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 1-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessel, US 10,209,739 B2 in view of Buschmann, US 10,618,392 B2 (hereinafter will be referred to as “Buschmann ‘392”); Buschmann et al., US 10,087,588 B2 (hereinafter will be referred to as “Buschmann ‘588”); and Noll, US 2016/0090102 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Nessel teaches a road paver comprising:
a control system (digital or electric functions of the road paver);
a main operator control stand (11);
a main drive (engine);
a paving screed (31); and
an operating unit (1’) which is arranged outside the main operator control stand and has a plurality of operating elements (shown in Figures 4A and 4B), wherein the operating elements include an operating element that is operable to switch the control system on and/or off (column 5 line 62 through column 6 line 10); an operating element that is operable to start and/or stop the main drive (starting the engine of the road finishing machine; column 1 lines 48-49) and an operating element that is operable to lift and/or lower the paving screed (automatically adjusting screeds; column 1 line 52).
While Nessel fails to disclose an operating element that is operable to lift and/or lower the roof Buschmann ‘392 teaches a road paver with screed that has a height-adjustable roof (column 3 lines 65-67), and that access control allows for automatically changing the position of the roof by upward or downward movement. In view of Nessel providing automatic controls to the auxiliary operating unit so that the operator can control functions of the road paver without having to enter the main operator control stand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a height-adjustable roof and an operating element that is operable to lift and/or lower the roof in view of Buschmann ‘392’s disclosure for better operation such as between transport and deployment positions and to allow the operator to adjust the roof easily when necessary.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose an operating element that is operable to switch on and/or off the at least one lighting element, Buschmann ‘588 teaches a road paver and discloses secondary operational controls and having an operational lighting control for switching off or on lighting on the road paver for illuminating the surrounding work area (column 3 lines 15-18). 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 resulting combination to provide at least one lighting element and an operating element that is operable to switch on and/or off the at least one lighting element in view of Buschmann ‘588’s disclosure so that the surrounding work area is better visible and to allow the operator to turn the lighting on or off easily as necessary.
While the resulting combination fails to disclose that the control system is configured to allow starting of the main drive even before the control system itself is fully set to an operating mode after power-up, Noll teaches a road paver and discloses “[a]nother advantage consists in the control unit being configured in a way as to generate at least one output signal with a time lag during the start of the engine, which is used to set a further operating function of the road paver to a status of operational readiness so that the operator does not need to activate it himself anymore. This is particularly useful for (basic) operating functions that require a certain lead time, i.e., a warm-up of the engine, before they are activated themselves. These can in particular be hydraulically actuated units of the road paver.” ([0017]). 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 resulting combination to configure the control system to allow starting of the main drive even before the control system itself is fully set to an operating mode after power-up in view of Noll’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 2, the resulting combination includes the operating unit (Nessel’s 1’) being detachably arranged (on a docking station without tools required; Abstract) on a portion of the road paver (Nessel’s Figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, the resulting combination includes the limitation since Nessel discloses that the operating unit can be connected to an external charging cable (column 3 lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 4, while not explicitly disclosed that the cable has a detachable plug connection, the Examiner took Official Notice in the office action dated 6/18/2024 that cables with a detachable plug connection are old and well-known. Applicant failed to adequately challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cable with a detachable plug connection so that the cable may be put away after the operating unit is fully charged.
Regarding claim 5, the resulting combination includes the operating unit being connected to the control system by means of a radio connection (Nessel’s column 4 lines 52-56).
Regarding claim 6, the resulting combination includes the operating unit being arranged on the paving screed (Nessel’s Figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, as shown in Nessel’s Figure 5, the resulting combination includes the operating unit being arranged on a paving screed climb.
Regarding claim 9, as shown in Nessel’s Figure 4A, the resulting combination includes the operating unit comprises one or a plurality of display elements, each of which is operable to display information of one component which can be adjusted by means of one of the operating elements (Nessel further discloses “a plurality of operating parameters… whose values or settings can be seen on the display unit 3”; column 7 lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 10, Buschmann ‘588 further discloses that the lighting “is configured to go out only after a predetermined period of time has lapsed after the operational lighting control has been actuated for switching off the part of the lighting” to allow the operator some time to safely leave the road finishing machine (column 3 lines 28-33). 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 resulting combination to include the at least one lighting element be configured to go out after a predetermined period of time has elapsed following operation of the operating element to switch on and/or off the at least one lighting element in view of Buschmann ‘588’s further disclosure to allow the operator time to safely leave the road paver with the aid of lighting after the lighting has been switched off.
