory 44” as in Figure 7); communication means for transferring control information between the computer, the remote control and the maintenance device (¶ 36; through receiver 88 of Figure 7 and “Bluetooth communication protocols”); and an additional device for maintaining a second part of the field, wherein the additional device comprises: an actuator for maintaining the second part of the field (¶ 28; “actuator 63 of each of the resurfacing units”). Sears does not expressly teach a working height setting device, with which working height of the actuator of the additional device is set based on the surface level of the first part of the field that has already been maintained. Dankers teaches a working height setting device, with which working height of the actuator of the additional device is set based on the surface level of the first part of the field that has already been maintained (¶ 11). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the field maintenance vehicle of Sears with the working height setting device of Dankers , in order to ensure an even and level playing surface. As per Claim 31, Sears does not expressly teach that the working height setting device of the actuator of the additional device works automatically. Dankers teaches that the working height setting device of the actuator of the additional device works automatically (¶ 11; through “a quick release mechanism, such as that often used on bicycle axles”). See Claim 30 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 32, Sears does not expressly teach that the actuator can be changed according to maintenance need, whereby the same maintenance device can be equipped with either ice maintenance devices or grass field maintenance devices. Dankers teaches that the actuator can be changed according to maintenance need (¶ 11; “axle height adjustment mechanisms may advantageously incorporate a quick release mechanism”), whereby the same maintenance device can be equipped with either ice maintenance devices or grass field maintenance devices (¶ 12; to work on “snow, ice, sand, grass, dirt, concrete, and asphalt”). As per Claim 33, Sears teaches that the actuator comprises a leveling device for setting the height of the field surface as desired (¶ 31; ice scraper 68 of Figure 68). As per Claim 34, Sears teaches that at least one actuator is an ice maintenance device (¶ 31; ice scraper 68 of Figure 68), and the maintenance device is arranged to set an ice surface to the desired height position along a certain working width of the actuator (¶ 26; “each of the resurfacing units 48 is urged into a stored position” as in Figures 1, 4 and 6). As per Claim 35, Sears does not expressly teach that at least one actuator is a grass maintenance device, and the maintenance device is arranged to set a grass surface to the desired height position along a certain working width of the actuator. Dankers teaches that at least one actuator is a grass maintenance device (¶ 12), and that the maintenance device is arranged to set a grass surface to the desired height position along a certain working width of the actuator (¶ 11; through “axle height adjustment mechanisms”). As per Claim 36, Sears teaches an automatic maintenance device driving program that can be selected and started by remote control (¶ 36; through “Bluetooth communication protocols”), which program comprises instruction codes for moving devices, for at least one actuator and for actuator control devices with help of which instruction codes the maintenance device automatically performs a series of maintenance procedures defined by the driving program (¶ 38). As per Claim 38, Sears teaches a method for maintaining a sports field (¶¶ 19-21), which method comprises at least the following steps: maintaining a first part of a field with an actuator (¶ 28; actuator 63 of Figures 1, 2 and 3) of a remotely operated sports field maintenance device (¶ 38); moving the sports field maintenance device on the surface of the field to be maintained at a desired route and speed with the help of moving devices (¶ 38); maintaining the field with at least one actuator attached to the maintenance device (¶ 28; with actuator 63 on resurfacing unit 48 of Figure 1); setting position, working height and/or location of the actuator in relation to a body of the maintenance device and/or a fixed point outside the maintenance device as desired with actuator control devices (¶ 25; through control circuit 36 of Figure 7); protecting the maintenance device with a shell and/or attaching the actuator to the shell (¶ 28; arm above actuator 63 of Figures 2 and 3); remotely controlling the field maintenance device and its moving devices, actuator and actuator control devices via a computer and a remote control (¶ 24; communicated through electronic sensor); and maintaining a second part of the field with an additional device, wherein the second part of the field is maintained with an actuator of the additional device (¶ 28; “actuator 63 of each of the resurfacing units”). Sears does not expressly teach that the working height of the actuator of the additional device is set based on the level of the surface of the first part of the field already maintained. Dankers teaches that the working height of the actuator of the additional device is set based on the level of the surface of the first part of the field already maintained (¶ 11). See Claim 30 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 39, Sears does not expressly teach that the working height of the actuator of the additional device is set automatically. Dankers teaches that the working height of the actuator of the additional device is set automatically (¶ 11; through “a quick release mechanism, such as that often used on bicycle axles”). See Claim 30 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 40, Sears does not expressly teach that the same maintenance device can be equipped with either ice maintenance devices or grass field maintenance devices, whereby the actuator of the maintenance device is changed according to the maintenance need. Dankers teaches that the same maintenance device can be equipped with either ice maintenance devices or grass field maintenance devices (¶ 12; to work on “snow, ice, sand, grass, dirt, concrete, and asphalt”), whereby the actuator of the maintenance device is changed according to the maintenance need (¶ 11; “axle height adjustment mechanisms may advantageously incorporate a quick release mechanism”). See Claim 30 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 41, Sears teaches at least the following steps: selecting and starting an automatic driving program of the maintenance device by remote control (¶ 36; through “Bluetooth communication protocols”), which program comprises instruction codes for the moving devices, the