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 § 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 1-4, 10-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiser et al., US 2010/0329783 A1 in view of Thiesse, US 10,280,572 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Weiser teaches a method for heating a screed of a road finishing machine, the method comprising:
obtaining a predetermined time for putting the screed into operation (ascertaining expected time of arrival of truck delivering pavement mix which is to be fed to the road finisher; [0015]);
obtaining a start time for beginning the heating of the screed based on the predetermined time (controller automatically starts heating of the screed so that screed will have reached the necessary operating temperature precisely when the truck arrives; [0015], which means the controller would have to calculate the start time for beginning heating of the screed based on the predetermined time); and
automatically (“controller…automatically causing…”; [0007] and [0015]) heating the screed by energy supply to a heating means of the screed from an energy source from the start time (controller provided with a clock or timer, screed will have reached the necessary operating temperature; [0015]);
wherein the obtaining of the start time is based on a measured heating parameter of the screed (“heating is only required if the screed temperature dropped below a predetermined threshold” [0010]; engine controller is provided with a clock or timer…so that the screed can reach necessary operating temperature [0015], measured with temperature sensors [0010]).
Weiser further discloses that the controller is able to cause starting or stopping of the engine when operating conditions and specific ambient conditions exist ([0014]). Thiesse teaches a system for heating a screed and discloses that it is desirable to determine the temperature of the paving material adjacent the screed plate since the heat given off from the paving material affects the temperature of the screed and control the heating system to maintain the screed plate within a desired temperature range (column 5 lines 39-47), that a temperature sensor associated with the screed plate is used to determine or monitor the temperature of the screed plate (column 5 lines 12-13), that the temperature range of the screed plate may be set based on the estimated temperature of the paving material at the screed plate (column 5 lines 53-55), and that the temperature of the paving material may be determined and adjustments made based upon temperature adjustment characteristics such as the delivery path in which the paving material moves (column 5 lines 58-65) or the ambient temperature of the air (column 6 lines 7-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiser’s method to determine a desired temperature range of the screed plate based on the temperature of the paving material that is adjacent the screed plate in view of Thiesse’s disclosure to determine a parameter (temperature range) associated with the heating of the screed as discussed above. Without specifically stating the steps of heating the screed to a predetermined test temperature and subsequently determining a parameter associated with the heating of the screed, the resulting combination appears to yield such in view of Thiesse disclosing that the temperature of the paving material affects the temperature of the screed plate and controlling the heating system to maintain the screed plate within a temperature range by monitoring the temperature of the screed plate. The predetermined test temperature could be the first temperature or temperature range to which the screed plate is set. Additionally, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is an obvious modification to heat the screed to a predetermined test temperature (the first temperature or temperature range to which the screed plate is set) and subsequently determining a parameter (lower limit of the temperature range) associated with the heating of the screed since this is routine experimentation, further made obvious by Thiesse disclosing monitoring the temperature of the screed plate.
In view of Thiesse’s disclosure that one would expect a greater temperature drop if the paving operation is occurring on a relatively cool and windy day (column 7 lines 6-10), the resulting combination makes obvious that the heating parameter characterizes the heat transfer from the screed to the environment and the heating parameter determines warming behavior of the screed.
Regarding claim 2, the resulting combination includes the limitation of the claim since Weiser discloses a battery is additionally provided ([0017]), which is an accumulator, connected with a primary drive (diesel engine [0020]) of the road finishing machine.
Regarding claim 3, the resulting combination makes obvious the limitation of the claim since Thiesse discloses that one would expect a greater temperature drop if the paving operation is occurring on a relatively cool and windy day (column 7 lines 6-10) and that temperature or wind conditions may be determined by an on-board sensor (column 6 lines 46-51), which is a measured environmental parameter (since it affects the screed temperature and therefore start time).
Regarding claim 4, the resulting combination from claim 3 includes the environmental parameter comprising ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 10, Weiser teaches a road finishing machine (Abstract) comprising a screed (10) and a control unit (11), wherein for heating the screed, the control unit is configured to:
obtain a predetermined time for putting the screed into operation (ascertain expected time of arrival of truck delivering pavement mix which is to be fed to the road finisher; [0015]);
obtain a start time for beginning the heating of the screed based on the predetermined time (controller automatically starts heating of the screed so that screed will have reached the necessary operating temperature precisely when the truck arrives; [0015], which means the controller would have to calculate the start time for beginning heating of the screed based on the predetermined time); and
automatically (“controller…automatically causing…”; [0007] and [0015]) heat the screed by energy supply to a heating means of the screed from an energy source from the start time (controller provided with a clock or timer, screed will have reached the necessary operating temperature; [0015]);
wherein the obtaining of the start time is based on a measured heating parameter of the screed (“heating is only required if the screed temperature dropped below a predetermined threshold” [0010]; engine controller is provided with a clock or timer…so that the screed can reach necessary operating temperature [0015], measured with temperature sensors [0010]).
Weiser further discloses that the controller is able to cause starting or stopping of the engine when operating conditions and specific ambient conditions exist ([0014]). Thiesse teaches a system for heating a screed and discloses that it is desirable to determine the temperature of the paving material adjacent the screed plate since the heat given off from the paving material affects the temperature of the screed and control the heating system to maintain the screed plate within a desired temperature range (column 5 lines 39-47), that a temperature sensor associated with the screed plate is used to determine or monitor the temperature of the screed plate (column 5 lines 12-13), that the temperature range of the screed plate may be set based on the estimated temperature of the paving material at the screed plate (column 5 lines 53-55), and that the temperature of the paving material may be determined and adjustments made based upon temperature adjustment characteristics such as the delivery path in which the paving material moves (column 5 lines 58-65) or the ambient temperature of the air (column 6 lines 7-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiser’s method to determine a desired temperature range of the screed plate based on the temperature of the paving material that is adjacent the screed plate in view of Thiesse’s disclosure to determine a parameter (temperature range) associated with the heating of the screed as discussed above. Without specifically stating the steps of heating the screed to a predetermined test temperature and subsequently determining a parameter associated with the heating of the screed, the resulting combination appears to yield such in view of Thiesse disclosing that the temperature of the paving material affects the temperature of the screed plate and controlling the heating system to maintain the screed plate within a temperature range by monitoring the temperature of the screed plate. The predetermined test temperature could be the first temperature or temperature range to which the screed plate is set. Additionally, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is an obvious modification to heat the screed to a predetermined test temperature (the first temperature or temperature range to which the screed plate is set) and subsequently determining a parameter (lower limit of the temperature range) associated with the heating of the screed since this is routine experimentation, further made obvious by Thiesse disclosing monitoring the temperature of the screed plate.
In view of Thiesse’s disclosure that one would expect a greater temperature drop if the paving operation is occurring on a relatively cool and windy day (column 7 lines 6-10), the resulting combination makes obvious that the heating parameter characterizes the heat transfer from the screed to the environment and the heating parameter determines warming behavior of the screed.
Regarding claim 11, the resulting combination includes the limitation of the claim since Weiser discloses a battery is additionally provided ([0017]), which is an accumulator, connected with a primary drive (diesel engine [0020]) of the road finishing machine.
Regarding claim 12, the resulting combination makes obvious the limitation of the claim since Thiesse discloses that one would expect a greater temperature drop if the paving operation is occurring on a relatively cool and windy day (column 7 lines 6-10) and that temperature or wind conditions may be determined by an on-board sensor (column 6 lines 46-51), which is a measured environmental parameter (since it affects the screed temperature and therefore start time).
Regarding claim 16, the resulting combination includes the limitation of the claim since Weiser discloses that the control unit is configured to generate a control signal operative to activate automatic heating of the screed ([0015]).
Regarding claim 17, Weiser teaches a road finishing machine comprising a screed (10) and a control unit (11), wherein the control unit is configured to:
obtain a predetermined time for putting the screed into operation (ascertain expected time of arrival of truck delivering pavement mix which is to be fed to the road finisher; [0015]);
obtain a start time for beginning the heating of the screed based on the predetermined time (controller automatically starts heating of the screed so that screed will have reached the necessary operating temperature precisely when the truck arrives; [0015], which means the controller would have to calculate the start time for beginning heating of the screed based on the predetermined time); and
generate a control signal operative to activate automatic heating of the screed (“controller…automatically causing…”; [0007] and [0015]) by supply of energy from an energy source (diesel engine and generator; [0020) to a heating means of the screed from the start time ([0015]);
wherein the obtaining of the start time is based on a measured heating parameter of the screed (“heating is only required if the screed temperature dropped below a predetermined threshold” [0010]; engine controller is provided with a clock or timer…so that the screed can reach necessary operating temperature [0015], measured with temperature sensors [0010]).
Weiser further discloses that the controller is able to cause starting or stopping of the engine when operating conditions and specific ambient conditions exist ([0014]). Thiesse teaches a system for heating a screed and discloses that it is desirable to determine the temperature of the paving material adjacent the screed plate since the heat given off from the paving material affects the temperature of the screed and control the heating system to maintain the screed plate within a desired temperature range (column 5 lines 39-47), that a temperature sensor associated with the screed plate is used to determine or monitor the temperature of the screed plate (column 5 lines 12-13), that the temperature range of the screed plate may be set based on the estimated temperature of the paving material at the screed plate (column 5 lines 53-55), and that the temperature of the paving material may be determined and adjustments made based upon temperature adjustment characteristics such as the delivery path in which the paving material moves (column 5 lines 58-65) or the ambient temperature of the air (column 6 lines 7-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiser’s method to determine a desired temperature range of the screed plate based on the temperature of the paving material that is adjacent the screed plate in view of Thiesse’s disclosure to determine a parameter (temperature range) associated with the heating of the screed as discussed above. Without specifically stating the steps of heating the screed to a predetermined test temperature and subsequently determining a parameter associated with the heating of the screed, the resulting combination appears to yield such in view of Thiesse disclosing that the temperature of the paving material affects the temperature of the screed plate and controlling the heating system to maintain the screed plate within a temperature range by monitoring the temperature of the screed plate. The predetermined test temperature could be the first temperature or temperature range to which the screed plate is set. Additionally, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is an obvious modification to heat the screed to a predetermined test temperature (the first temperature or temperature range to which the screed plate is set) and subsequently determining a parameter (lower limit of the temperature range) associated with the heating of the screed since this is routine experimentation, further made obvious by Thiesse disclosing monitoring the temperature of the screed plate.
In view of Thiesse’s disclosure that one would expect a greater temperature drop if the paving operation is occurring on a relatively cool and windy day (column 7 lines 6-10), the resulting combination makes obvious that the heating parameter characterizes the heat transfer from the screed to the environment and the heating parameter determines warming behavior of the screed.
Claims 7-9, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiser and Thiesse as applied above, in view of JP H1181392 A (hereinafter will be referred to as “JP ‘392”).
Regarding claim 7, Weiser further discloses automatic heating of the screed by a control unit ([0015]). While the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation activating heating only when the control unit receives a signal indicative of a positioning of a securing element, JP ‘392 teaches an automatically operated construction machine and discloses that if it is detected that an element is out of place, an error signal will be sent, and a safety signal will be sent to confirm that the construction machine is safe to start (outputting a safety and protection signal; Abstract). Additionally, the Examiner took Official Notice in the previous office action that insulating skirts for screeds to help maintain a temperature are old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant's traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiser’s method to automatically send an error signal when an insulating skirt is not correctly placed, and to only proceed with automatic heating of the screed by a control unit if the control unit receives a signal indicative of a positioning of a securing element (insulating skirt) which would be received before sending a safety signal in view of JP ‘392’s disclosure as a matter of safety.
Regarding claim 8, the resulting combination includes the securing element (insulating skirt) comprising a heat-insulating material.
Regarding claim 9, the resulting combination includes the obtaining of the predetermined time is accomplished based on an input at an operating element (localization system; Weiser’s [0015]) of the road finishing machine (there must be input for the control unit to determine the expected arrival time of another work vehicle; Weiser’s [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, Weiser further discloses automatic heating of the screed by a control unit ([0015]). While the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation activating heating only when the control unit receives a signal indicative of a positioning of a securing element, JP ‘392 teaches an automatically operated construction machine and discloses that if it is detected that an element is out of place, an error signal will be sent, and a safety signal will be sent to confirm that the construction machine is safe to start (outputting a safety and protection signal; Abstract). Additionally, the Examiner took Official Notice in the previous office action that insulating skirts for screeds to help maintain a temperature are old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant's traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiser’s method to automatically send an error signal when an insulating skirt is not correctly placed, and to only proceed with automatic heating of the screed by a control unit if the control unit receives a signal indicative of a positioning of a securing element (insulating skirt) which would be received before sending a safety signal in view of JP ‘392’s disclosure as a matter of safety.
Regarding claim 15, the resulting combination includes the securing element (insulating skirt) comprising a heat-insulating material.
Regarding claim 20, Weiser further discloses automatic heating of the screed by a control unit ([0015]). While the resulting combination fails to disclose the limitation activating heating only when the control unit receives a signal indicative of a positioning of a securing element, JP ‘392 teaches an automatically operated construction machine and discloses that if it is detected that an element is out of place, an error signal will be sent, and a safety signal will be sent to confirm that the construction machine is safe to start (outputting a safety and protection signal; Abstract). Additionally, the Examiner took Official Notice in the previous office action that insulating skirts for screeds to help maintain a temperature are old and well-known. Applicant failed to challenge the Official Notice in their arguments. Under the guidelines of MPEP 2144.03, to adequately traverse Official Notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without any reference to the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice would be inadequate. Since applicant did not adequately traverse the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice, the facts are now considered to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03). Applicant's traversal is considered inadequate because there was no reference to the Examiner's assertion of Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weiser’s method to automatically send an error signal when an insulating skirt is not correctly placed, and to only proceed with automatic heating of the screed by a control unit if the control unit receives a signal indicative of a positioning of a securing element (insulating skirt) which would be received before sending a safety signal in view of JP ‘392’s disclosure as a matter of safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (middle of the page numbered “7”) that the necessary operating temperature is not a “measured heating parameter” but is rather some set value. This is not persuasive since the current rejection relies on Thiesse which discloses that the temperature of the paving material adjacent to the screed affects the screed, and additionally, a measured heating parameter is a heating parameter of the screed that is measured (e.g. lower limit in Celsius). Examiner attempted to determine whether Applicant provided a specific definition to “measured” or “parameter”, but there was no disclosure of a specific definition. Applicant appears to be arguing more than what is claimed.
At the bottom of the page numbered “7” through the page numbered “8”, Applicant argues that Weiser’s operating temperature is not a parameter associated with heating, and instead the screed is simply given a temperature to which the screed is to be heated. As the current rejection to claim 1 includes Thiesse, which discloses it may be desirable to control the heating system to maintain the screed at a desired temperature or desired temperature range such as plus or minus ten degrees (column 5 lines 45-52), it would appear that a parameter associated with heating would be to start the heater when the temperature goes below the lower limit of the temperature range. In the second to last paragraph on the page numbered “8”, Applicant argues that even if one were to optimize the operating temperature of the screed of Weiser, this would not lead to the claimed invention as recited in dependent claim 1; “[t]his is because the test temperature is associated with the determination of a physical characteristic of the screed itself”. Applicant is arguing far more than is presented in the claim; the claim limitations do not need to be interpreted to be as narrowly as Applicant is arguing.
Applicant relies on these arguments for independent claims 1, 10, and 17, which have been addressed above. Applicant does not provide arguments to the dependent claims, only relying on the arguments to the independent claims.
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 KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights