DETAILED ACTION
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 Final action is in reply to the amendment 1815940 filed on 06/22/2026
Claims 1, 11 and 15 are amended
Claim 8 and 20 is cancelled
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The examiner states claim 15 amendment is taught by BOWES wherein the plate separates and deflects the material towards lateral side walls. The hopper plate is a plate that divides the compartment and deflects materials as disclosed and shown in figured 5 in the rejection below shows based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are stated broadly as it does not explicitly state that the hopper plates need to be angled . the examiner suggests the applicant specify more detail into the claim elements in order to expedite the prosecution.
[AltContent: textbox (Hopper Plate – separates the flow of material so as to move the material from flowing toward wall 6a. these plates would naturally direct the materials from the other side wall)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
906
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner states that based upon the amended claim limitations, BACKUS now discloses the limitation for the grader being in a push configuration as disclosed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 15 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)(a2) as being anticipated by AU2012101650 – Bowes et al. hereinafter as BOWES
Regarding Claim 15:
BOWES discloses:
15. A hopper for a grader for a roadway surface, comprising:
a material hopper including: ( material hopper – 1, SEE FIGURE 1)
a hopper inlet; and ( HOPPER INLET - 7, SEE FIGURE 1)
a hopper outlet, the hopper outlet configured to flow material from the hopper onto the roadway surface. ( HOPPER OUTLET as shown arrow, SEE FIGURE 7)
wherein the hopper includes one or more hopper plates disposed therein to urge a portion of the material across a width of the roadway.( where in the hopper plates help distribute them across the roadway as shown in figure 7. Pointed arrow)
[AltContent: textbox (Hopper Plate – separates the flow of material so as to move the material from flowing toward wall 6a. these plates would naturally direct the materials from the other side wall)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
906
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16:
BOWES discloses:
16. The hopper of claim 15, wherein: the hopper outlet is disposed in a hopper platform disposed at a lower portion of the hopper; ( wherein the hopper outlet is shown where there are mini angles, where material flows to deposit on the ground )and a grader blade extends through a blade opening in the hopper platform. ( wherein the grader blade is 8 – figure 7)
Regarding Claim 17:
BOWES discloses:
17. The hopper of claim 16, wherein the hopper platform is disposed at a platform height from the hopper platform to the roadway surface, the platform height greater than the blade height. ( wherein the hopper platform is higher than the blade height as shown in figure 1 and 7. Figure 1 shows the inlet of the hopper, figure 7 shows the underside of the hopper and the blade – 8)
Regarding Claim 18:
BOWES discloses:
18. The hopper of claim 15, wherein a hopper length in the travel direction tapers between the hopper inlet and the hopper outlet. ( wherein the length of the hopper between inlet and outlet tapers in travel direction, figure 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by AU2012101650 – Bowes et al. hereinafter as BOWES in view of US PG Pub 20090194304 – Backus et al. hereinafter as BACKUS
Regarding Claim 1:
BOWES discloses:
A grader for a roadway surface, comprising:
a material hopper including: ( material hopper – 1, SEE FIGURE 1)
a hopper inlet; and ( HOPPER INLET - 7, SEE FIGURE 1)
a hopper outlet, the hopper outlet configured to flow material from the hopper onto the roadway surface; ( HOPPER OUTLET as shown arrow, SEE FIGURE 7)
a grader blade disposed rearward of the hopper outlet relative to a travel direction of the grader along the roadway surface, the grader blade having a lowermost blade surface such that a blade height from the lowermost blade surface to the roadway surface ( Blade -8 and 9a and 9b, SEE FIGURE 7)is selectable changeable to provide a selected thickness and/or distribution of the material on the roadway surface. (wherein the box blade arrangement can be elevated and lowered via hydraulic actuators, SEE FIGURE 7 and para. 0026)
wherein the grader blade is configured to be raised and lowered relative to the hopper to adjust the blade height. ( fig. 7, para. 0026 shows that the grader blade can be raised and lowered relative to the hopper with the hydraulic cylinder to adjust blade height as shown, see also [064] )
PNG
media_image2.png
512
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
498
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
BOWES discloses of a trailer a grader that includes a hopper for performing asphalt activities for roadway surfaces, BACKUS also discloses of a grader machine that can either be in a push or pull configuration, BACKUS further discloses:
wherein the grader is configured to be pushed along the roadway.(para. 0023 – wherein the grader can either be used in the push or pull mode)
It would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for BOWES grading machine that can be pulled to utilize the ability to be used in a pushed configuration wherein the grader is configured to be pushed along the roadway as taught by BACKUS. Doing so allow the ability for BOWES to perform additional functions and to be used ( para. 0023 and 0024)
