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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2 line 24 and lines 26-27, applicant references claim 1 and claims 8 to 14 for specific features. However as claims and/or claim numbering may change during and/or after prosecution, applicant should not reference such claim numbers but rather specifically include those features that are being discussed and relied upon in that paragraph of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities:.
In order to clarify, claim 2’s recitation of “the preceding claim” should be replaced with – claim 1 --.
In claim 6 line 3 “pressed in there” should be – pressed therein --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 line 2, it is unclear whether “5” is intended to be part of the claim or not. It appears that “5” should be deleted.
Re-claim 2 line 2, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the working side”.
Re-claim 3 line 2, it is unclear whether the recitation of “weld joints” is referring to the weld joints as claimed line claim 1 or to different weld joints.
Re-claim 8 line 7, method step “e” recites “the bolt”. It is unclear whether this is referencing one or all of the “bolts” recited in step “c”. It is recommended that applicant change “the bolt” to – at least one of the bolts --.
Re-claim 9 lines 1-2, it is confusing to indicate “the preceding claim” since there are a multiple number of claims that precedes instant claim 9 thus making it unclear which of these preceding claims is being referenced. It appear that applicant intends to refer back to “claim 8” and should therefore indicate that accordingly.
Re-claim 12 lines 1-2, it is confusing to indicate “the preceding claim” as there are numerous claims that precede claim 12 so it is unclear which claim is being referenced. It appears that applicant should indicate claim 11.
Re-claim 14, the claim is awkward and confusing. Note Claim 14 (a method claim) appears to depend back to claim 1 which is an apparatus claim. Did applicant intend to say: “The method for producing a smoothing trowel (10) as claimed in claim 1”? If so, then the claim does not appear to have any method process that produces such trowel. Also it is unclear what applicant is intending to claim, note “the direction from which welding takes place”, there is no such direction claimed with respect to claim 1 nor a particular feed direction of the bolts.
Re-claim 17 lines 1-2, it is confusing to indicate “the preceding claim” as there are numerous claims that precede claim 17 so it is unclear which claim is being referenced. It appears that applicant should indicate claim 16.
Re-claim 18 line 1, it is unclear whether “weld joints” is specifically referring back to the recited weld joints of claim 2 or are referencing different weld joints. Note “weld joints” should be recited as – the weld joints --. Also “the region” on line 2 should be – a region --.
Claims 4-7, 10-11, 13 and 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher II et al DE2700739 in view of Heywood GB 1081582
Regarding claim 1, Schumacher II et al. discloses a smoothing trowel (see figs 1 and 2) comprising a smoothing board (1,2), and a handle 6 in which a grip holder (7, 8, 9 and 11) connects the handle 6 to the smoothing board (1,2), wherein the grip holder is connected by a plurality of bolts 4 to the smoothing board (1,2) characterized in that recesses are provided in the smoothing board (1,2) (see figure 2 which shows the screw heads 23 in a recess of the smoothing board (2)) and bolts 4 are guided into these recesses. Schumacher II et al. does not specifically recite “weld joints” whereby the grip holder is connected by a plurality of bolts to the smoothing board.
Heywood GB 1081582 teaches in page 1 lines 50-52 that the plurality of studs/bolts 10 are welded to the metal blade 12 of a trowel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to have utilized weld joints whereby the grip holder (7,8,9, 11) is connected by a plurality of bolts (4) to the smoothing board (2,1) in the device of Schumacher II et al as taught by Heywood for a more permanent securement of the bolt and/or grip holder to the smoothing board.
Re-claim 2, note due to the breadth of the claim and since applicant had not previously defined the working side in claim 1, the side at which the bolts 4 are connected to smoothing board 1,2 as shown in figure 2 of Schumacher II et al can be considered “the working side”. It is also known in the art to utilize both sides of the trowel blade for the working/smoothing of material depending on a respective orientation of the material being worked/smoothed since both sides of the blade is substantially flat.
Re-claims 3 and 18, the device of Schumacher II et al as modified would have its weld joints provided in the region of the recess when the head of the bolts 4 is welded to the smoothing board (1,2).
Re-claim 6, note the bolts 4 are guided in feedthroughs 13 of the grip holder (7,8,9, 11) and pressed in there (Fig 2 of Schumacher II et al shows conical collar 15 of fastener 14 presses into bore 13 and thus attaches onto bolts 4 within the recess 13).
Re-claim 7, note the bolts 4 in Schumacher II et al are of the same diameter.
Re-claim 8 note the above discussions and note the method for producing the smoothing trowel is readily apparent during the assembly of the trowel parts in Schumacher II et al as modified.
Re-claim 9 note bolt 4 of Schumacher II et al is provided together with the grip holder (7,8,9,11) when assembled.
Re-claims 11 and 16, note the bolt 4 of Schumacher II et al is broadly readable as protruding “over the working side” of the smoothing board (1,2) and bolt material is displaced in the welding process into a gap between the bolt and hole (note during welding processes of the bolt head 23 within the recess would naturally displace bolt material).
Re-claim 13 note Schumacher II et al does have at least 2 holes (see figure 2 shows at least 2 bolts 4 within smoothing board (2).
Re-claim 14 and as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejection above, note the welding of the bolt head 23 of the bolt 4 occurs on a direction/side that is opposite to the other bolt end that is fed into grip holder’s (7,8,9,11) bore 13.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher II et al DE2700739 in view of Heywood GB 1081582 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Dementev et al SU 1177380.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Schumacher II et al as modified, fails to disclose the material of the smoothing board made from chromium-molybdenum steel.
Dementev et al SU 1177380 discloses a trowel that is made from tool steel comprising chromium-molybdenum steel (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the smoothing board of Schumacher II et al out of chromium-molybdenum steel as taught by Dementev et al depended upon the desired hardness of the tool steel to increase the tools durability.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 15 and 19are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumacher II as modified by Heywood as applied to claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 above, and further in view of further in view of Nespoli IT M120100896.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 15 and 19, Schumacher II as modified by Heywood does not specifically recite that its weld joints are formed by laser welding.
Nespoli teaches the old and well known technique of laser welding for fusing together two materials in a trowel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied the laser welding techniques of Nespoli into the device of Schumacher II et al as modified, since such a modification is merely an alternate equivalent welding method to attach two pieces together.
Conclusion
Claims 12 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beraud FR 2281195 discloses a trowel with studs/bolts 2 welded onto the trowel blade.
Gundlack US patent 8151404, Jimenez US Patent 9784000 and Harrington US Patent 4467492 both disclose a trowel with a handle and blade.
Tang CN 20498357 discloses a grip holder with studs 2 attached to a trowel blade 5.
Freudenreich DE 102014002951 discloses a bolt welded to the trowel blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6891. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs from 8am to 2pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Namrata Boveja, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8105. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643