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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-15 and 17-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the newly amended claim language which requires new prior art interpretations as detailed below.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Williams (US 9580879).
Regarding claim 17, Williams discloses a pole tamper comprising: a handle [#7]; a motor [[#2; Figure 7; positioned in housing #4] supported by the handle; a shoe [#5] supported by the handle; a drive mechanism [piston positioned within percussion housing #24; Figure 5] operably coupled to the motor, the drive mechanism configured to move the shoe in a reciprocating manner; and a sensor [as part of IMU #650; Column 11, Lines 18-42] supported by the handle and configured to deactivate the motor in response to detection of the handle deviating from a substantially upright position [Willaims discloses the IMU can recognize a litany of parameters including disturbance from the environment to the device including positional state of the compactor body, pitch/yaw, torque/force, movement of inertia and magnitude of the system, lateral velocity, acceleration (Column 14, Line 4 to Column 15, Line 22); as such, the device is at least configured to stop moving].
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Williams further discloses the sensor is an accelerometer [Column 11, Lines 18-42] coupled to the handle [they are connected/joined together; Figure 4a], and the sensor and shoe are coupled to opposite sides of the handle [left and right sides respectively; Figure 4a].
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) 13-15, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 9580879) in view of Hamilton (US 2018/0016764).
Regarding claim 13, Williams discloses a pole tamper comprising: a handle [#7]; a motor [#2; Figure 7; positioned in housing #4] supported by the handle; a shoe [#5] supported by the handle; a drive mechanism [piston positioned within percussion housing #24; Figure 5] operably coupled to the motor, the drive mechanism configured to move the shoe in a reciprocating manner; and a sensor [as part of IMU #650; Column 11, Lines 18-42] supported by the handle and configured to deactivate the motor in response to detection of the handle deviating from a substantially upright position [Willaims discloses the IMU can recognize a litany of parameters including disturbance from the environment to the device including positional state of the compactor body, pitch/yaw, torque/force, movement of inertia and magnitude of the system, lateral velocity, acceleration (Column 14, Line 4 to Column 15, Line 22); as such, the device is at least configured to stop moving].
Williams fails to disclose a remote power unit unsupported by the handle and a cable configured to transmit electrical current from the remote power unit to the motor.
Hamilton teaches a pole tamper comprising a remote power unit unsupported by the handle and a cable configured to transmit electrical current from the remote power unit to the motor [outlet where corded plugs plug in; Paragraph 13].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Williams by substituting an internal combustion based power system for an electric, plug-in one as described by Hamilton to reduce environmental emissions, save on fuel costs, and obviate requiring to bring additional fuel wherever the device is intended to operate, thereby saving time/money and helping the environment.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, it would have been obvious to include a motor control unit on the device [e.g. a switch to turn it on/off].
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Williams further discloses the sensor is an accelerometer [Column 11, Lines 18-42] coupled to the handle [they are connected/joined together; Figure 4a], and the sensor and shoe are coupled to opposite sides of the handle [left and right sides respectively; Figure 4a].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 9580879) in view of Steffan (US 2013/0279980).
Williams fails to disclose the compactor is powered by a battery pack connected 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 one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Williams by substituting an internal combustion based power system for an electric, plug-in one as described by Steffan to reduce environmental emissions, save on fuel costs, and obviate requiring to bring additional fuel wherever the device is intended to operate and to further extend the range of use of the device, thereby saving time/money and helping the environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 7-11 are allowed.
Claim 19 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to disclose, teach or suggest – either alone or in combination – a pole tamper having a remote power unit that is unsupported by the handle and connected to a batter pack; as explicitly recited in the instant claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Becket et al. (US 2014/0161541) discloses a tamper comprising an automatic shutdown system to improve safety.
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 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
Prosecution Insights