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 § 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) 1-2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (2020/0256976) (“Roberts”) in view of Smieja et al. (2013/0253780) (“Smieja”).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts teaches a screed system (100) comprising: a first screed unit comprising a first screed plate (102); a second screed unit comprising a second screed plate; and a plurality of pressure sensors comprising one or more first pressure sensors (108) coupled to the first screed plate and configured to sense a pressure of the first screed plate (paragraph [0045]). Roberts fails to teach a second screed plate. Smieja teaches a paver with a screed system having a first and second screed plate (321,322), and one or more second pressure sensors (342,343) coupled to the second screed plate and configured to sense a pressure of the second screed plate. 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 second screed plate comprising a second set of pressure sensors in the screed system of Roberts as taught by Smieja as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, Roberts as modified by Smieja teaches the plurality of pressure sensors is configured to determine one or more of a pressure at a center of the first screed plate, at a first side of the first screed plate, and at a second side of the first screed plate, the second side opposite the first side (sensors 108 are distributed across the plate).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts as modified Smieja teaches the screed system includes a first screed unit including the screed plate and a second screed unit including a second screed plate, and wherein at least a height of the first screed unit is adjustable relative to a height of the second screed unit.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (2020/0256976) (“Roberts”) in view of Smieja et al. (2013/0253780) (“Smieja”) and in further view of Quenzi et al. (7,909,533) (“Quenzi”)
Regarding claim 3, Roberts as modified by Smieja teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach changing the angle of attack in response to the pressure signal. Quenzi teaches a screed system comprising at least one actuator (325) configured to change an angle of attack the screed plate in response to a sensed pressure (Column 5, Lines 27- 40) of the screed plate, wherein the angle of attack is an angle between the screed plate and a surface to be paved (Column 19, lines 57-60; Column 21, Lines 25-35). The pressure sensor senses the downward pressure and the actuator adjusts the downward pressure, therefore the actuator can be adjusted in response to the value recorded by the sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the screed of Roberts as taught by Quenzi as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13 are allowed.
Claim 24 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights