DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 31, 33-37, 39-42, 44 and 46-50 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE 9204614 from Moba Electronic (Moba) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2006/0039757 to Lemke (Lemke).
Claims 31 and 44
Citations to Moba will refer to the English translation of DE 9204614 placed in parent application 14/833,369 on 16 May 2019.
With regard to (a) detecting a profile of a ground surface …, and the profile is detected based on a distance between the scanner and ground surface; Moba teaches determining the course of the road-pavement profile using ultrasonic transceivers to determine the distance (Figs. 1-3, pages 18-23; Figs. 1-3, milling drum 1, dotted curvy line 3; Fig. 4, ultrasonic transceivers U1-U34; pages 26, 27).
With regard to (b) detecting with at least one distance sensor at least one distance parameter corresponding to a distance traveled by the construction machine; Moba teaches the distance that is covered by the working machine is detected with a displacement sensor (Fig. 4, displacement sensor 5; Fig. 6, displacement sensor 9; page 24).
With regard to (c) determining a usage of the construction machine at least partially as a function of the profile and the distance parameter; Moba teaches determining the excavated volume or the milled off volume using the profile and the distance traveled (pages 7, 8, 11).
Moba does not teach at least one laser scanner, and that a line is projected on the ground surface in front of the milling drum and across at least an entirety of the drum width. Lemke teaches a laser scanner attached to a milling machine (pars. 11-15; Fig. 1, laser scanner 8). Modification of the Moba to include the laser scanner as an alternative to the ultrasonic sensors would result in a laser scanner that is oriented similarly to the ultrasonic sensors in Moba resulting in a line being projected on the ground covering the same area covered by the ultrasonic sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surface profile determination, as taught by Moba, to include a laser scanner, as taught by Lemke, because then a well known method of determining distance would have been provided as an alternative and would provide an extended range of detection which in turn permits monitoring of hazard region extending over a side length of the milling machine (Lemke, Abstract).
With regard to claim 44, Moba further teaches a milling drum supported from the machine frame and having a drum width (Fig. 6, milling drum 1, machine assembly 21; pages 27, 28);
and at least one component configured to generate signals representative of a profile of a ground surface in front of the milling drum and across at least the drum width (Fig. 4, ultrasonic transceivers on mounting-support device 5; Fig. 6, mounting support device 5).
Claims 33 and 46
Moba teaches that the profile comprises a location along the drum width of at least one previously cut edge of a previously milled area in front of the milling drum (Fig. 3, page 20, last paragraph to page 22);
the usage of the machine is measured by determining an area of a ground surface milled by the construction machine (Figs. 1 and 2, page 21, already milled-off excavated material over width B1 and depth H); and
the determined area accounts for an actual width of material being milled being less than the drum width due to the presence of the previously milled area in front of the milling drum (page 21, determines already milled off area and pavement which is still to be milled off).
Claims 34 and 47
Moba teaches determining with at least one depth sensor at least one depth parameter corresponding to a milling depth of the milling drum (page 9, last two paragraphs to page 10, depth H is known and taken into account);
wherein the profile comprises a location along the drum width of at least one previously cut edge of a previously milled area in front of the milling drum;
wherein the usage of the machine is measured by determining a volume of material milled by the construction machine, at least as a function of the profile, the depth parameter, the distance parameter, and accounting for an actual width of material being milled being less than the drum width due to the presence of the previously milled area in front of the milling drum (Moba, pages 9, 10, 13, 18-21)
Claim 35
Moba teaches that the at least one depth parameter corresponds to at least a position of at least one side plate relative to the machine frame (Fig. 6, pages 27-28, assembly 21 corresponds to the machine frame, position frame 24 (corresponds to a side plate) can be lifted and lowered with respect to assembly 21).
Claim 36
Moba teaches that the at least one depth parameter further corresponds to a position of a stripping plate relative to a machine frame of the construction machine (Fig. 6, mounting support device 5 (corresponds to a stripping plate) can be lifted with respect to assembly 21; pages 27-28).
Claim 37
Moba teaches that the at least one depth parameter corresponds to a position of a stripping plate relative to at least one side plate of the construction machine (Fig. 6, mounting support device 5, position frame 24; page 28).
Claims 39 and 49
Moba teaches that the at least one depth parameter includes an uncut ground surface depth parameter detected with the at least one laser scanner and a milled surface depth parameter detected with the at least one depth sensor (Fig. 3, pages 20-21, uncut area 4 with width B2 is recognized to be cut, while there is other area still to be milled off).
Claims 40 and 50
Moba does not teach that at least a first laser scanner detects the profile of the ground surface in front of the milling drum and across at least the drum width; and at least a second laser scanner determines the at least one depth parameter corresponding to the milling depth of the milling drum with respect to a measured distance to a ground surface behind the milling drum.
