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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received 2 February 2026, have been fully considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 7-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are amended.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are satisfactory, therefore all 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered. The examiner agrees that the references do not teach modifying operations of a paving machine automatically based on received density information, and that the references do not teach communicating between a compaction machine and a paving machine.
The examiner has entered new grounds of rejection. In the following, the examiner considers that, when given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is not required that “compaction data” come from a compactor machine unless positively recited in the claim language. For example, in ¶31 of the specification, the compaction data may be temperature, moisture, compaction effort, location, or other data. From this it is interpreted that the data need only relate in some way to past, present, or future compaction efforts. The examiner considers that most data obtained regarding a material mat which has been or is to be compacted would qualify as “compaction data,” regardless of whether it was taken by a compactor machine.
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.
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hedrington (US 20210180271 A1) .
Regarding claim 16, Hedrington discloses a paving machine (Abstract), comprising:
a screed assembly (Abstract);
a material disposition apparatus (Fig. 1, augers 30);
a tamper (Fig. 1, tamper bar assembly 20); and
a management system (Fig. 2, density control system) that is configured to:
process compaction data (¶27: the density control system comprises controller 48 which analyzes density information taken by density sensor 46) associated with a paving material mat laid by the paving machine (¶19: density sensor 46 may be coupled to the screed 16 and measure density of the asphalt mat 11 laid by the paving machine 10) to determine one or more density values associated with the paving material mat (the data given to the controller 48 by density sensor 46 are density values; the processing step may refer to converting raw sensor signals into density data); and
cause an adjustment associated with at least one of an operation or a component of the paving machine based on the one or more density values (¶25: “The controller 48 can be configured to automatically make one or more adjustments to the paving machine 10 operating parameters to achieve a desired asphalt mat density.”).
Regarding claim 18, Hedrington discloses the limitations of claim 16 and further discloses that, to cause the adjustment associated with the at least one of the operation or the component of the paving machine, the management system is configured to:
cause the adjustment of one or more settings associated with the at least one of the operation or the component of the paving machine based on the one or more density values (¶26: “the controller 48 can send instructions to the paving machine 10 to adjust the screed down pressure 52, or the speed of the paving machine can be adjusted 54, or the tamper rate 56 of the tamper bar 41 can be adjusted, or the speed or the height of the auger 30 can be adjusted 58.”).
Regarding claim 19, Hedrington discloses the limitations of claim 16, and further discloses that, to cause the adjustment associated with the at least one of the operation or the component of the paving machine, the management system is configured to:
provide information indicating the one or more density values a controller of the paving machine (¶27: density control system comprises controller 48 which receives density values) to allow the controller to automatically perform the adjustment of at least one of the screed assembly, the material disposition apparatus, or the tamper (see ¶26 and rejection of claim 18).
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 10, 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedrington (US 20210180271 A1) in view of Marsolek (US 20170205999 A1).
Regarding claim 10, most limitations of claim 10 are found in claim 16 and are rejected for the same reasons in view of Hedrington. However, Hedrington does not explicitly disclose one or more memories and one or more processors.
Marsolek discloses control systems for paving machines (Abstract; ¶21 Control system 50 may include a plurality of machine control systems which gather and process data). Some of these control systems may have memory and processors (¶32: controller 82a may include microprocessors and memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Marsolek with the invention of Hedrington by causing the management system to comprise one or more memories and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to perform the method outlined in claim 16. Doing so would enable a system to store data, process it, and perform functions autonomously.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites largely the same limitations as claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons, noting the teachings of Marsolek in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, claims 13 and 14 recite largely the same limitations as claim 19 and are rejected for the same reasons, noting the teachings of Marsolek in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, Hedrington discloses the limitations of claim 16 but does not disclose the limitations of claim 20. However, Hedrington does disclose sending density readings to an operator of the paving machine so the operator can make adjustments (¶31).
Marsolek discloses a display device (¶24: 66a) which may be on a paving machine (¶24: display device 66a may be part of control device 38; ¶23: control device 38 may be located onboard a paver 18 such as at operator station 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Marsolek with the invention of Hedrington by, to cause the adjustment associated with the at least one of the operation or the component of the paving machine, configuring the management system to:
provide information indicating the one or more density values to a display of the paving machine to cause the display to present the information indicating the one or more density values. Doing so would enable an operator to make adjustments based on the density values.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites largely the same limitations as claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons, noting the teachings of Marsolek in the rejection of claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, most of the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Hedrington as seen in the rejection of claim 16. However, claim 1 recites that the compaction obtained by a management system of a paving machine is “from a compactor machine.”
Marsolek teaches that a paver and compactor may communicate with an off-board computer (¶65), or with one another (¶31: Communication device 80a may enable communication between paver 18 and other machines 12; ¶15 other machines 12 may include compactors). However, the prior art does not fairly suggest communicating compaction information from a compactor to a paver (that is, to a management system of a paving machine). Therefore, claim 1 is distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 2-9, these claims depend from claim 1 and are therefore also distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims Not Rejected Over Prior Art of Record
Claims 11 and 17 are 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.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, these claims recite that the compaction data is obtained from a compactor machine, therefore claims 11 and 17 are distinguishable over the prior art of record for the same reasons as claim 1. However, as claims 11 and 17 depend from claims 10 and 16, respectively, both of which are rejected over the prior art of record, claims 11 and 17 are objected to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857