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 . 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipherd et al. US 6,497,531 in view of Heusinger et al. US 8,888,404.
Sipherd et al. discloses a concrete curing machine comprising:
A frame (12), a plurality of ground engaging units (24), a fluid reservoir (29);
A sprayer assembly comprising:
A carriage (16) including a hood (41) defining a shielded spray zone, a boom pipe (42)
spray nozzles (44) and hose (64).
Wherein spraying of controlled amounts of curing compound onto a concrete surface is provided for. Col. 2, lns. 10-16, Col. 4.
What Sipherd et al. does not disclose is a control system. However, Heusinger et al. teach a spray device management system comprising:oHH
A frame (2), a plurality of ground engaging elements (4), a sprayer (18), at least one nozzle (15.X), a pump (22), a plurality of valves (16.x), (24), a reservoir (23) and a control unit (19). Wherein the control unit settings can be adjusted by an operator to start a spraying function, stop a spraying function and begin a cleaning function.
Further wherein, after receiving a command by the operator the control unit (19) detects
an operating state of the at least one nozzle (15.x), such as at start up, and determines whether dry operation or wet operation is desired. See Figs. 5a-5c. Still further wherein wet operation can be deactivated and dry operation can actuated by the control unit (10). “The control unit (19) controlling the pump (22) and control valves (16.x) to determine which nozzles (15.x) are in a spraying mode or cleaning mode. Thereby preventing more than one operating mode from being selected by the operator; Cols. 9-11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roadway construction machine of Sipherd et al. with the control system taught by Heusinger et al. in order to prevent clogging of nozzles and control fluid expenditure.
With respect to claims 14, 15 Sipherd et al. teach the use of an on-board reservoir (29) but do not disclose if it is replaceable or an IBC reservoir. However, it would be a matter of design choice as to what type of reservoir is used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roadway construction machine of Sipherd et al. with a replaceable IBC reservoir in order to facilitate premixed compositions.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipherd et al. US 6,497,531 in view of Heusinger et al. US 8,888,404 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Britton et al. US 3,129,890. Sipherd et al. in view of Heusinger et al. disclose essentially all that is claimed, except for the type of pump is
used to send fluid through the nozzles. However, Britton et al. disclose a fluid dispensing vehicle (10) configured to spray a liquid onto a concrete surface using: A plurality of spray bars (60,63), nozzles (61) a reservoir (10t) and a centrifugal pump (33) for pressurizing the spray bars and nozzles. Col. 3, lns. 18-65.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roadway construction machine of Sipherd et al. in view of Heusinger et al. with a centrifugal pump as taught by Britton et al. in order to apply up to 500 gallons per minute of fluid to the concrete surface.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipherd et al. US 6,497,531 in view of Heusinger et al. US 8,888,404 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al. US 3,129,890. Sipherd et al. in view of Heusinger et al. disclose essentially all that is claimed, except for the type of valves art used. However, Ito et al. teach a fluid dispensing machine comprising: A spray means (7), and an electromagnetic valve (78) used for opening and closing the spry means nozzle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the roadway construction machine of Sipherd et al. in view of Heusinger et al. with electromagnetic valves as taught by Britton et al. in order to facilitate electronic control of the valves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 10-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Sipherd does not disclose the sprayer including a plurality of shut-off valves. Sipherd does not disclose at least one cleaning tank. Sipher does not disclose an operating unit configured for manual input. Sipherd does not disclose the selectable group including at least two operating modes. Sipherd does not disclose a controller configured to receive the selection of the operating mode and activate the at least one pump.
Applicant then argues against the reference to Heusinger as being directed to a different type of machine as Sipherd and claim 1. Heusinger does not disclose an operating unit configured for manual input by a human operator of an operating mode.
Heusing does not disclose manual selection of an operating mode from the particular claimed group. Heusing does not disclose disclose actuating at least one pump and shut-off valves such that the selected operating mode is executed.
However, the Examiner does not concur.
Sipherd is directed to a concrete curing machine having a spray assembly including a plurality of nozzles for spraying a curing agent. The machine includes a replaceable
IBC canister (29), sprayboom (16), fluid pipe (42) and nozzles (44). But does not disclose a control system.
However, Heusinger teaches a road construction machine comprising
A spraying device and a method for operating a spraying device. The spraying device (18) configured to receive fluid from either of two reservoirs (23a, 23b) using a pump (22) and control unit (19). Wherein a fluid blast is triggered not only once or by hand if required. But obviously it could be triggered manually. Such that the operator does not
Always have to trigger an individual fluid blast for example. Col. 3, lns. 22-37
Wherein a curing agent such as lime/water slurry can be carried in either of the storage reservoirs (23a, 23b) lime being a known curing agent for soil, gravel and other road building materials. Further wherein the spraying function is switched off or the spraying device is switched off and the cleaning function can be explicitly deactivated by the machine operator. Col. 3, lns. 38-48.
Further “A machine operator is then able to adjust the settings in the control unit during the operation of the construction machine to the respective working operation. Col. 4, lns. 40-60. Hence, Heusinger clearly teaches the operator is capable of inputing commands to a control unit (19) to activate/deactivate the spraying and/or cleaning function. Then the control system actuates the inputted command from the operator.
Therefore the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
It is further noted Claim 1 only requires a choice between two operating modes. Claim 3 requires a choice between 4 operating modes and would be allowable if put into independent form
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 9/8/2026
Prosecution Insights