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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horning (2,589,257).
Regarding claim 1, Horning teaches a compaction assembly configured to move in a direction of motion over particulate material, the assembly comprising: a reciprocable agitating portion (95) positioned along an axis perpendicular to the direction of motion, the agitating portion configured to move laterally along the axis and to agitate the material transverse to the direction of motion; and a screed plate (71) mounted behind the agitating portion with respect to the direction of motion, the screed plate configured to smooth the material (Column 3, Lines 25-70).
Regarding claim 2, Horning teaches the agitating portion is connected to a motor shaft (131) and a hub (117) with an agitating portion connecting rod (116), and wherein agitation force is provided to the agitating portion using the motor shaft and the hub (Column 9, Line 1-Column 10, Line 60).
Regarding claim 7, Horning teaches the agitating portion (95) includes a first surface for contact with the material, and wherein the first surface includes a plurality of recesses and projections (95a,b).
Regarding claim 8, Horning teaches the recesses include curves (Figure 10). Each of the serrations (95a,b) include a curved radius at the peak and valley.
Regarding claim 11, Horning teaches a screed assembly comprising: a main screed portion including: an agitating portion (95) positioned along an axis perpendicular to a direction of motion, the agitating portion configured to move laterally along the axis and to agitate a material transverse to the direction of motion; and a screed plate (71) mounted behind the agitating portion with respect to the direction of motion, the screed plate configured to smooth the material (Figure 11) (Column 3, Lines 25-70).
Regarding claim 12, Horning teaches the agitating portion is connected to a motor shaft (131) and a hub (117) with an agitating portion connecting rod (116), and wherein agitation force is provided to the agitating portion using the motor shaft (131) and the hub connected to the agitating portion connecting rod (Column 9, Line 1-Column 10, Line 60).
Regarding claim 15, Horning teaches the agitating portion includes a first surface for contact with the material, and wherein the first surface includes a plurality of recesses and projections (95a,b).
Regarding claim 18, Horning teaches a method comprising: agitating a paving material along an axis perpendicular to a direction of motion of a work machine (via 95); and smoothing the material subsequent to the agitating (via 71) (Column 3, Lines 25-70).
Regarding claim 19, Horning teaches the agitating includes moving laterally along the axis to agitate the paving material transverse to the direction of motion (via pendulums 116).
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) 4, 9, 10, 13, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horning (2,589,257).
Regarding claim 4, Horning teaches the invention as described above and further teaches the agitating portion is connected to an actuator with an agitating portion connecting rod, and wherein agitation force is provided to the agitating portion using the actuator but fails to teach the actuator is a linear actuator. The examiner takes official notice that rotary and linear actuators are both old and well known in the art and known to be interchangeable with one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a linear actuator to for the eccentric actuator of Horning to move the agitator laterally as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Horning teaches the recesses include curves of a same diameter (Figure 10). The particular diameter and height of the curved portions constitutes a result-effective variable, since the curvature affects interaction with the paving material. Selecting curves of a particular, including curves of the same diameter, in order to accommodate material type or aggregate size would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Regarding claim 10, Horning teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach a height of at least one projection is based on particle dimensions of the material, a type of the material, or material particle dimensions. The particular diameter and height of the curved portions constitutes a result-effective variable, since the curvature affects interaction with the paving material. Selecting curves of a particular, including curves of the same diameter, in order to accommodate material type or aggregate size would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Regarding claim 13, Horning teaches the invention as described above and further teaches the agitating portion is connected to an actuator but fails to teach the agitation force is provided to the agitating portion using a linear actuator. The examiner takes official notice that rotary and linear actuators are both old and well known in the art and known to be interchangeable with one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a linear actuator to for the eccentric actuator of Horning to move the agitator laterally as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Horning teaches the recesses (95a,b) include curves of a same diameter (Figure 10). The particular diameter of the curved portions constitutes a result-effective variable, since the curvature affects interaction with the paving material. Selecting curves of a particular, including curves of the same diameter, in order to accommodate material type or aggregate size would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Regarding claim 20, Horning teaches providing an agitating portion to perform the agitating, wherein the agitating portion includes a first surface for contact with the paving material, and wherein the first surface includes a plurality of recesses and projections (95a,b) wherein the recesses include curves of a same diameter (Figure 10). The particular diameter of the curved portions constitutes a result-effective variable, since the curvature affects interaction with the paving material. Selecting curves of a particular, including curves of the same diameter, in order to accommodate material type or aggregate size would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454.
Claim(s) 3,5,6,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horning (2,589,257) in view of Ellwein (10,246,834).
Regarding claim 3, Horning teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a wear bar between the agitating portion and a screed frame. Ellwein teaches a paver having a wear bar (64) between an agitating portion (60) and the screed frame (105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a wear bar on the paver of Horning as taught by Ellwein to act as a sacrificial plate between the agitator and the screed frame and further as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 5, Horning teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a vertically reciprocating tamper bar. Ellwein teaches a paver having an agitator (72) and a tamper bar assembly (60) positioned between the agitating portion and the screed plate (38), the tamper bar assembly including: a tamper connecting rod (61) configured to have a vertical reciprocating motion; and a tamper bar positioned beneath the plate, to compact the material subsequent to the agitation of the material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tamper bar on the paver of Horning as taught by Ellwein as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 6, Horning teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a tamper bar. Ellwein teaches a paver having an agitator (72) and a tamper bar assembly (60) configured to move vertically with respect to the direction of movement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tamper bar on the paver of Horning as taught by Ellwein as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 14, Horning teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a tamper bar. Ellwein teaches a paver having an agitator (72) and a tamper bar assembly (60) configured to move vertically with respect to the direction of movement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tamper bar on the paver of Horning as taught by Ellwein as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horning (2,589,257) in view of Frelich (2020/0378074).
Regarding claim 17, Horning teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach screed extensions. Frelich teaches a paver with a tamper and a screed and at least one extension screed portion (42,44) positioned laterally from the main screed portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include screed extensions on the screed of Horning as taught by Frelich as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Bohannan teaches a paver having a screed and an agitator that moves laterally.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 March 5, 2026