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 § 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:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen et al. (EP 3 456 879 A1) in view of Ebisawa et al. (2022/0389727) (Ebisawa).
Regarding claim 1, Steffen discloses a vibrating plate compactor for compacting earth, soil or substrate (vibrating plate 1 for soil compaction, including ground-contact plate 4 and vibration exciter device 6), the vibrating plate compactor comprising an electric motor (7) that drives an eccentric mass (8). Steffen does not expressly disclose that the electric motor has an operable speed range of more than 12,000 revolutions per minute. Ebisawa teaches a brushless electric motor (6) of a construction vibrator that is operable at 15,000 revolutions per minute (250 Hz), as selected using speed-switch button (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a motor operable at the known 15,000-rpm setting taught by Ebisawa as the electric motor of Steffen’s vibration exciter, to provide a selectable high-speed drive for generating vibrations with Steffen’s electric compactor and as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa teaches that its electric motor (7) may be a brushless DC motor. Regarding claim 7, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa teaches an energy-storage element (3) that supplies electrical power to electric motor (7). Regarding claim 12, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa teaches operating its vibrating plate compactor by electrically driving motor (7) to rotate eccentric mass (8) and vibrate ground-contact plate (4) and operating the vibrator motor (6) in a speed range of more than 12,000 revolutions per minute (15000 rpm).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen et al. (EP 3 456 879 A1) in view of Ebisawa et al. (2022/0389727) (Ebisawa) and in further view of Glanzer (WO2021010999).
Regarding claim 2, Steffen and Ebisawa teaches the vibrating plate compactor as claimed above. Steffen further teaches control electronics (10) and an energy-storage element (3) supplying electric motor (7), but does not teach arranging the power supply within a drive unit behind the motor. Glanzer teaches a battery-powered plate compactor (42) having an electric motor (58), control electronics (86), and a battery (66); battery (66) is toward the handle (72) and behind motor (58; Figure 2). Glanzer also teaches locating control electronics (86) in housing (88). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Steffen’s power supply toward the handle side and behind its motor, as taught by Glanzer, to package the motor and power-supply components in the known battery-powered plate-compactor arrangement as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen et al. (EP 3 456 879 A1) in view of Ebisawa et al. (2022/0389727) (Ebisawa), Glanzer (WO2021010999) and in further view of Mitsui (US 7,213,479 B2).Regarding claim 4, Steffen and Ebisawa teaches the vibrating plate compactor as claimed above. Steffen fails to teach a power train following the motor that includes spur gearing. Glanzer teaches a plate compactor having a gear train (74) between motor shaft (78) and exciter shaft (82), so that the exciter may rotate at a speed different from the motor. Mitsui teaches transmitting motor rotation to an eccentric vibratory shaft through a spur drive gear (23) meshed with a driven gear (26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the gear train in Steffen taught by Glanzer using the known spur-gear drive taught by Mitsui, to transmit rotation from the selected high-speed motor to an eccentric shaft at a desired exciter speed and as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.Regarding claim 5, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa, Glanzer and Mitsui teaches the invention as described above. Furhter, Mitsui’s drive gear (23) directly meshes with driven gear (26) on the vibratory shaft, providing one gear-mesh stage between the motor drive and that shaft.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen et al. (EP 3 456 879 A1) in view of Ebisawa et al. (2022/0389727) (Ebisawa), Glanzer (WO2021010999) and Mitsui (US 7,213,479 B2) and in further view of Laugwitz (DE 10 2017 008535).Regarding claim 6, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa, Glanzer and Mitsui teaches the invention as described above and further teach a high-speed motor and a spur-gear drive between the motor and the exciter but do not expressly state a transmission ratio of 2.5 to 6. Laugwitz teaches that vibrating plates typically have vibration frequencies in the range of 35 to 100 Hz. At the 15,000-rpm motor setting expressly taught by US 2022/0389727 A1, a 2.5:1 reduction produces an exciter speed of 6,000 rpm, or 100 Hz. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a 2.5:1 ratio for the proposed spur gearing to operate the eccentric exciter of Steffen at the known 100-Hz plate-vibration frequency while using the known 15,000-rpm motor setting as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen et al. (EP 3 456 879 A1) in view of Ebisawa et al. (2022/0389727) (Ebisawa) and in further view of Heimrich (WO 2022/184697).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the at least one power supply device includes two power supply devices. Heimrich teaches supplying a compacting power tool from first and second battery packs (202a, 202b), and identifies a plate compactor as a contemplated compacting power tool. It would have been obvious to provide Steffen’s battery-powered compactor with the two-pack supply taught by Heimrich to provide electrical power from two removable packs and as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 9, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa and Heimrich teaches the invention as described above. Heimrich further teaches connecting first and second battery packs (202a, 202b) in series to provide a voltage suited to the motor.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen et al. (EP 3 456 879 A1) in view of Ebisawa et al. (2022/0389727) (Ebisawa) in further view of Snyder (WO 2021/113426).
Regarding claim 10, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach that its power supply can also power another power tool. Snyder teaches battery packs (14A, 14B) connectable to and operable to power different motorized power tools, expressly including a compactor and a core drill. It would have been obvious to configure Steffen’s battery-powered compactor to receive a pack usable in another construction power tool, as taught by Snyder, so that the pack can supply either tool and as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 14, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa teaches the vibrating plate compactor recited in claim 1. Snyder teaches a rechargeable battery pack (14A or 14B) usable to supply a compactor and another motorized power tool, such as a core drill. It would have been obvious to provide the proposed vibrating plate compactor and a battery-powered core drill with interfaces for the same pack type, as taught by Snyder, to permit that pack to be used in either tool as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffen et al. (EP 3 456 879 A1) in view of Ebisawa et al. (2022/0389727) (Ebisawa) in further view of Siverhus (2022/0344952).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Steffen as modified by Ebisawa teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the power supply has a capacity below 300 watt-hours. Siverhus teaches power-tool battery packs of 216 Wh and 90 Wh. It would have been obvious to make the power supply of Steffen with a capacity of less than 300 wh as taught by Siverhus as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Ulusal teaches a vibrator with an electric drive operating at 12000rpm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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, Chris 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 September 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights