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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 214. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means on the upper surface for engaging a control element for manipulating the concrete float” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 61 is 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.
Claim 61 recites the limitation "the interface component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim should depend from claim 60.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-3, 6-9, 54-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by McMahon (GB 2228759).
McMahon teaches a concrete float comprising: a float body (15) extending longitudinally having an upper surface and a finishing surface (15) opposite the upper surface; means (16/18) on the upper surface for engaging a control element (13) for manipulating the concrete float; a longitudinally extending first substantially square edge (figure 4; corner between 15 and 20) at a first portion of the finishing surface; and a ramp (12) and second substantially square edge (top flat surface of 14) at a second portion of the finishing surface wherein the first and second portions of the finishing surface are on opposite sides of the manipulating means.
With regards to claim 2, the finishing surface is substantially flat between the first and second portions (figure 4).
With regards to claim 3, the first square edge at the first portion of the finishing surface includes a finishing side (bottom of corner on 15) substantially parallel to the finishing surface and a first perpendicular wall (20) extending substantially perpendicular to the finishing side in a direction opposite the finishing surface.
With regards to claim 6, the float has a float profile in transverse cross-section that is asymmetric relative to a longitudinally extending plane perpendicularly intersecting a middle portion of the float (figure 3).
With regards to claim 7, the ramp extends arcuately out of a plane of the finishing surface and away from the finishing surface (figure 3).
With regards to claim 8, the ramp extends from the finishing surface to a substantially flat longitudinally extending wall on a side of the ramp opposite the finishing surface (from 15 to the flat top of 15).
With regards to claim 9, the second substantially square edge extends from the ramp in a direction opposite from the finishing surface and wherein the second substantially square edge extends substantially perpendicular to the ramp (figure 4).
With regards to claim 54, McMahon teaches a method of using a float for finishing concrete comprising: positioning a concrete float extending longitudinally so that the concrete float can be moved transversely of a longitudinal axis of the float in a forward direction and a backward direction, wherein the concrete float includes a finishing surface (15) extending longitudinally along a longitudinal axis and transversely of the axis, a sealing surface (20) on a forward portion of the float, and a ramp portion (12) on a backward portion of the float with a cutting edge (top flat surface of 14) on the ramp portion opposite the finishing surface; moving the concrete float backward such that the finishing surface contacts a surface of the concrete; and moving the concrete float backward such that at least one of the ramp portion and the cutting edge contacts the surface of the concrete.
With regards to claim 55, moving the concrete float forward with the ramp portion contacting the concrete surface (figure 4).
With regards to claim 56, moving the concrete float backward includes scraping concrete with the cutting edge (when moved in the opposite direction as shown in figure 4).
With regards to claim 57, the concrete float ramp portion includes a substantially flat surface adjacent the cutting edge and wherein moving the concrete float backward includes moving the concrete float backward such that the substantially flat surface moves along the concrete surface with the cutting edge in contact with the concrete surface.
With regards to claim 58, scraping concrete with the cutting edge along the surface of the concrete (figure 4 shows that the cutting edge is in contact with the concrete).
With regards to claim 59, the means on the upper surface for engaging a control element includes means for engaging at least one of a mounting bracket on a control element, a pivot assembly, and a handle (13).
With regards to claim 60, the means on the upper surface for engaging a control element includes an interface component (16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5, 10-17 and 61-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon (GB 2228759) in view of Baratta (PGPub 20180327981).
With regards to claim 4-5 and 12-13, McMahon teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach first and second walls angled with respect to each other wherein the first wall contacts and extends away from the first perpendicular wall (claim 4) and the first and second walls form a convex surface as viewed from the second portion of the finishing surface (claim 5). McMahon also fails to teach first and second walls angled with respect to each other wherein the first wall contacts and extends away from the substantially square edge (claim 12) and that the first and second walls angled with respect to each other form a convex surface as viewed from the first portion of the finishing surface (claim 13).
Baratta teaches a float with a first and second portion. The first portion comprises a first perpendicular wall (430). There is a first wall (444; figure 1) and a second wall (446) angled with respect to each other and the first wall extends away from the first perpendicular wall. The first and second wall form a convex surface when viewed from the first and second portion of the finishing surface (arrows below are point to the convex surfaces).
PNG
media_image1.png
210
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McMahon so that the first portion comprises a first and second wall extending from the square edge to further direct the concrete when being spread and to keep concrete out of the interior of the float.
With regards to claims 10-11, McMahon teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach the ramp extends arcuately over an arc having a radius of curvature of approximately between 30 and 45 mm (claim 10), wherein the radius of curvature is approximately 38 mm (claim 11).
Baratta teaches a ramp with a radius of curvature (figure 13G, element 497B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McMahon so that the ramp has a radius of curvature as taught by Baratta to allow for an improved finish on the concrete. Further, 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 radius of curvature so that it is between 30-45mm and more specifically approximately 38mm since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. A device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and therefore the claimed device is not patentable.
With regards to claims 14-15, McMahon teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach the float includes a channel and a channel cover covering at least a portion of the channel (claim 14) and that the means on the upper surface for engaging a control element for manipulating the concrete float is positioned in the channel (claim 15).
Baratta teaches a float with a channel (412/414 hollow portion between; figure 14). There is a cover (508; figure 14) that covers at least a portion of the channel and the means for engaging a control element is positioned within the channel (508 receives 600).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McMahon’s means for engaging a control element with the adaptor as taught by Baratta to allow for a quick disconnect and the ability to use the float on various types of control elements.
With regards to claim 16, McMahon teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach each end of the float includes a bevel in the float finishing surface.
Baratta teaches a float with a bevel in the float finishing surface (figure 48-50, with all edges being beveled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McMahon so that all the ends are beveled as taught by Baratta to help spread concrete and create a smooth finish.
With regards to claim 17, McMahon teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach the float includes rail protectors.
Baratta teaches a float with rail protectors (458, 460).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McMahon so that it comprises rail protectors as taught by Baratta to prevent concrete from reaching the top surface of the float.
With regards to claims 61 and 62, McMahon teaches all the essential elements of the claimed including: a concrete float comprising: a float body (15) extending longitudinally having an upper surface and a finishing surface opposite the upper surface; a longitudinally extending first substantially square edge (between 15 and 20) at a first portion of the finishing surface and a first convex wall extending from the first substantially square edge away from the finishing surface as viewed from the first portion of the finishing surface (arrow on figure below shows convex); and a ramp (12) and second substantially square edge (flat top of 14) at a second portion of the finishing surface, and a second convex wall extending from the second substantially square edge away from the finishing surface as viewed from the second portion of the finishing surface (arrow on figure below shows convex) and wherein the first and second portions of the finishing surface are on opposite sides of the manipulating means.
PNG
media_image2.png
188
219
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McMahon however fails to teach a dovetail element for engaging a control element for manipulating the concrete float.
Baratta teaches a dovetail element for engaging the float with the control element (600; figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McMahon so that interface element between the float and the control element is dovetail as taught by Baratta since it will ensure a tight connection with a quick release.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights