DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
All claims have been examined.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he disclosure relates to” (line 1) is redundant to the purpose of the abstract and should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of claims 8, 9 and 12 have positive recitations directed to a part (third working medium) that is not required (i.e., is optional only) by parent claim 6. The claims must positively recite the third working medium as part of the invention, prior to including recitations further limiting the part.
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 1, 6, 7, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herzberg et al. (U.S. Patent 9,644,343).
Herzberg discloses a road making machine (1) having a tractor, primary drive source (2), a chassis and a material bunker (Figure 1, for example). There is a heating system (primary drive source 2) including a heat pump (22).
Regarding claim 6, there are a plurality of fluid circuits (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 7, heat pumps are naturally configured as claimed since the one fluid increases the temperature of the second fluid in use.
Regarding claim 10, Herzberg includes an airflow machine (“fan or an arbitrary other unit”).
Regarding claim 14, all components are arranged on a single vehicle; thereby meeting claim recitations.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzberg et al. (U.S. Patent 9,644,343).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the examiner takes Official notice that electrically powered vehicles are well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Herzberg in this manner in order to, for example, reduce emissions. Given this reconfiguration, the primary drive source would include energy storage (i.e., batteries); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the system to cool the energy storage.
Regarding claim 4, Herzberg is silent regarding the arrangement of the heat pump; thereby leaving the decision to one skilled in the art. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to configure heat pumps as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Herzberg as claimed in order to obtain a suitable heat pump.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 12 and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an additional working medium as desired in order to cool additional component(s) as desired. This is essentially a duplication of existing parts, which cannot patentably distinguish an apparatus. Further regarding claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any operating temperature deemed best suited to the particular component.
Regarding claim 13, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to use antifreeze in machine cooling liquids in order to regulate freezing and boiling points. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged Herzberg as claimed.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzberg et al. (U.S. Patent 9,644,343), as applied above, and further in view of Brock (U.S. Patent 5,899,630).
Regarding claim 5, Herzberg is silent regarding a screed; however, it is common to use a screed with a road making machine, as exemplified by Brock (12). Further, Brock teaches using a heating system to heat the screed (title, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a screed with Herzberg in order to finish laid material and further to have included the heating system to heat the screed since Brock teaches this to be an effective heating means. This arrangement also meets claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach road making machines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights