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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 Mar 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-13, filed 19 Mar 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oetken, Petersen, Dix, and Caterpillar – Fundamentals of Asphalt Compaction.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, 11-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken US 20200114957 A1 (herein, Oetken) in view of Petersen et. al., US 20200017077 A1(herein, Petersen), Dix US 20200296878 A1 (herein, Dix), and in further view of NPL Caterpillar – Fundamentals of Asphalt Compaction 2017.
Regarding Claim 1, Oetken discloses, a method of operating a compactor (FIG. 2, #100) in a rolling pattern (FIG. 2, #124) on an asphalt mat ([0027] – asphalt mat) comprising:
propelling the compactor in a straight-line pass (See below Examiner’s Illustration) of travel direction to conduct a first forward compaction pass (FIG. 2 illustrates the first pass starting at the bottom of 136 that’s a straight line) over the asphalt mat (FIG. 2, #122 - ¶[0030] – “…the density and/or modulus of the asphalt or soil that forms the surface 122..);
propelling the compactor in the straight-line pass direction of travel to conduct a second forward compaction pass over the asphalt mat (Examiner’s Illustration), the second compaction pass being adjacent and parallel to the first forward compaction pass (See Examiner’s Illustration and FIG. 2 illustrates that after making the first turn, thus forward, at 138 that the second straight line path of 136 is parallel to the first path of 136);
sensing the first turnout (FIG. 5, #406, ¶[0045] - receive signals, data, or other information from one or more sensors 406 configured to detect, measure, etc. one or conditions of, factors and/or parameters related to machine operation…compactor 100 based upon such the one or more sensors 406 (e.g., actuate the steering system to perform a turn having a desired radius of curvature, etc.).
Oetken discloses, steering the compactor into a first turnout deviating from the first straight-line pass direction of travel (See Examiner’s Illustration and FIG. 2 illustrates the first turnout in 138 right after 136 at the bottom of the figure that terminates 136 as it goes into 138 and location of the machine per [0024]), but does not disclose, the first turnout terminating the first forward compaction pass.
However, Petersen teaches, steering the compactor into a first turnout deviating from the first straight-line pass direction of travel, but does not disclose, the first turnout terminating the first compaction pass ([0059] – “…the machine reaches the end of the first pass, at which time the operator places the machine drive controls in a neutral position, releases the throttle control, and/or actuates the brakes to stop the machine at the end of the first pass. If not already facing the second direction, the operator positions the seat in a second orientation,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating of a compactor as disclosed by Oetken to terminate compaction at the first turnout as taught by Petersen. Doing so prevents the tearing of the freshly compacted asphalt and thereby saving time and money.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Oetken does not disclose, propelling the compactor in a first reverse compaction pass backward over the first forward compaction pass.
However, Caterpillar teaches, propelling the compactor in a first reverse compaction pass backward over the first forward compaction pass (See below figure – Basic Rolling Pattern, pg. 57 – “…The roller operator must stop and reverse on the hot mat. At the end of Pass One, the operator turns toward the center of the mat and stops slowly with both drums turned at least 30 degrees leaving the stop mark at angle to the direction of compaction. The operator reverses in the same path for Pass Two. Pass Three is down the center of the mat with some overlap on the coverage of passes one and two. Pass Three is longer than Pass One in order to keep up with the paver…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating of a compactor as disclosed by modified Oetken to propel the compactor in first reserve compaction pass backward as taught by Caterpillar. Doing so prevents stop marks and thereby saving time and money by preventing repeat work.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Oetken discloses the compactor, the first straight-line pass, a second turnout (FIG. 2 illustrates a second) and the second pass but does not disclose,
steering the compactor into a second turnout deviating from the straight-line pass direction of travel, the second turnout being spatially past the first turnout and terminating the second forward compaction pass.
However, Petersen teaches,
steering the compactor into a second turnout deviating from the straight-line pass direction of travel, the second turnout being spatially past the first turnout and terminating the second forward compaction pass (¶[0015] – “…an operator of a compactor may wish to make two passes over the same material, e.g. asphalt, in two opposite directions to fully compact the material with the machine. In such circumstances, some existing machine control systems may require the operator to cause the machine to move along the material path in a first direction to the end of the path, stop the machine by applying brakes and/or placing the machine drive controls into a neutral position….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating of a compactor as disclosed by modified Oetken to terminate compaction at the first turnout as taught by Petersen. Doing so prevents the tearing of the freshly compacted asphalt and thereby saving time and money.
Modified Oetken does not disclose, propelling the compactor over the first turnout during the second forward compaction pass before steering the compactor.
However, Caterpillar teaches, propelling the compactor over the first turnout during the second forward compaction pass before steering the compactor (Caterpillar above and below diagram illustrated the second forward compaction pass over first turnout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating of a compactor as disclosed by modified Oetken to terminate compaction at the first turnout as taught by Petersen. Doing so prevents the tearing of the freshly compacted asphalt and thereby saving time and money.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, corresponding to limitations in Claim 1 cited by Caterpillar and additional limitations per Oetken discloses, an asphalt compaction system (¶[0002] – asphalt compaction) comprising:
a compactor (FIG. 2, #100 – compactor) configured to make a plurality of passes over an asphalt mat (FIG. 2, #s 136 and 138, ¶[0027] – “…the compactor 100 is passed across an asphalt mat…”) in a rolling pattern (FIG. 2 illustrates rolling pattern per 138).
Oetken discloses the compactor, track of location (FIG. 2, ¶[0032] – “…operational path…” – i.e. a tracking a location and Peterson [0024] – “location of machine”), an electronic controller to steer the compactor (Claim 1 – “a controller…control the steering system…”) and the asphalt mat but does not disclose,
at least one sensor disposed on the compactor and configured to track location of the compactor on the asphalt mat; and
an electronic controller in electronic communication with the at least one sensor and
programmed to steer the asphalt compactor into a second turnout located spatially past the location of the first turnout.
However, Dix teaches,
at least one sensor (FIG. 2, ¶[0020] – “…the spatial locating device 60 may include a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver configured to receive signals from two or more satellites in orbit (e.g., GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou, etc.) to determine the position…”) disposed on the compactor and configured to track location of the compactor of the asphalt mat;
an electronic controller in electronic communication with the at least one sensor and programmed to steer the asphalt compactor into the second turnout located spatially past the location of the first turnout(FIG. 4, ¶[0027] – “…the work vehicle 12 may be configured to execute the end-of-row turn 110 at a first turn starting point 108 disposed in the headland region 98….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating of a compactor as disclosed by Oetken to include the second turnout past the first turnout as taught by Dix. Doing so provides the requisite information to determine accurately the work area so as to maximize the efficient use of the compactor and thereby saving time and money.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Oetken further discloses, wherein the step of sensing the first turnout utilizes a visual sensor (FIG. 2, ¶[0028] – “…one or more sensors 118 can be remote from the compactor 100 such as a camera or other visual detection device…”) to sense a deviation in an un-compacted edge (FIG. 2, ¶[0028] – “…visual detection device placed adjacent the compactor 100 in or adjacent a compacting area 124…”) of the asphalt map.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Oetken further discloses, wherein the step of sensing the first turnout utilizes a visual sensor configured for pattern recognition or color differentiation (¶[0028] – “…temperature sensor 120 can be a visual sensor such as an infra-red sensor(s)…”).
Regarding Claim 6 and 16, modified Oetken further discloses, wherein the step of sensing the first turnout utilizes a force sensor responsive to mechanical forces (¶[0029] – “…steering sensor 130 ... accelerometer(s)…among other example rotary/orientation sensors…”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, modified Oetken further discloses a location (FIG. 2, ¶[0032] – a location on a path) but does not disclose, wherein the compactor includes a GNSS transceiver to mark the location of the first turnout on the asphalt mat through pass mapping, and wherein the compactor is autonomous (¶[0026] – “…the compactor 100 is operated in an autonomous fashion…”)
However, Dix teaches, wherein the compactor includes a GNSS transceiver (FIG. 2, #60 – “special locating device 60 may include GNSS”) to mark a location of the first turnout on the asphalt mat through pass mapping.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating of a compactor as disclosed by Oetken to include the second turnout deviating past the first turnout as taught by Dix. Doing so provides the requisite information to determine accurately the work area so as to maximize the efficient use of the compactor and thereby saving time and money.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, modified Oetken further discloses, the first turnout and the second turnout are performed at least partially over previously uncompacted portions of the asphalt mat. (Previously cited Caterpillar illustrates first and second turnout over previously uncompacted portions of the mat).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken US 20200114957 A1 (herein, Oetken) in view of Petersen et. al., US 20200017077 A1(herein, Petersen), Dix US 20200296878 A1 (herein, Dix), NPL Caterpillar – Fundamentals of Asphalt Compaction 2017, and in further view of Bialer et al. US 20240248174 A1 (herein, Bialer).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Oetken further discloses, wherein the at least one sensor (FIG. 2, ¶[0028] – “…one or more sensors 118 can be remote from the compactor 100 such as a camera or other visual detection device…”) is configured to sense an un-compacted edge (FIG. 2, ¶[0028] – “…visual detection device placed adjacent the compactor 100 in or adjacent a compacting area 124…”) of the asphalt mat.
Modified Oetken does not disclose, the at least one sensor is a reflective sensor emitting waves towards the asphalt mat and receiving reflected waves back.
However, Bialer teaches, the at least one sensor is a reflective sensor emitting waves towards the asphalt mat and receiving reflected waves back (FIG. 1 and Claim 9 – “…a radar sensor system with an array of multiple antennas, wherein the array of multiple antennas is characterized by effecting a reflection-ghost offset of reflective intensity of signals received thereby in one or more domains of a reflective-intensity (RI) spectrum; a reflective-radar signal obtainer configured to obtain reflective radar signals regarding a scene monitored by the radar sensor system, the reflective radar signals being received by the array of multiple antennas;…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the asphalt compaction system as disclosed by modified Oetken to include a reflective sensor as taught by Bialer. Doing so provides the requisite information to determine accurately the information pertaining to the compaction of the asphalt mat.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken US 20200114957 A1 (herein, Oetken),in view of Dix US 20200296878 A1 (herein, Dix), and in further view of Corcoran et al. US 20140348587 A1 (herein, Corcoran).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Oetken discloses the force sensor but does not disclose, wherein the force sensor is a vibration sensor that senses a compaction state of the asphalt mat.
However, Corcoran teaches, wherein the force sensor is a vibration sensor (FIG. 1, #39 – compaction state system) that senses a compaction state of the asphalt mat (¶[0039] – “…the use of a vibratory system to assist in compaction …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating of a compactor as disclosed by modified Oetken to include the vibration sensor and compaction state as taught by Corcoran. Doing so provides the requisite information to determine accurately the state of compaction of the asphalt mat.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Oetken discloses the force sensor but does not disclose, wherein the force sensor is a resistive force sensor that senses a compaction state of the asphalt mat.
However, Corcoran teaches, wherein the force sensor is a resistive force sensor (FIG. 1, #27 – compaction sensor system) that senses a compaction state of the asphalt mat (¶[0038] – “…a relative change in the compaction of the work material 101..”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the operating of a compactor as disclosed by modified Oetken to include the resistive force sensor and compaction state as taught by Corcoran. Doing so provides the requisite information to determine accurately the state of compaction of the asphalt mat.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetken US 20200114957 A1 (herein, Oetken), in view of Dix US 20200296878 A1 (herein, Dix) and in further view of Strong et al., US 20190043201 A1 (herein, Strong).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Oetken further discloses, wherein the at least one sensor is a visual sensor (¶[0028] – “…temperature sensor 120 can be a visual sensor such as an infra-red sensor(s)…”) configured to capture an image (¶[0028] – “…to deliver real-time data…”) of the asphalt mat; and
but does not disclose, wherein the visual sensor is a smart camera configured for pattern recognition or color differentiation.
However, Strong teaches, wherein the visual sensor is a smart camera (¶[0651] – “smart cameras”) configured for pattern recognition (¶[0651] – “…a camera scans a previously unseen field of objects, it applies pattern recognition algorithms…”) or color differentiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the asphalt compaction system as disclosed by modified Oetken to include the smart camera and pattern recognition as taught by Strong. Doing so permits the generation of the image from the smart camera that provides detailed pictures that allows for better control of the compactor.
Allowable Subject Matte
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 13, and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited but not utilized in the Office Action pertain to the method and system of operating a compactor on an asphalt mat.
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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights