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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, line 1, “senor” should be changed to –sensor--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 5-8, 13-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utterodt (11,001,977) in view of Buschmann et al. (2010/0150650) (“Buschmann”).
Regarding claim 1, Utterodt teaches a paving machine comprising: a machine frame (12); a screed system (18) connected to the frame and including a mat crown system (65); a sensor (63) connected to the paving machine and configured to detect anomalies in an asphalt mat laid by the screed system; and a controller (66) communicatively connected to the sensor and the mat crown system and configured to control the mat crown system to adjust a crown of the asphalt mat in response to the sensor detecting features in an asphalt mat. Buschmann teaches a paver with a sensor for detecting one or mor anomalies (deviations) in an asphalt mat and adjusting a parameter via a controller (paragraph [0021]). 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 sensor to detect anomalies in the asphalt mat of Utterodt as taught by Buschmann to ensure the mat is completed to the desired specifications.
Regarding claim 2, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the controller is configured to control the mat crown system to produce a positive crown of the asphalt mat in response to the mat striping sensor detecting one or more anomalies in the asphalt mat (Column 4, Lines 35-60).
Regarding claim 3, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the controller is configured to control the mat crown system to incrementally increase the crown of the asphalt mat in response to the mat striping sensor detecting one or more anomalies in the asphalt mat (Column 10, Lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 5, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the controller is configured to control the mat crown system to incrementally increase the crown of the asphalt mat in increments but fails to explicitly teach the increments are approximately equal to one millimeter (0.03937 inches). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to increase the crown in increments of 1 millimeter, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the controller is configured to control the mat crown system to incrementally increase the crown of the asphalt mat up to and including a threshold positive crown (the set value).
Regarding claim 7, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the threshold positive crown is approximately equal to .125 inches (3.175 millimeters). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the threshold crown equal to .125 inches, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the mat striping sensor is configured to detect variation (deviations in Buschmann) in one more characteristics of the asphalt mat.
Regarding claim 13, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the screed system comprises at least one screed plate (40) and the mat crown system comprises a crown mechanism configured to move the at least one screed plate between a planer condition in which the screed plate is substantially planer, a convex condition in which the at least one screed plate is convex, and a concave condition in which the at least one screed plate is concave (132).
Regarding claim 14, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the screed system comprises first and second screed plates (42,44) pivotally connected at and configured to pivot about a forward-to-backward centerline (46) of the paving machine.
Regarding claim 15, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the controller is configured to control the mat crown system to produce a positive crown of the asphalt mat in response to the mat striping sensor detecting one or more anomalies in the asphalt mat; and the crown mechanism of the mat crown system produces the positive crown of the asphalt mat by pivoting the first and second screed plates (42, 44) about the forward-to-backward centerline (46) of the paving machine.
Regarding claim 17, Utterodt teaches a method comprising: laying an asphalt mat using a paving machine (12); detecting one or more anomalies in the asphalt mat using one or more mat sensors (63) connected to the paving machine; and adjusting a crown (65) of the asphalt mat in response to detecting the one or more anomalies. Buschmann teaches a paver with a sensor for detecting one or more anomalies (deviations) in an asphalt mat and adjusting a parameter via a controller (paragraph [0021]). 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 sensor to detect anomalies in the asphalt mat of Utterodt as taught by Buschmann to ensure the mat is completed to the desired specifications.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utterodt (11,001,977) in view of Buschmann et al. (2010/0150650) (“Buschmann”) and in further view of Baker et al. (6,749,364) (“Baker”)
Regarding claim 9, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the sensor is an infrared sensor. Baker teaches a paving machine with a sensor to detect mat abnormalities wherein the mat striping sensor comprises an infrared sensor (14) configured to detect variation in temperature of the asphalt mat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sensor of Utterodt an infrared temperature sensor as taught by Baker as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the anomaly is a variation in temperature, density or reflectivity. Baker teaches a paving machine with a sensor to detect mat abnormalities wherein the mat striping sensor comprises an infrared sensor (14) configured to detect variation in temperature of the asphalt mat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sensor of Utterodt an infrared temperature sensor as taught by Baker as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utterodt (11,001,977) in view of Buschmann et al. (2010/0150650) (“Buschmann”) and in further view of Hedrington (2021/0180271)
Regarding claim 10, Utterodt as modified by Buschmann teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the sensor is a density sensor. Hedrington teaches a paving machine with a sensor wherein the sensor (46) comprises a density sensor configured to detect variation in density of the asphalt mat (paragraph [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sensor of Utterodt a density sensor as taught by Hedrington as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 11, 12, 19-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is allowed.
The prior art does not teach a sensor that specifically detects striping. Claims 1 and 17 do not explicitly claim that the sensor system must detect striping, only mat anomalies.
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. Nelson teaches a paver with sensors to detect smoothness and a controller to adjust parameters of the paver.
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 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights