DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 19, 21 and 22 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Regarding claim 19, the configuration of the charger vehicle has not been previously claimed. All previous recitations regarding a charger vehicle have been in the alternative only, with no specific structure recited with respect thereto. The originally filed and examined claims were met with a finishing machine only. The claimed machine of claim 19 would require additional searching not required for the originally claimed invention. Regarding claims 21 and 22, the rotatable/shiftable position relative to an engine cowling has not been previously considered and would require further search.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 19, 21 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 205917579) in view of Lowe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0174008).
Wang discloses a self-propelled road making machine (Figure 1) having a travel drive (17), a material bunker (13), a driver stand (1, 2, 15) a photovoltaic system (abstract, for example) and a screed (6). The photovoltaic system includes a module (solar receiving plate, at 16) and power storage system (battery, not shown). Wang is silent regarding being configured to feed electrical current to a power grid and a charge controller. Lowe teaches a photovoltaic module (16) configured for this and includes a charge controller (paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Wang as claimed in order to provide electricity to the grid when not in use, in accordance with the teaching of Lowe.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 205917579) in view of Aurousseau et al. (CA 2 694 400) and Doane et al. (U.S. Patent 11,728,659).
Wang discloses a self-propelled road making machine (Figure 1) having a travel drive (17), a material bunker (13), a driver stand (1, 2, 15) a photovoltaic system (abstract, for example) and a screed (6). The photovoltaic system includes a module (solar receiving plate, at 16) and power storage system (battery, not shown). Wang is silent regarding a charge controller; however, charge controllers are well known to use in photovoltaic systems. For example, Doane teaches using a charge controller (142) in conjunction with a vehicle having a photovoltaic panel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a charge controller with Wang in order to moderate solar power to the battery, as taught by Doane (abstract, for example). Regarding the positioning of the module, Wang teaches the roof, but not the screed. Aurousseau teaches roof and screed positioning as equivalents (page 7, first sentence). Therefore, there is no patentable distinction in module placement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the module(s) of Wang as claimed since Aurousseau teaches this as an equivalent alternative to the positioning of Wang.
Regarding claim 2, a photovoltaic module is arranged on the roof (16) of the driver stand.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Wang is silent regarding the manner in which the module is connected; however, any connection is “releasable,” even if not intended as such. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a releasable fastening arrangement in order to service or replace the module as desired.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches positioning on the roof.
Regarding claim 8, the machine has a material bunker (13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in order to increase electrical generation.
Regarding claims 12-14, the examiner takes Official notice that extension screeds are well known. Given the use with the screed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an extension system as claimed in order to increase energy intake while minimizing size during transportation.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 12-14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 205917579), Aurousseau et al. (CA 2 694 400) and Lowe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0174008).
Wang teaches the machine described with respect to claim 1, above. Aurousseau teaches roof and screed positioning as equivalents, as discussed with respect to claim 1, above. Lowe teaches the charge controller and feed back as discussed with respect to claim 18, above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the module of Wang as claimed since teaches roof and screed positioning as equivalents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Wang/Aurousseau with a charge controller and to feed current in order to provide electricity to the grid when not in use, in accordance with the teaching of Lowe.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 12-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Aurousseau et al. and either Doane et al. or Lowe, as applied above, and further in view of Yu (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0188096).
Yu teaches shiftable/rotatable photovoltaic modules (Figures 1 and 2, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Wang as claimed in order to increase power supply, in accordance with the teaching of Yu.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Aurousseau et al. and either Doane et al. or Lowe, as applied above, and further in view of Baudrit (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0278245).
Baudrit teaches a photovoltaic module as a roof, cowling (hood) and body panel (paragraph 68, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Wang as claimed, since it is clear from this teaching that any exposed body portion is useable for such modules.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Note that additional references have been provided with respect to the challenges of Official notice. Because these references have been added only in support of the notices, this action is properly made final.
Because applicant has not challenged the Official notice that extension screeds are well known, this has been taken as admitted prior art.
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
Prosecution Insights