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.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CZECH REPUBLIC on December 18th, 2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jefferey L. Stern, U.S. 10,577,757, herein referred to as Stern et al.
Regarding Claim 1: Stern et al., teaches a self-propelled (Column 5=>Lines 2-8), eccentrically weighted (Fig. 3 (38) & Fig. 4 (84 & 86)) vibrating roller compactor that contains within the cylindrical outer wall/compacting tread (26), a vibratory mechanism (28) that comprises of a first hydraulic motor (30) that is connected via first coupling (68) to bearing (60) that is supported by bracket (64), which are connected to the rotatable shaft (40) with eccentric weights (38 or 84/86) attached to it. Weights (38 or 84/86) having variable configurations in order to facilitate a desired vibrational effect. Further, first and second inner vertical members (50 & 52) which are mounted in the vibrating tread asymmetrically to the axis of the vibrating roller and perpendicular to the axis of its rotation. On the other end of the tread (26) is the second hydraulic motor (32), second coupling (70), rotatable shaft (40) and second bearing (62). Two remotely located hydraulic pumps (22 & 24) provide hydraulic power for the first and second hydraulic motors (30, 32), wherein the first hydraulic motor provides the vibratory effect and the second hydraulic motor provides the drive movement in the desired direction over the surface to be compacted. Paired rubber pads to isolate the vibrating mechanism (36) from the main frame (18) are shown on Figs. 3 & 4, but not explicitly identified (see fig. below). Furthermore Stern et al., teaches in Column 3=>Lines 27-29, "A motor other than a hydraulic motor could also be used, such as for example an electric motor."
PNG
media_image1.png
591
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Stern et al., teaches in Figs. 3 & 4 and Column 4=> Lines 64-67 & Column 5=> Lines 1-5, that two couplings (68 & 70) allow the vibrating mechanism to connect to the vibrating shaft that is the first axis of rotation.
Regarding Claim 3: Stern et al., shows in Figs. 3 and 4, bearings (60 & 62) which are located within or in line with the inner first and second vertical members (50 & 52), and are positioned in line with the first axis of rotation, wherein they attach to the vibrating shaft at each end.
Regarding Claim 4: Stern et al., teaches in Column 3=>Lines 27-29, "A motor other than a hydraulic motor could also be used, such as for example an electric motor." Stern further teaches in Column 3=>Lines 44-47, "Motors or devices other than a hydraulic pump and hydraulic motor combination may be used to drive the vibratory mechanism, such as for example an electric motor."
Regarding Claim 5: Stern et al., teaches in Figs. 1, 3 & 4 and Column 2=>Line 67 & Column 3=>Lines 1-5, "The engine (20) may be a diesel engine, a gasoline engine, a gaseous fuel-powered engine or any other type of engine apparent to one skilled in the art. It is contemplated that the engine (20) may alternately embody a non-combustion source of power such as a fuel cell, a battery or an electric motor if desired."
Regarding Claim 8: Stern et al., teaches in Figs. 3 & 4, first and second bearings (60, 62) that are supported respectively in first and second brackets (64, 66) on the first and second vertical members (50, 52), which are connected to the rotatable shaft (40) and in turn connected to the first and second hydraulic motors that rotate the rotatable shaft (40). In light of the use of a bearing assembly in conjunction with the vibrating shaft, such a connection would necessarily use some kind of dynamically balanced connection so as to serve the primary function of a bearing. If a more explicit structure connection definition for "dynamically balanced is intended, such a recitation would be required.
Regarding Claim 9: Stern et al., teaches in Figs. 3 & 4 and Column 4=>Lines 28-39, wherein the individual weight elements (38, 84, 86) may be movable with respect to each other and therefore can be positioned in such a way that the eccentric force is at the center of gravity of the vibrating tread.
Regarding Claim 10: Stern et al., shows in Figs. 3 and 4, the vibratory mechanism (28) is rotatably mounted within the barrel shaped vibrating tread (26).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stern et al. U.S. 10,577,757, in view of Dean R. Potts, US 2003/0082003, herein referred to as Potts.
Regarding Claim 6: Stern et al., teaches in Figs. 3 & 4 a drive motor (32, second hydraulic motor) that is rotatably connected to second coupling (70), which in turn is attached to inner frame (52), which is connected to vibrating tread (26). The second coupling (70) is not explicitly taught as being a gear box or other type of power transfer device. However, Potts does teach in Fig. 2, a first motor (28) that is connected to a gear box (70) that supplies the power for the desired vibrating effect. On the other end of the drum (14) is attached a propel/drive motor (40) that can be electric or hydraulic (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Potts to include a gearbox/power transfer case connected to drive motor (40) for the purpose of amplification of force or speed, provide the operator with a wider range of drive speed to more efficiently perform compaction work and placing less stress/wear on the motor which will increase motor longevity.
PNG
media_image2.png
328
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7: Stern et al., teaches in Figs. 3 & 4 a drive motor (32, second hydraulic motor) that is rotatably connected to second coupling (70), which in turn is attached to inner frame (52), which is connected to vibrating tread (26). The second coupling (70) is not explicitly taught as being a gear box or other type of power transfer device. However, Potts does teach in Fig. 2, a first motor (28) that is connected to a gear box (70) that supplies the power for the desired vibrating effect. On the other end of the drum (14) is attached a propel/drive motor (40) that can be electric or hydraulic (Paragraph 0014). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Potts to include a gearbox/power transfer case connected to drive motor (40) for the purpose of amplification of force or speed, provide the operator with a wider range of drive speed to more efficiently perform compaction work and placing less stress/wear on the motor which will increase motor longevity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 5,248,216 Vural relates to a soil compactor with two oppositely rotating exciter shafts with matching phase positions that create a moment free torque applied to the drum/drum axis, which causes a predominant shear force to act on the soil when compacting
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT C. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3053. The examiner can normally be reached 7.30am to 5pm.
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.
/KALPIT C. PATEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671