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 .
This final Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 4/2/2026.
Currently, claims 1-8 and 10-17 are pending and examined.
Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-8 and 10-17 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.
Re claim 1, line 2; a citation “the device” does not have a proper antecedent basis, unless the Applicant meant “the screed grading device”? Correction is required. Claims 2-8 and 10-17 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected.
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) 1-8, 10-12, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 6,536,717 to Parker.
Re claims 1, 10: Parker discloses a screed grading device comprising: a base 9 (Fig. 3), configured to support the device on a substrate; and a platform 1 (Fig. 2), coupled to the base 9 by one or more spacing members 4, the platform 1 configured to provide a reference surface for screeding the substrate; wherein the platform 1 includes one or more notches (i.e. wherein near 2 in Fig. 2) in a periphery of the platform 1 configured to support a string wherein a height of the platform 1 relative to the base 9 is adjustable member (i.e. adjustable by 12/6).
Re claim 2: wherein the base 9 and platform 1 are coupled by a threaded spacing mechanism 12/5 (i.e. as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the height of the platform 1 is adjustable relative to the base 7 by rotation of the platform relative to the base (Fig. 4).
Re claim 3: wherein a first threaded member (i.e. wherein 12 points to, Fig. 4) extends upwardly from base 7, and a second threaded member 5 extends downwardly from platform 1.
Re claim 4: wherein the first and second threaded members 12/5 include inwardly and outwardly threaded spacing members (see Fig. 4), wherein the outwardly threaded spacing member configured to be received in, and engage with, the inwardly threaded spacing member (Fig. 4).
Re claim 5: wherein the platform 1 includes a screw drive 6, enabling the platform 1 to be rotated by a tool.
Re claim 6: wherein the platform 1 comprises a substantially planar upper surface (see Fig. 4).
Re claim 7: wherein the platform 1 is substantially planar (Fig. 4).
Re claim 8: wherein the platform 1 is substantially circular in shape (Fig. 4).
Re claim 11: comprising an upper member, unitarily formed of plastic, and lower member, unitarily formed of plastic (col. 3, line 41).
Re claim 12: wherein the base 9 includes a substantially planar lower surface (i.e. wherein a fastener positioned at, Fig. 4).
Re claim 14: wherein the base 9 includes an adhesive on a lower surface thereof (col. 3, line 60).
Re claim 17: wherein the base 9 includes one or more supports 8, for supporting rebar above the substrate.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 6,536,717 to Parker.
Parker discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the base is substantially planar; and includes double sided tape on a lower surface thereof. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base substantially planar and a double-sided tape on a lower surface thereof in order to optimize the double-sided tape is fully secure on the planar surface; therefore, providing more securement for supporting a device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
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 communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights