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 .
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.
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.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breeding, US 7,175,365 B1 in view of Richardson et al., US 8,342,489 B1.
Regarding claim 11, Breeding teaches a vibrating screed (Figure 24) comprising:
a frame including a handle (unnumbered, clearly shown at the top of Figure 24) terminating at an end;
a screed member (surfacing blade 40) coupled to the frame;
a motor (37) coupled to the frame; and
an exciter assembly (column 6 lines 20-28 and lines 58-65) coupled to the frame and configured to vibrate the screed member in response to receiving torque from the motor.
Breeding discusses the vibrating screed having vibration isolators to reduce the amount of vibrations transmitted to the handle bar (column 7 lines 53-55). While Breeding fails to disclose a tuned mass system coupled to the handle, Richardson teaches a handlebar vibration damping assembly comprising a tuned mass system within the ends of the handlebar where a user would grip, the tuned mass system comprising a spring member (22) having a first end and a tuned mass (weight 12) coupled to an opposite, second end of the spring member (Figures 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Breeding’s handle to include a tuned mass system coupled to the handle, the tuned mass system comprising a spring member having a first end and a tuned mass coupled to an opposite, second end of the spring member in view of Richardson disclosing that the tuned mass system is designed to reduce vibrations which are felt through the handlebars (column 3 lines 39-40) which is the same concern as discussed by Breeding. Since Breeding’s handle includes an end cap (unnumbered but shown in Figure 24) and the end cap is coupled to the handle adjacent the end, it is an obvious modification that the spring member has a first end coupled to the end cap (via a bolt as disclosed by Richardson). The resulting combination yields the tuned mass system being configured to attenuate vibration emitted by the motor or the exciter assembly to the handle.
Regarding claim 12, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the spring member comprises a coil spring, the Examiner takes Official Notice that a coil spring is an old and well-known spring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring member of the resulting combination to be a coil spring as a functional equivalent that is commonly available.
Regarding claim 13, the resulting combination includes the spring member comprising a spring steel (Richardson’s column 3 last line through column 4 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, the resulting combination includes the end cap being aligned along a cap axis.
Regarding claim 15, the resulting combination includes the cap axis extending through a center of the end cap.
Regarding claim 16, the resulting combination includes the cap axis being coaxial with the handle (looking at Breeding’s Figure 24, from a bend at the handlebar to the end).
Regarding claim 17, since the spring member is a spring steel, it is naturally expected that it would be elastically deformable such that the tuned mass becomes misaligned (when the spring steel flexes) with the cap axis upon vibration of the handle (evidenced by Richardson’s Figure 4, the tuned mass is only attached on one end by the spring member, and the tuned mass is shown with space around it to move).
Regarding claim 18, since neither Breeding nor Richardson disclose the end of the handle or end cap deflecting, the resulting combination includes the end cap not being able to deflect with respect to the handle.
Regarding claim 19, the resulting combination includes the tuned mass moving within the handle to attenuate vibration transmitted to the handle (evidenced by Richardson’s Figure 4, the tuned mass is only attached on one end by the spring member, and the tuned mass is shown with space around it to move).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Sperfslage, US 2012/0251241 A1 is cited for teaching a hand-operated screed with vibration dampening to reduce operator fatigue by minimizing vibrations going to the handle. CN 208762840 U is cited for teaching a vibrating tamping machine with handles that minimize vibrational damage to a machine operator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights