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 .
Status of Claims
This is the second Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 10-12, 16, and 18 are currently amended and Claims 9 and 17 have been cancelled. This action is FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/29/2026 and 02/05/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed on 01/29/2026 have been entered.
In view of the Claims, Applicant’s amendments have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of Claims 16-17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim 16 integrates any judicial exception into a practical application because a temperature sensor of the heating element is used to detect a temperature gradient for identifying a heating element type and to detect an actual temperature value for malfunction detection. Applicant further characterizes the claimed invention as providing a "type-specific heating element malfunction detection." Respectfully, Examiner does not find these arguments persuasive. The recited steps of identifying a heating element type based on a temperature gradient and determining a desired temperature value remain as mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a generic computing component. The recitation of a temperature sensor does not meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application beyond applying the abstract idea using a generic sensor and generic controlling system, and the amended claim language does not reflect a technical improvement to the road finishing machine architecture itself, as further discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-13, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of Claim 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16. A method for detecting a malfunction of at least one heating element installed within a screed of a road finishing machine, the method comprising:
detecting, by means of a temperature sensor of the at least one heating element, an actual temperature value at the at least one heating element;
identifying, by means of a temperature gradient at the at least one heating element, a heat element type of the at least one heating element, wherein the temperature gradient is detected by the temperature sensor of the at least one heating element;
determining a desired temperature value for the at least one heating element in view of the identified heat element type; and
detecting a malfunction based on the actual temperature value detected at the at least one heating element, wherein detecting the malfunction comprises comparing the desired temperature value with the actual temperature value detected at the heating element.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method (i.e. process). This claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of identifying, by means of a temperature gradient at the at least one heating element, a heat element type of the at least one heating element; determining a desired temperature value for the at least one heating element in view of the identified heat element type; and detecting a malfunction based on the actual temperature value detected at the at least one heating element, wherein detecting the malfunction comprises comparing the desired temperature value with the actual temperature value detected at the heating element. These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. For example, the claim could implicate a person observing a temperature value for a heating element, considering a detected temperature gradient; identifying a corresponding type of heating element; determining what desired temperature value should apply for that type; and comparing the desired temperature value to the actual temperature value in order to decide whether a malfunction is present.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical
application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim recites the additional elements or steps of detecting, by means of a temperature sensor of the at least one heating element, an actual temperature value at the at least one heating element; and wherein the temperature gradient is detected by the temperature sensor of the at least one heating element. These additional elements amount to no more than mere data gathering in support of the abstract idea. The temperature sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic sensor for collecting temperature data), and adding it to the claim does not impose any meaningful limit on the abstract idea and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. This claim, for example, does not recite any control or adjustment of the heating element, screed, or road finisher based on the detected malfunction.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Namely use of a temperature sensor to detect temperature information and temperature gradient information for a heating element, are well-understood, routine, and conventional data-gathering activities because the detailed description of embodiment describes the temperature sensor generically as a sensor provided at the heating element for detecting temperature conditions thereat and forwarding those detected values to the controlling system for diagnosis purposes. The specification further describes that the temperature gradient is detected by means of the temperature sensor and then used by the controlling system to identify a heating element type and determine a desired temperature value. Thus, the claim does not recite any unconventional sensor arrangement or any technological improvement in how temperature data is sensed; rather, the sensor merely collects temperature-related information for use in the recited analysis. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes that claims 1-8, 10-15, and 18-20 are allowable, and claim 16 currently appears to be allowable over the prior art of record, however, the 35 USC 101 rejection above would need to be addressed and the claim reevaluated in view of the prior art pending any amendments to claim 16 to determine allowability.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach a road finishing machine comprising: wherein the controlling system is embodied to identify, based on respective temperature gradients detected by means of the temperature sensors embodied at the heating elements, a respective heating element type of each of the heating elements, and based thereon to determine respective desired temperature values used for the diagnosis of errors for the heating elements, which when combined with the other currently provided claim limitations provides an innovative and nonobvious solution to the problem identified in the present application, namely that prior art diagnosis coupled to power supply makes it difficult to determine individual defective heating elements, in particular their place of installation, so that repair works can be cumbersome.
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 ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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 LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657