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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carli (2020/0109572).
Regarding claim 1, Carli teaches a screed system (100) comprising: a screed plate (20); and a plurality of pressure sensors (56) coupled to the screed plate and configured to sense a pressure of the screed plate (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 2, Carli teaches the plurality of pressure sensors (56) is configured to determine one or more of a pressure at a center of the screed plate, at a first side of the screed plate (56), and at a second side of the screed plate (56), the second side opposite the first side (Figure 2).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzi et al. (7,909,533).
Regarding claim 1, Quenzi teaches a screed system (10) comprising: a screed plate (20); and a pressure sensor coupled to the screed plate and configured to sense a pressure of the screed plate (Column 5, Lines 27-40). Quenzi fails to teach a plurality of pressure sensors. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to comprise a plurality of pressure sensors in the screed system of Quenzi, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a plurality of pressure sensors, in order to effectively sense pressure at disparate locations across the entire length of the screed plate.
Regarding claim 2, Quenzi teaches a pressure sensor configured to determine the pressure on the screed plate. Although Quenzi fails to explicitly teach the location of the pressure sensor, it would inherently be determining the pressure at least one or more of the center, first side or second side.
Regarding claim 3, Quenzi teaches at least one actuator (325) configured to change an angle of attack the screed plate in response to a sensed pressure (Column 5, Lines27-40) 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quenzi et al. (7,909,533) in view of Wagner et al. (2014/0212217).
Regarding claim 4, Quenzi teaches the invention as described above and further teaches the screed system includes a first screed unit including the screed plate (20) but fails to teach 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. Wagner teaches a screed system (1; Fig. 1, 4; paragraph [0028]), comprising: a first screed unit (9; para [0034]) including a first screed plate (27; para [0034]); a second screed unit (14; para [0033]) Including a second screed plate (28; para [0034]), and wherein at least a height of the first screed unit is adjustable relative to a height of the second screed unit (via 16, 17; para [0036]). 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 as taught by Wagner in the screed system of Quenzi as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further in order to effectively smooth an uneven area of material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-23 are allowed.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest employing a plurality of sensors to generate data relating to a pressure distribution across the width of the screed plate and generate a repositioning control signal based on the determined pressure distribution, much less provide a controller configured to perform such functions. These limitations in combination with the remaining limitations in the independent claim read over the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach nor fairly suggest determining a pressure distribution across the screed plate based on the sensed pressure information; determining, based on the determined pressure distribution across the screed plate, an angle of attack of the screed plate; dynamically adjusting the angle of attack of the screed plate based on the determined pressure distribution. These limitations in combination with the remaining limitations in the independent claim read over the prior art.
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. Graham teaches a paver with a screed having an adjustable angle of attack.
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 February 5, 2026