at least one actuator and the actuator control devices (¶ 38), with the help of which the maintenance device automatically performs a series of maintenance procedures (¶ 38; to “re-condition the ice 14 in the ice skating rink 16 for ice skating in accordance with parameters entered with the user interface 38” as per Figures 3 and 7). As per Claim 42, Sears teaches that the height of the field surface is set as desired using a field leveling device as an actuator (¶ 31; ice scraper 68 of Figure 68). As per Claim 43, Sears does not expressly teach: setting the height of the field surface as desired on the first part of the field surface with the help of the mentioned remotely operated maintenance device; and setting the height of the field surface as desired on the second part of the field surface with the help of the additional device. Dankers teaches: setting the height of the field surface as desired on the first part of the field surface with the help of the mentioned remotely operated maintenance device (¶ 11; to adjust “all, or selected, wheels”); and setting the height of the field surface as desired on the second part of the field surface with the help of the additional device (¶ 11; “such that the protrusion of the central wheel may be adjusted”). See Claim 30 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. Claims 37 and 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sears in view of Dankers as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Pirila , US 2004/0187357 A1 . As per Claim 37, Sears and Dankers do not teach a laser-operated control device for controlling the working height of the actuator as desired in relation to the fixed point outside the maintenance device. Pirila teaches a laser-operated control device for controlling the working height of the actuator as desired in relation to the fixed point outside the maintenance device (¶¶ 14-16; laser beam 11 of Figures 1 and 3). At the time of the invention, a person of skill in the art would have thought it obvious to combine the field maintenance vehicle of Sears with the working height setting device of Dankers and the laser system of Pirila , in order to reduce the amount of maintenance work required on a playing surface. As per Claim 44, Sears and Dankers do not expressly teach that on the first part of the field surface, the working height of the actuator of the maintenance device is set as desired in relation to the fixed point outside the maintenance device by means of the laser-operated control device. Pirila teaches that on the first part of the field surface, the working height of the actuator of the maintenance device is set as desired in relation to the fixed point outside the maintenance device by means of the laser-operated control device (¶¶ 13-14). See Claim 37 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. [no antecedent basis] As per Claim 45, Sears does not expressly teach that on the second part of the field surface, the working height of the additional device is set as desired based on the height of the surface of the first part of the field already set to the desired height. Dankers teaches that on the second part of the field surface, the working height of the additional device is set as desired based on the height of the surface of the first part of the field already set to the desired height (¶ 11; “such that the desired terrain- clearance and/or conveyance agility may be achieved”). See Claim 30 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 46, Sears teaches that at least one actuator is an ice maintenance device (¶ 31; ice scraper 68 of Figure 68), and that with the maintenance device, an ice surface is set to the desired height position along a certain working width of the actuator (¶ 26; “each of the resurfacing units 48 is urged into a stored position” as in Figures 1, 4 and 6). As per Claim 47, Sears teaches: that the height of the ice field surface is set as desired on the first part of the field surface with the help of a remotely operated ice maintenance device (¶ 36; through “Bluetooth communication protocols”); and that the height of the ice field surface is set as desired on the second part of the field surface with the help of a human-driven ice resurfacer (¶ 21; as the vehicle “is manipulated by a user”). As per Claim 48, Sears and Dankers do not expressly teach that the ice resurfacer is driven over the first part of the field already partially set to the desired height, so that the ice resurfacer measures the height of the surface of the first part and sets the working height of its maintenance device to the same; and later the ice resurfacer is partially driven over the surface of the ice it has already set so that the ice resurfacer measures the height of the surface it has already set, and sets the working height of its maintenance device to the same. Pirila teaches: that the ice resurfacer is driven over the first part of the field already partially set to the desired height (¶¶ 13-14), so that the ice resurfacer measures the height of the surface of the first part and sets the working height of its maintenance device to the same (¶ 16); and that later the ice resurfacer is partially driven over the surface of the ice it has already set so that the ice resurfacer measures the height of the surface it has already set, and sets the working height of its maintenance device to the same (¶ 16; “by setting the laser receiver 8 at the right elevation” as in Figure 1). See Claim 37 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. As per Claim 49, Sears and Dankers do not expressly teach that the first part of the field surface is an edge of an ice field equipped with a board, whereby the surface of the field next to the board is leveled with the help of the remotely operated ice maintenance device. Pirila teaches that the first part of the field surface is an edge of an ice field equipped with a board (¶ 12; as defined by outer edge walls as illustrated in Figure 3), whereby the surface of the field next to the board is leveled with the help of the remotely operated ice maintenance device (¶ 15; “the maximum values of the blades level the surface of the ice 6” as shown in Figures 1 and 2). See Claim 37 above for the rationale based on obviousness, motivations and reasons to combine. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ATUL TRIVEDI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4908 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri; 9:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Peter Nolan can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7016 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT ATUL TRIVEDI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3661 /ATUL TRIVEDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661