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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 thru 5, 8, 9, 14 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jameson Smieja et al., herein referred to as Smieja, U.S. U.S. 2014/0328626.
Regarding Claim 1, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, at least one screed body extension (130) with a screed body partition (400) having at least one cross strut/tie rod (138) that is extending at a front side or at a back side of the screed body partition from a centered part to an outer part of the screed body partition (400), wherein an outer end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the outer part of the screed body partition is positioned closer to a bottom side of the paving screed facing a pavement than an inner end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the centered part of the screed body partition.
Additionally, Smieja discloses that the cross strut is connected to opposite corners of the screed body (as seen in Figure 2) and includes a fixed length in operation (Paragraph 0017), such that a bending moment applied to the screed body would necessarily include some level of twisting transformation in order to maintain the fixed set length.” Examiner notes that the operation of transforming a bending moment into a twisting force (torsion) does not utilize the same connection mechanisms as presented in the instant specification, however, the claim is broad and does not necessarily require that the transformation occur in the same manner or using the same structural means, however a clear and positive recitation of such structures of functions would likely overcome the above interpretation.
Regarding Claim 2, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, a cross strut/tie rod (138) that is arranged at a position higher than a torsional center of the screed body partition (400) and the outer end of cross strut (138) is arranged at a position lower than the torsional center of the screed body partition (400). The torsional center of the screed body partition (400) is taken to be located between the upper and lower end points of the cross strut/tie rod (138). See figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Smieja shows in Fig. 2 where the at least cross strut/tie rod (138) further extends from a plane nearer to the front side to a plane nearer to a back side of the screed body partition in lieu of extending in a plane parallel to a front side of the screed body partition. See figure above (dotted arrows).
Regarding Claim 4, Smieja shows in Fig. 2 where the at least cross strut/tie rod (138) further extends from a plane nearer to the front side to a plane nearer to a back side of the screed body partition in lieu of extending in a plane parallel to a front side of the screed body partition.
Regarding Claim 5, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2 a plurality of screed extensions (134) of different widths with at least one cross strut (138) which are attached to main screed (110) as a single screed extension (130). Smieja further teaches in paragraph (0016) wherein, multiple screed extensions and screed extensions of varying lengths can be attached to screed 110.
Regarding Claim 8, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, at least one cross strut/tie rod (138) that is round in cross-section. Smieja does not identify if the cross strut/tie rod is hollow or solid.
Regarding Claim 9, Smieja teaches in Figs. 2, 3 & 4, a screed extension (130) that comprises a cross strut (138) with a vertical support member (136) that are affixed to be an integral part of the screed extension (130), frame (134) and a lower end side frame (not labeled) where cross strut (138) is attached to, wherein frame (134) comprises an upper horizontal flat surface that extends from the front edge to the rear and a vertical flat surface that extends from the front edge down to the bottom. The examiner makes clear that that “integral” does not necessarily require the element be monolithic in nature, such that an element integrated as part of the assembly is considered to be “integral”.
Regarding Claim 14, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, at least one screed body extension (130) with a screed body partition (400) having at least one cross strut/tie rod (138) that is extending at a front side or at a back side of the screed body partition from a centered part to an outer part of the screed body partition, wherein an outer end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the outer part of the screed body partition is positioned closer to a bottom side of the paving screed facing a pavement than an inner end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the centered part of the screed body partition.
Additionally, Smieja discloses that the cross strut is connected to opposite corners of the screed body (as seen in Figure 2) and includes a fixed length in operation (Paragraph 0017), such that a bending moment applied to the screen body would necessarily include some level of twisting transformation in order to maintain the fixed set length.” Examiner notes that the operation of transforming a bending moment into a twisting force (torsion) does not utilize the same connection mechanisms as presented in the instant specification, however, the claim is broad and does not necessarily require that the transformation occur in the same manner or using the same structural means, however a clear and positive recitation of such structures of functions would likely overcome the above interpretation.
