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 § 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 11, 12 and 16-18 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.
Claims 11, 16 and 17 recite the limitation a “tip detect sensor”. This limitation renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what exactly is intended to be claimed (e.g. is there a sensor in the tip of the device, does the device have a sensor that detects the tip, a combination thereof, something else entirely, etc.).
Claims 12 and 18 are similarly rejected for being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Zhou (US 2022/0387252).
Zhou discloses a pole tamper comprising: a handle; a motor supported by the handle and operably coupled to a battery pack to receive electrical current therefrom; a shoe movably supported by the handle; and a drive mechanism operably coupled to the motor, the drive mechanism configured to move the shoe in a reciprocating manner [Figure 1; Abstract].
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US 2018/0016764).
Regarding claim 13, Hamilton discloses a pole tamper comprising: a handle [14]; a motor [Paragraphs 5 & 15] supported by the handle; a shoe [8] supported by the handle; a drive mechanism [Paragraph 13] operably coupled to the motor, the drive mechanism configured to move the shoe in a reciprocating manner; a remote power unit unsupported by the handle [outlet where the cord plugs in; Paragraph 13]; and a cable configured to transmit electrical current from the remote power unit to the motor [Paragraph 13].
Regarding claims 14 and 15, it would have been inherent to include a motor control unit on the device [e.g. a switch to turn it off/on].
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) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US 2018/0016764) in view of Steffen (US 2013/0279980).
Regarding claim 1, Hamilton discloses Hamilton discloses a pole tamper comprising: a handle [14]; a motor [Paragraphs 5 & 15] supported by the handle; a shoe [8] supported by the handle; a drive mechanism [Paragraph 13] operably coupled to the motor, the drive mechanism configured to move the shoe in a reciprocating manner.
Hamilton fails to disclose a battery pack coupled to the motor.
Steffan teaches a tamper comprising a battery pack [13] connected to, and powering, the motor.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to substitute the corded component of Hamilton for the battery pack as described by Steffan to extend the range of use of the device.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hamilton further discloses the drive mechanism includes a piston directly attached to the shoe [Paragraphs 5 and 13].
Specifically regarding claim 3, although Hamilton does not explicitly disclose the piston and shoe having a housing and spring therebetween, the connection between these two components lacks criticality as the Specification indicates that either option is acceptable.
Regarding claim 4, Steffen further discloses a receptacle for the battery [14].
Regarding claim 5, although the combination is silent as to the placement of the motor control unit, it would have been obvious to put such a component (e.g. an on/off switch) on the handle as that’s where the user’s hands would be located while utilizing the device, therefore it would be most easy for the user to activate it.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton (US 2018/0016764) in view of Williams (US 9580879).
Hamilton fails to disclose the device having a gyroscope and a tip detect sensor.
Williams teaches a remotely operable reciprocating compactor having gyroscopes to detect a position of the device, which would include the tip [Column 11, Lines 18-42].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hamilton by adding the gyroscopes as described by Williams to be able to operate the in a small-space or dangerous (e.g. in an excavation) environment where an operator may not be able to follow the device into, thereby increasing versatility, and subsequently profit.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hamilton-Steffan combination as applied to claims 1-5 and 9 above, and further in view of Williams (US 9580879).
The Hamilton-Steffan combination fails to disclose the device having a gyroscope and a tip detect sensor.
Williams teaches a remotely operable reciprocating compactor having gyroscopes to detect a position of the device, which would include the tip [Column 11, Lines 18-42].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of the Hamilton-Steffan combination by adding the gyroscopes as described by Williams to be able to operate the in a small-space or dangerous (e.g. in an excavation) environment where an operator may not be able to follow the device into, thereby increasing versatility, and subsequently profit.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Hamilton-Williams combination as applied to claims 16, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of Steffen (US 2013/0279980).
The Hamilton-Williams combination fails to disclose a battery pack coupled to the motor.
Steffan teaches a tamper comprising a battery pack [13] connected to, and powering, the motor.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to substitute the corded component of the Hamilton-Williams combination for the battery pack as described by Steffan to extend the range of use of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest – either alone or in combination – the remote power unit to which the battery pack is attached is unsupported by the handle of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morris et al. (US 2006/0165488) discloses a hand held tamping device that can have a battery, and it is unlikely that it is not on the handle of the device, but it is unspecified where exactly it is.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619