Regarding claim 11, the resulting combination includes the limitation since Buschmann ‘392 discloses a lifting mechanism for lifting and lowering the roof (hydraulic or electric drive for moving the roof; column 4 lines 19-20), wherein the lifting mechanism comprises an automatically releasable and automatically lockable end position lock (“automatically perform a position change”; column 3 lines 65-67 and “automatic locking in the storage position”; column 4 lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 13, the resulting combination includes the operating unit comprising operating elements which are provided for controlling functions of the road paver in paving operation.
Regarding claim 14, the elements of the resulting combination of claim 1 make obvious the method steps claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Buschmann ‘588 further discloses that an automatic function can be possible when the main drive (engine) of the road finishing machine is deactivated (column 5 lines 5-14) such as switching on lighting or transferring from storage state to deployed state. Since Buschmann ‘588 discloses automatic control, the resulting combination already includes a control system, and a memory simply holds stored instructions for a controller to carry out, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control system be configured to load and/or provide a first software part (which is required for a controller to perform any function) that does not comprise all machine functions of the road paver into a working memory until the start of the main drive to allow certain functions to be performed automatically until the start of the main drive in view of Buschmann ‘588’s further disclosure.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the resulting combination from claim 16, it is an obvious modification to have the control system be configured to load or activate remaining software parts after starting the main drive that allow the control system to change over to the operating mode in which all machine functions are available to be able to fully use the road paver when the main drive is ready.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessel in view of Buschmann ‘392; Buschmann ‘588; and Noll as applied to claim 1, further in view of Erdtmann et al., US 10,843,638 B2.
Regarding claim 8, while the resulting combination fails to disclose a lockable cover which, when locked, prevents access to the operating unit, Erdtmann teaches a remote control holder for a road paver (Abstract) and discloses a lockable housing which includes a lockable cover which, when locked, prevents access to the operating unit (column 1 line 66 through column 2 line 3). 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 resulting combination to include a lockable cover which, when locked, prevents access to the operating unit in view of Erdtmann’s disclosure for safety reasons.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nessel in view of Buschmann ‘392; Buschmann ‘588; and Noll as applied to claim 1, further in view of Marsolek, US 11,207,995 B2.
Regarding claim 18, Marsolek teaches a paving system and discloses that the control system may be located on the paving machine and may also include components located remotely, and that the controller may be in communication with sensors configured to provide data of various operating parameters including components or systems of the paving machine (column 9 lines 16-42). 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 resulting combination to have the control system of the resulting combination be configured to query interfaces to identify in which configuration the road paver is set up in view of Marsolek’s disclosure to be able to correctly operate the components and therefore the road paver.
Regarding claim 19, since Marsolek further discloses that the paving system may include one or more other machines such as a tractor (column 3 line 54), in view of the resulting combination and Marsolek’s disclosure (column 9 lines 16-42), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the road paver further comprise a tractor on which the paving screed is installed wherein the control system is configured to query interfaces to identify the paving screed installed on the tractor to be able to determine the components or systems of the paving machine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues against the use of Noll in the rejection, stating “Noll does not make any disclosures about the readiness of the control system itself” (first full paragraph on the page numbered “4” of Arguments). This argument is not persuasive since it appears that if there is an output signal with a time lag, the main drive would be started before the control system itself is fully set to an operating mode. Applicant’s statements about Noll in lines 1-3 of page “4” of the Arguments actually appear to support Examiner’s position; if there is a time lag on additional functions, the control system is not fully set to an operating mode. Applicant seems to be arguing more than what is claimed. There is nothing claimed specifically about the control system or what it is doing, and the claim as written is very broad.
Regarding the rejection to claim 16, Applicant argues against the use of Buschmann ‘588 on the page numbered “5” of the Arguments. “Buschmann is silent about any software loading conditions of an operating unit itself or in which conditions a control unit is able to allow operating functions.” This appears to be more than what is claimed. “Provide a first software part” as claimed in claim 16 could be almost anything that helps to perform a function by a control system. Column 5, lines 5-14 of Buschmann ‘588 was relied on for the teaching of limiting functions or having some parts functional, to allow certain functions to be performed automatically until the start of the main drive. If Applicant is intending for more specific limitations, they have not yet been claimed.
Regarding the rejection to claim 17, Applicant argues that Buschmann ‘588 teaches the exact opposite of the limitation of claim 17. However, as applied in claim 16, Buschmann ‘588 was relied on fir the teaching of limiting functions or having some parts functional. For claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate remaining software parts when the main drive is ready so that the road paver is fully operational.
Under the Conclusion portion of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant provides a generic statement: “Applicant does not acquiesce to such conclusions and instead respectfully requests citation of a reference that supports the official or judicial notice or common knowledge claim”. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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