Lemke teaches a laser scanner attached to a milling machine (pars. 11-15; Fig. 1, laser scanner 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surface profile determination, as taught by Moba, to include a laser scanner, as taught by Lemke, because then a well known method of determining distance would have been provided as an alternative and would provide an extended range of detection which in turn permits monitoring of hazard region extending over a side length of the milling machine (Lemke, Abstract).
Claim 41
Moba teaches that the profile further relates to a varying surface elevation of the ground surface to be milled in front of the milling drum (Figs. 1-3, pages 18-21)
Claim 42
Moba teaches that in step (b), the at least one distance sensor comprises a touchless sensor configured to detect objects within its field of view on the ground surface and configured to measure changes in position of those objects in the field of view (Fig. 6, pages 27, 28, ultrasonic sensors/transceivers are touchless).
Claim 48
Moba teaches that the at least one depth parameter corresponds to a position of a stripping plate relative to a machine frame of the construction machine and to a position of a side plate relative to the machine frame (Fig. 6, mounting support device 5 (corresponds to a stripping plate) can be lifted with respect to assembly 21; position frame 24 (corresponds to a side plate); pages 27-28).
Claim 38 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moba in view of Lemke as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of JP 3-172404 to Kishi (Kishi).
Claim 38
The citations to Kishi will refer to the English translation of Kishi provided in parent application 14/833,369 on 11 December 2017.
Moba and Lemke teach all the limitations of claim 34 upon which claim 34 depends. Moba and Lemke do not teach that the at least one depth parameter corresponds to a cross-slope of the milling drum. Kishi teaches automatically causing the road surface to be cut with a cross slope according to cutting data (page 7, last paragraph to page 8, first paragraph; Figs. 6-7, page 9, cross slope at each division point). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surface profile determination combination, as taught by Moba and Lemke, to include cutting with a cross slope, as taught by Kishi because it would have provided an alternative well known means of providing a reliable and accurate outcome.
Claim 43 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moba in view of Lemke as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 6,371,566 to Haehn (Haehn).
Claim 43
Moba and Lemke teach all the limitations of claim 31 upon which claim 43 depends. Moba and Lemke do no teach that in step (b), the at least one distance sensor comprises a ground engaging free-wheeling distance sensor mounted on a side plate of the machine, a GNSS sensor, and/or a total station sensor. Haehn teaches touchless sensor including a total station and GPS sensors (Figs. 3, 4, col. 7, line 37 – col. 8, line 10; col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surface profile determination combination, as taught by Moba and Lemke, to include total station and GPS sensors, as taught by Haehn, because it is a well-known technique in the art that would provide predicted results (Haehn, col. 6, line 6 – col. 7, line 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 51 and 52 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 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the ultrasonic transceivers as disclosed by Moba does not teach “detecting with at least one laser scanner a profile of a ground surface,” as Moba utilizes ultrasonic. Applicant states that the ultrasonic transceivers as disclosed by Moba also do not overlap and therefore Moba does not disclose or suggest that a profile is detected across at least an entirety of the drum width.
However, while the ultrasonic transceivers may not provide continuous coverage of the ground surface in front of the drum, the transceivers cover the entire length of the milling drum, (Fig. 4, transceivers U1 – U34, mounting support device 5; Fig. 6, mounting support device 5, milling drum 1; pages 22-23).
Applicant initially submits that it is not enough for one of skill in the art to simply "include" the laser scanner of Lemke, as Lemke discloses utilization of the laser scanner with a scanning plane essentially parallel to the side wall of the chassis, i.e., parallel to a direction of movement of the construction machine, and not projecting a line across at least an entirety of the drum width. Rather, one of skill in the art would need to replace the ultrasonic transceivers of Moba with the laser scanner of Lemke in order to arguably read upon the above-referenced limitations of claim 31. Further Applicant states this does not align with the motivation cited by the Office. Even assuming arguendo that one of skill in the art were motivated to provide the laser scanner of Lemke on the machine of Moba for the cited purpose (i.e., providing an extended range of detection which in turn permits monitoring of hazard region extending over a side length of the milling machine), this only indicates a motivation to include the laser scanner in the location cited by Lemke (i.e., having a scanning plane parallel to the side), and does not demonstrate that one of skill in the art would be motivated in any way to replace the ultrasonic transceivers of Moba with a laser scanner.
However, the motivation does not limit the way that the laser scanner could be combined or the orientation of the laser scanner. Since the laser scanner is being included as an alternative to the ultrasonic sensors, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to orient the laser scanner to cover the same area that is covered by the ultrasonic sensors.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857