DETAILED ACTION
The nonfinal mailed 16 January 2026 was sent in error and is hereby vacated. The following final Office action takes its place.
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 1-16 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.
The recitation of “at least one drum on a front carriage and at least one drum on a rear carriage” in lines 14-15 is indefinite because antecedent basis with respect to “a wheel or a roller drum” (line 4) is unclear. More specifically, line 4 recites the drum as optional only, which appears to contradict the latter recitation. And the latter recitation is unclear with antecedent basis with respect to the drum in line 4. Some of the options in claim 16 also appear to contradict lines 14-15, while other options do not appear to further limit these recitations.
The recitation of “5 t” in line 11 of claim 1 is indefinite because “t” is an insufficient limitation. Such an abbreviation is improper in the claims.
Claims 2-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern et al. (U.S. Patent 10,577,757).
Stern discloses a ground compaction machine (10) having a machine frame (18), a travel unit with front and rear roller drums (14, 16), a travel drive (30, 32, for example), a steering drive (steering wheel, not labeled) and an electric motor (column 3, lines 3-5, for example). There is an operator platform on the rear carriage (not labeled, Figure 1). Regarding the weight, this is not patentable subject matter, as compaction machines come in a variety of weights, including as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any machine weight desired in order to work a particular surface as needed. The machine appears to include front and rear frames steerably connected to one another via an articulated joint (not labeled, Figure 1, for example), but it is unclear if the joint is articulated. The examiner takes Official notice that compaction machines having articulated joints are well known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Stern in this manner in order to suit a particular application. Note that there is no criticality in the type of known compaction machine given in the present specification, as many different species are clearly optional alternatives. There is an electrical storage device (battery) and location thereof is left to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the electrical energy storage device as claimed, since the power components shown in Stern are already positioned as claimed (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, given the inclusion of the electric motor, some of the optional alternatives would be met.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the vibratory drive is in the drum. Given the option for an electric motor, and given that electric motor vibrators are well known in ground compaction machines, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Stern as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, the examiner takes Official notice that brake energy recovery systems are well known. Given the electrical configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included this feature in order to charge the battery; thereby making the machine more efficient.
Regarding claim 5, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use capacitors with electric drive machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Stern in this manner in order to store energy as desired. It is noted that the recitation of “used to start” is optional only and a process type recitation within a product claim. Electrical energy can be used for any electrical purpose in such a machine.
Regarding claim 6, because Stern includes hydraulic components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the components as claimed in order to obtain a more efficient machine.
Regarding claims 7-11 and 13, given the inclusion of electrical operation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Stern as claimed in order to suit a particular application.
Given the electrical operation of Stern, claims 14 and 15 would be met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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 communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671