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 . 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.
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, 2, 5, 6, 11, 16 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietmar Hutschenreiter et al. (D.E. 2,919,154), herein referred to as Hutschenreiter.
Claim Details:
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 16, Hurschenreiter discloses a system for an asphalt compactor comprising:
An edge forming assembly (as seen in Figure 1), including a modular edge compaction wheel assembly (including wheel 23 attached to arm 10) configured to compact an edge of an asphalt mat (24) as the compactor travels over the asphalt mat (Paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 in the translation);
Wherein the modular edge compaction wheel assembly includes a plurality of sections (as seen in Figure 1, the wheel 23 includes multiple segments formed the tapered surface pressed against the road edge), each section configured to compact the edge of the asphalt mat at different depths when stacked together (as seen in Figure 1, wherein the frustoconical shape causes an angled contact at different depths; see translation Page 5).
Regarding Claims 2 & 17, Hutschenreiter teaches in Figs. 1 & 2 and Column 4=>Lines 7-12 a corresponding activating mechanism/linear actuator (5 & 6) that the operator activates to raise/lower the compaction wheel (23) for the desired compaction/cutting edge depth/height in the same manner and functionality as referenced in Knopp.
Regarding Claim 5, Hutschenreiter further teaches in Figs. 1 & 2, a lower base plate (1) and upper base plate (17) as the means for attaching the edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly to the asphalt compactor.
Regarding Claim 6, Hutschenreiter teaches in Figs. 1, 2 & 3, an edge compaction wheel mount assembly for attaching the modular edge compaction wheel assembly to the edge forming assembly. The edge compaction wheel assembly comprises of a hub (13), support arm (10), mounting strip (10a) and fastening screws (11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 7 through 10, 12 through 15 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dietmar Hutschenreiter et al. (D.E. 2,919,154), herein referred to as Hutschenreiter and Elisabeth Hoffman (D.E. 2,927,883), herein referred to as Hoffman.
Claim Details:
Regarding Claim 7, Hutschenreiter teaches in Fig.1 a compaction/edging wheel assembly consisting of a plurality of sections (23) that are laminated against each other and secured together using bolts, which results in an overall frustoconical shape, which performs the intended function of compacting and edging granular paving material. Hoffman also teaches in Figs. 5, 6, 9 & 15, a compaction/edging wheel assembly consisting of a plurality of sections (10) that are laminated against each other and are deployed using a linear actuator (6 - Hutschenreiter and 12 – Hoffman).
Neither Hutschenreiter or Hoffman specifies a method of nesting/laminating of said sections against each other. However, the frustoconical wheel segments taught by Hutschenreiter & Hoffman are fitted closely together when assembled to function as intended and the smaller diameter segments do technically fit within the bounds of the larger adjoining segments. Furthermore, as Hutschenreiter only discloses that the outer edge of the compaction wheel (Figs. 1 & 2 pressure wheel (23)) affects the functionality, it appears that internal nesting would not have a meaningful impact on the intended performance or use of the tool.
Regarding Claim 8, Hutschenreiter teaches in Fig.1 a compaction/edging wheel assembly consisting of a plurality of sections (23) that are laminated to each other and secured together using bolts, which results in an overall frustoconical shape, which performs the intended function of compacting and edging granular paving material. Hutschenreiter, does not teach of a specific method of lamination of said sections against each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, to modify the nesting feature of Hutschenreiter so that each plurality wheel section (23) can be laminated in a way that each mating surface or part thereof is nestled with the other. Furthermore, as Hutschenreiter only discloses that the outer edge of the compaction wheel affects the functionality, it appears that internal nesting would not have a meaningful impact on the intended performance or use of the tool.
Regarding Claim 9, Hutschenreiter teaches in Fig. 1 a compaction/edging wheel assembly consisting of a plurality of sections (23). Hutschenreiter further teaches in Fig. 2 four attachment fasteners (not labeled, each fastener head shown the same as 12-, 3-, 6- & 9-hour hand markings on a clock), fastening the plurality of sections (23), which are oriented/aligned with respect to one another to allow for readily fastening together.
Regarding Claims 10 & 20, Hutschenreiter teaches in Figs. 2 & 3 a compaction/edging wheel consisting of a plurality of sections (23). Hutschenreiter does not teach specific size requirements in the diameter or thickness of the plurality of sections (23) that comprise the basis of the modular edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, that size requirements for compaction/edging wheel sections would depend on the depth of material to be compacted, the required finished angle of the compacted edge and the site conditions pertaining to. Further compaction/edging wheel sections do not comprise of parts that require fine tolerances or machine precision of parts, to function or be installed or perform as intended.
Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a compaction/edging wheel section as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Regarding Claim 12, Hutschenreiter teaches in Fig.1 a compaction/edging wheel assembly consisting of a plurality of sections (23) that are laminated to each other and secured together using bolts, which results in an overall frustoconical shape, which performs the intended function of compacting and edging granular paving material. Hutschenreiter, does not teach of a specific method of lamination of said sections against each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, to modify the nesting feature of Hutschenreiter so that each plurality wheel section (23) can be laminated in a way that each mating surface or part thereof is nestled with the other. Furthermore, as Hutschenreiter only discloses that the outer edge of the compaction wheel affects the functionality, it appears that internal nesting would not have a meaningful impact on the intended performance or use of the tool.
Regarding Claim 13, Hutschenreiter teaches in Fig.1 a compaction/edging wheel assembly consisting of a plurality of sections (23) that are laminated to each other and secured together using bolts, which results in an overall frustoconical shape, which performs the intended function of compacting and edging granular paving material. Hutschenreiter, does not teach of a specific method of lamination of said sections against each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, to modify the nesting feature of Hutschenreiter so that each plurality wheel section (23) can be laminated in a way that each mating surface or part thereof is nestled with the other. Furthermore, as Hutschenreiter only discloses that the outer edge of the compaction wheel affects the functionality, it appears that internal nesting would not have a meaningful impact on the intended performance or use of the tool.
Regarding Claim 14, Hutschenreiter teaches in Fig.1 a compaction/edging wheel assembly consisting of a plurality of sections (23) that are laminated to each other and secured together using bolts, which results in an overall frustoconical shape, which performs the intended function of compacting and edging granular paving material. Hutschenreiter, does not teach of a specific method of lamination of said sections against each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, to modify the nesting feature of Hutschenreiter so that each plurality wheel section (23) can be laminated in a way that each mating surface or part thereof is nestled with the other. Furthermore, as Hutschenreiter only discloses that the outer edge of the compaction wheel affects the functionality, it appears that internal nesting would not have a meaningful impact on the intended performance or use of the tool.
Regarding Claim 15, Hutschenreiter teaches in Figs. 2 & 3 a compaction/edging wheel consisting of a plurality of sections (23). Hutschenreiter does not teach specific size requirements in the diameter or thickness of the plurality of sections (23) that comprise the basis of the modular edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, that size requirements for compaction/edging wheel sections would depend on the depth of material to be compacted, the required finished angle of the compacted edge and the site conditions pertaining to. Further compaction/edging wheel sections do not comprise of parts that require fine tolerances or machine precision of parts, to function or be installed or perform as intended.
Likewise, it has been held that selecting a dimension for a compaction/edging wheel section as such would merely constitute routine optimization of a results effective variable which has been held to be an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, A).
Claims 3, 4, 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutschenreiter (D.E. 2,919,154) in view of Biberdorf et al. (U.S. 10,662,590) herein referred to as Biberdorf.
Regarding Claims 3, 4, 18 & 19, Hutschenreiter teaches in Figs. 1, 2 & 3 an edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly, configured to compact/cut the edge of paved asphalt and other soft cohesive paving materials as the compactor travels over the asphalt/paving material mat. Hutschenreiter further teaches that the edge compaction/cutting wheel assembly is mechanically attached to the paving compactor machine (Figs. 1 & 3 => (15 & 17)) and is operated manually by the asphalt compactor machine operator.
The claim language “is controllable by the asphalt compactor” is vague and in this context is being interpreted as a kind of active control during use of the compactor. Hutschenreiter does not teach an activating mechanism that is controllable by the asphalt compactor as defined prior.
Biberdorf, further teaches a roadway compactor vehicle and device, wherein there is a remote-control system (300), allows the compactor operator to remotely control/operate the edge compaction/cutting wheel while driving the compactor by use of the user input devices (312a, 312b & 312c), which are located within the operator cab (Column 4=>Lines 45-67).
It would have been obvious to modify the actuation system for the compaction wheel of Hutschenreiter to include the user control system as taught by Biberdorf. Such a modification would give a user greater control over the placement and height adjustment of the tool without the need to leave the operator cab during operation and while operating other elements (Figs. 3 & 4, Column 4=>Lines 45-67 and Column 5, Lines=>1-19). Additionally, it has been held that simple automation of a manual task is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection III).
Conclusion
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.
/K.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671