Regarding Claim 15, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, at least one screed body extension (130) with a screed body partition (400) having at least one cross strut/tie rod (138) that is extending at a front side or at a back side of the screed body partition from a centered part to an outer part of the screed body partition, wherein an outer end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the outer part of the screed body partition is positioned closer to a bottom side of the paving screed facing a pavement than an inner end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the centered part of the screed body partition.
Additionally, Smieja discloses that the cross strut is connected to opposite corners of the screed body (as seen in Figure 2) and includes a fixed length in operation (Paragraph 0017), such that a bending moment applied to the screen body would necessarily include some level of twisting transformation in order to maintain the fixed set length.” Examiner notes that the operation of transforming a bending moment into a twisting force (torsion) does not utilize the same connection mechanisms as presented in the instant specification, however, the claim is broad and does not necessarily require that the transformation occur in the same manner or using the same structural means, however a clear and positive recitation of such structures of functions would likely overcome the above interpretation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jameson Smieja et al., herein referred to as Smieja, U.S. U.S. 2014/0328626.
Regarding Claim 6, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0016 quoted as follows, " In addition, multiple screed extensions and screed extensions of varying lengths can be attached to screed 110. As an example, screed extension 130 is shown as two screed extensions of two different lengths in FIG. 2."
Smieja does not teach a cross strut with a specific range of angles with respect to the bottom side of the paving screed.
The width of the screed extension directly determines the angle of the cross strut with respect to the bottom side of the screed extension. A smaller angle such as 10 degrees means that the screed extension maybe expanded to or beyond a maximum operating width and may not provide the desired compaction quality. A larger angle such as 85 degrees means that the screed extension is barely extended/deployed and may cause insufficient passage of the asphalt paving material due to, a too narrow of a gap between the end plates of the screed extension. Site conditions and project schedule requirements will play a part in whether a screed extension is deployed at a minimum or maximum extension. It is therefore obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, that a specific range of angles for cross strut function do not necessarily adversely affect the intended use of the claimed invention.
As a result, the angular placement of the cross strut is considered to be a results effective variable used to achieve a desired material spread, wherein it has been held that the optimization of a results-effective variable to achieve a specific workable range is obvious (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Claims 11, 12, 13 & 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smieja (U.S. 2014/0328626) in view of Luke E. Graham et al., (U.S. 2013/0142571) herein referred to as Graham.
Regarding Claim 11, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, at least one screed body extension (130) with a screed body partition (400) having at least one cross strut/tie rod (138) that is extending at a front side or at a back side of the screed body partition from a centered part to an outer part of the screed body partition, wherein an outer end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the outer part of the screed body partition is positioned closer to a bottom side of the paving screed facing a pavement than an inner end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the centered part of the screed body partition. Smieja further teaches in Fig. 2 a screed extension (130) that is arranged adjacent to a main screed body (110).
While Smieja discloses the screed details as discussed above, it does not expressly disclose a screed extension arranged behind a main screed section (assuming there isn’t some similar structure in the reference which relates to this).
However, Graham shows in Fig. 2 and paragraph 0016, screed extension (28) arranged behind the left (22) and right (24) sides of the main screed (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the screed assembly of Smieja to include a screed extension arranged behind left and right sides of the main screed as taught by Graham. Doing so would provide improved versatility, wherein a smaller width screeding machine can have extensions attached to increase the laying and compacting width and at the same time be small enough for paving areas that require a compact footprint as part of providing varying widths of laid paving material (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 12, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, at least one screed body extension (130) with a screed body partition (400) having at least one cross strut/tie rod (138) that is extending at a front side or at a back side of the screed body partition from a centered part to an outer part of the screed body partition, wherein an outer end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the outer part of the screed body partition is positioned closer to a bottom side of the paving screed facing a pavement than an inner end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the centered part of the screed body partition. Smieja further teaches in Fig. 2 a screed extension (130) that is arranged adjacent to a main screed body (110).
While Smieja discloses the screed details as discussed above, it does not expressly disclose a screed extension arranged behind a main screed section (assuming there isn’t some similar structure in the reference which relates to this).
However, Graham shows in Fig. 2 and paragraph 0016, screed extension (28) arranged behind the left (22) and right (24) sides of the main screed (20). (This was solid, no changes here).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the screed assembly of Smieja to include a screed extension arranged behind left and right sides of the main screed as taught by Graham. Doing so would provide improved versatility, wherein a smaller width screeding machine can have extensions attached to increase the laying and compacting width and at the same time be small enough for paving areas that require a compact footprint as part of providing varying widths of laid paving material (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 13, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, at least one screed body extension (130) with a screed body partition (400) having at least one cross strut/tie rod (138) that is extending at a front side or at a back side of the screed body partition from a centered part to an outer part of the screed body partition, wherein an outer end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the outer part of the screed body partition is positioned closer to a bottom side of the paving screed facing a pavement than an inner end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the centered part of the screed body partition. Smieja further teaches in Fig. 2 a screed extension (130) that is arranged adjacent to a main screed body (110).
While Smieja discloses the screed details as discussed above, it does not expressly disclose a screed extension arranged behind a main screed section (assuming there isn’t some similar structure in the reference which relates to this).
However, Graham shows in Fig. 2 and paragraph 0016, screed extension (28) arranged behind the left (22) and right (24) sides of the main screed (20). (This was solid, no changes here).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the screed assembly of Smieja to include or accept a screed extension arranged behind left and right sides of the main screed as taught by Graham. Doing so would provide improved versatility, wherein a smaller width screeding machine can have extensions attached to increase the laying and compacting width and at the same time be small enough for paving areas that require a compact footprint as part of providing varying widths of laid paving material (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 16, Smieja teaches in Fig. 2, at least one screed body extension (130) with a screed body partition (400) having at least one cross strut/tie rod (138) that is extending at a front side or at a back side of the screed body partition from a centered part to an outer part of the screed body partition, wherein an outer end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the outer part of the screed body partition is positioned closer to a bottom side of the paving screed facing a pavement than an inner end of the at least one cross strut arranged at the centered part of the screed body partition. Smieja further teaches in Fig. 2 a screed extension (130) that is arranged adjacent to a main screed body (110).
While Smieja discloses the screed details as discussed above, it does not expressly disclose a screed extension arranged behind a main screed section (assuming there isn’t some similar structure in the reference which relates to this).
However, Graham shows in Fig. 2 and paragraph 0016, screed extension (28) arranged behind the left (22) and right (24) sides of the main screed (20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the screed assembly of Smieja to include a screed extension arranged behind left and right sides of the main screed as taught by Graham. Doing so would provide improved versatility, wherein a smaller width screeding machine can have extensions attached to increase the laying and compacting width and at the same time be small enough for paving areas that require a compact footprint as part of providing varying widths of laid paving material (Paragraph 0016).
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.
Regarding Claim 5, The use of the term “at least one cross strut” is indefinite in light of the wording of parent claim 1. As claim 1 also recites “at least one cross strut”, it is unclear if this claim intends to recite multiple sections, wherein each section includes one of the at least one cross strut recited in claim 1, or if this claim intends to recite additional sections with further cross struts distinct from those in claim 1. Examiner believes that the claim should be interpreted as referencing the cross struts from claim 1, wherein there are expressly more than 1 strut included as part of each additional segment. Correction is required.
Regarding Claim 7, The recitation of “wherein the at least one cross strut comprises several single struts” is unclear regarding the metes and bounds of such a limitation. As the claim recites “at least one”, it is not clear if the condition exists wherein multiple struts are present, if each individual strut must comprise several cross struts, or if only one of the pluralities must. Clarification is required.”
Regarding Claim 8, The term “massive” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “massive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, The term “at least one recess” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least one recess” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, The term “at least one cross strut” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least one cross strut” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT C. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3053. The examiner can normally be reached 7.30am to 5pm.
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
/KALPIT C. PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671