DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 19 December 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the one of the references referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitations in claims 1 and 10 of “based on” and “taking the maximum value into account” are vague, narrative and provide no clear scope.
It is unclear how claims 8 and 17 further limit their respective parent claims since the recitations therein appear to be redundant; i.e., a “top limit” and “maximum” have identical meanings.
Claims 2-7, 9 and 11-16 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1 and 10.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Patent 7,654,769).
Applicant’s prior patent discloses a road finisher including a tractor (F) with a material hopper (3) disposed at the front thereof (Figure 1). There is a screed (B) mounted on the tractor by tow arms (6) and an adjusting cylinder (Z). There is a control system (CB, R, for example) including a height detection device (H). The control system is configured to compare a height signal to a target value and calculate a control deviation (claim 1, for example). Cylinder displacement is based on a control deviation; however, Herrmann is silent regarding a maximum value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have limited displacement based on a maximum value in order to, for example, prevent damage to the machine. Also note the 112 rejection above, as this rejection is based upon claim interpretation in view of the indefiniteness. Finally, because numerical comparisons can be performed by control systems capable of calculations, it does not appear that a patentable distinction is possible based upon an inputted value (i.e., “maximum value”) into a control system.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, the height detection device is configured to detect vertical movements.
Regarding claim 3, given the use of a maximum value, claim limitations would be met.
Regarding claim 4, the reference value is adjustable by an operator.
Claim 5 is met since a control system which used a reference value would naturally be capable of performing this step. Also, while not indefinite, the term “adapt” as used in this claim is awkward.
Herrmann operates in the manner of claims 6 and 7 and, given the use of maximum value, claim 8 would be met.
Given the machine and in view of the indefiniteness issues, the method claims would be met based on the modification discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach road finishers.
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