Regarding Claim 2:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 1:
BOWES discloses
2. The grader of claim 1, wherein: the hopper outlet is disposed in a hopper platform disposed at a lower portion of the hopper;( wherein the hopper outlet is shown where there are mini angles, where material flows to deposit on the ground ) and the grader blade extends through a blade opening in the hopper platform. ( wherein the grader blade is 8 – figure 7)
Regarding Claim 3:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 2:
BOWES discloses
3. The grader of claim 2, wherein the hopper platform is disposed at a platform height from the hopper platform to the roadway surface, the platform height greater than the blade height. ( wherein the hopper platform is higher than the blade height as shown in figure 1 and 7. Figure 1 shows the inlet of the hopper, figure 7 shows the underside of the hopper and the blade – 8)
Regarding Claim 4:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 1:
BOWES discloses
4. The grader of claim 1, wherein the grader blade is operably connected to one or more actuators that, when activated, adjust the blade height. ( wherein the hydraulic actuators adjust the height of the blade, para. 0026)
Regarding Claim 5:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 1:
BOWES discloses
5. The grader of claim 1, wherein a hopper length in the travel direction tapers between the hopper inlet and the hopper outlet. ( wherein the length of the hopper between inlet and outlet tapers in travel direction, figure 1)
Regarding Claim 7:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 1:
BOWES discloses
7. The grader of claim 1, wherein the lowermost blade surface is one of planar or has a curvilinear profile along a blade width. ( figure 7 – blade 8 the width is a flat bar that goes across the outlet of the hopper)
Regarding Claim 10:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 1:
BOWES discloses
10. The grader of claim 1, wherein the material is one or more of sand, stone, dirt or other paving material. ( rock or soil , para. 0005)
Regarding Claim 11:
11. A method of distributing a material onto a roadway surface, comprising:
loading a volume of the material into a hopper ( material hopper – 1, SEE FIGURE 1) of a grader at a grader inlet; ( HOPPER INLET - 7, SEE FIGURE 1)
flowing the material out of the hopper via a hopper outlet; and
distributing the material on the roadway surface to a selected thickness and/or distribution by a grader blade( Blade -8 and 9a and 9b, SEE FIGURE 7) extending from the grader rearward of the grader outlet relative to a travel direction of the grader along the roadway, the grader blade having a lowermost blade surface such that a blade height from the lowermost blade surface to the roadway surface is selectable changeable to provide the selected thickness and/or distribution of the material on the roadway surface. (wherein the box blade arrangement can be elevated and lowered via hydraulic actuators, SEE FIGURE 7 and para. 0026)
wherein the grader blade is configured to be raised and lowered relative to the hopper to adjust the blade height. ( fig. 7, para. 0026 shows that the grader blade can be raised and lowered relative to the hopper with the hydraulic cylinder to adjust blade height as shown )
PNG
media_image2.png
512
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
498
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
BOWES discloses of a trailer a grader that includes a hopper for performing asphalt activities for roadway surfaces, BACKUS also discloses of a grader machine that can either be in a push or pull configuration, BACKUS further discloses:
wherein the grader is configured to be pushed along the roadway.(para. 0023 – wherein the grader can either be used in the push or pull mode)
It would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicants invention for BOWES grading machine that can be pulled to utilize the ability to be used in a pushed configuration wherein the grader is configured to be pushed along the roadway as taught by BACKUS. Doing so allow the ability for BOWES to perform additional functions and to be used ( para. 0023 and 0024)
Regarding Claim 12:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 1:
BOWES discloses
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising selectably changing the blade height via one or more actuators operably connected to the grader blade. ( wherein the hydraulic actuators adjust the height of the blade, para. 0026)
Regarding Claim 13:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 12:
BOWES discloses
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the one or more actuators are one or more hydraulic actuators, one or more electromechanical actuators, or one or more electromagnetic actuators. (wherein the actuators are hydraulic actuators, SEE FIGURE 7 and para. 0026)
Claim(s) 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by AU2012101650 – Bowes et al. hereinafter as BOWES in view of US PG Pub 20090194304 – Backus et al. hereinafter as BACKUS in view of US patent 3900073 – CRUM et al. hereinafter as CRUM
Regarding Claim 6:
BOWES / BACKUS / CRUM discloses claim 1:
BOWES does not discloses:
one or more indicator markings on the grader to indicate the blade height to an operator.
BOWES allows for adjustment of the blade but does not disclose the indicator, CRUM discloses:
one or more indicator markings on the grader to indicate the blade height to an operator. (Fig. 3 – sensor detection and output indicating operating height)
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants invention for BOWES grader to utilize an indicator marking on the grader to indicate height as taught by CRUM. This would allow BOWES to give users better information regarding height and leveling purposes.
Regarding Claim 14:
BOWES / BACKUS / BACKUS discloses claim 12:
BOWES does not discloses:
indicating the blade height via one or more indicator markings on the grader.
BOWES allows for adjustment of the blade but does not disclose the indicator, CRUM discloses:
one or more indicator markings on the grader to indicate the blade height to an operator. (Fig. 3 – auto leveling)
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants invention for BOWES grader to utilize an indicator marking on the grader to indicate height as taught by CRUM. This would allow BOWES to give users better information regarding height and leveling purposes.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by AU2012101650 – Bowes et al. hereinafter as BOWES in view of US PG Pub 20090194304 – Backus et al. hereinafter as BACKUS in view of US PG 20030000714 – Horner et al. hereinafter as HORNER
Regarding Claim 9:
BOWES / BACKUS discloses claim 1:
BOWES does not disclose:
a movable baffle disposed at the hopper outlet configured to selectably meter the flow of material from the hopper outlet.
BOWES discloses of a hopper containing material but doesn’t explicitly disclose of a hopper with a movable baffle that can control the flow of material, HORNER discloses:
a movable baffle disposed at the hopper outlet configured to selectable meter the flow of material from the hopper outlet. ( para. 21 22 – wherein the transverse agitating rotor which it facilitate the discharge of the outlet )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants invention for BOWES grader to utilize a movable baffle disposed at the hoper outlet to selectable meter the flow of material as taught by HORNER. This would allow BOWES to facilitate and better control the discharge of the outlet. (HORNER - para. 0022)
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by AU2012101650 – Bowes et al. hereinafter as BOWES in view of US PG 20030000714 – Horner et al. hereinafter as HORNER
Regarding Claim 19:
BOWES discloses 15:
BOWES does not disclose:
further comprising a movable baffle disposed at the hopper outlet configured to selectably meter the flow of material from the hopper outlet.
BOWES discloses of a hopper containing material but doesn’t explicitly disclose of a hopper with a movable baffle that can control the flow of material, HORNER discloses:
a movable baffle disposed at the hopper outlet configured to selectable meter the flow of material from the hopper outlet. ( para. 21 22 – wherein the transverse agitating rotor which it facilitate the discharge of the outlet )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants invention for BOWES grader to utilize a movable baffle disposed at the hoper outlet to selectable meter the flow of material as taught by HORNER. This would allow BOWES to facilitate the discharge of the outlet. (HORNER - para. 0022)
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 ALFRED H TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-9511. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 5712720547. 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.
/A.H.T/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights