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. Election/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-13 , drawn to a method for braking , classified in B60T1/062 . II. Claim s 14-17 , drawn to a compaction machine , classified in E01C19/262 . The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand . For example, the method need not be practiced by a control device-implemented system. In particular, it is noted that steps such as steps e and f are recited as contingent limitations which need not be performed, in contract to the invention of Group II which must have the control device with the corresponding programming. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (A) Separate classification; (B) A separate status in the art even when classifiable together; (C) A different field of search: It is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries. Examiner notes that a different field of search may exist even though inventions may be classified together; and/or (D) T he inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph /A . In this case, the inventions are at least classified separately, as indicated above, and/or would require a unique text searching strategy to search the independent or distinct features discussed above. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Steven Grossman on 2/27/26 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-13 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Claim Interpretation This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “travel unit” in claim 1 (corresponding structure found in e.g. Para 0005), “ a device directly or indirectly driving the travel unit ” in claim 1 (corresponding structure found in e.g. Para 0006). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-13 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Applicant is requested to undertake a thorough review of the issues presented below for similar issues. The items identified below should be taken as merely exemplary. Claim 1 recites “ in particular a tandem roller, single-drum roller, rubber-tired roller or waste compactor ”. It is unclear whether the limitation following “in particular” intends to further limit the claim or provide examples. For the purpose of examination, these are understood to be non-limiting examples. Claim 1, step a recites “an electric motor”. However the pre-amble already recites “an electric motor” rendering it unclear whether this is the same electric motor or a different electric motor than what has been introduced. Claims 2- Claim 2, part 2 recites “an electric motor”. However the parent claim already recites “an electric motor” rendering it unclear whether this is the same electric motor or a different electric motor than what has been introduced. Claim 2 recites “ a parameter correlating therewith ”. This limitation is so expansive the metes and bounds of the parameter cannot be determined. Claim 3 recites “ in particular is a tandem roller, a single-drum roller, a rubber-tired roller or a waste compactor ” and “ in particular is greater than the target value of the operating parameter ” . See the rejection(s) and its discussion above for how such limitations are being construed. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the traction pump" and is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the steering feed pump" and is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the control device" and is recited as depending from claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the steering feed pump" and is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the steering feed pump" is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the traction drive hydraulic circuit” and "the steering hydraulic circuit" and is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the steering hydraulic circuit" and is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the steering feed pump" and is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the traction drive hydraulic circuit” and "the steering hydraulic circuit" and is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the traction pump" and “the mechanical coupling” and is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the traction drive hydraulic circuit” is recited as depending from claim 1. This element is first introduced in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 11. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the hydraulic traction motor” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 11. Claim 13 recites “ in particular, downstream of the hydraulic throttle via an accumulator charging valve ”. See the rejection(s) and its discussion above for how such limitations are being construed. For the purpose of examination the claim is understood as depending from claim 3. 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. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gottwick (DE 102007037357 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Gottwick teaches method for braking a compaction machine operated by an electric motor (Fig 2, vehicle 1, capable of compacting by virtue of driving on it) , in particular a tandem roller, single-drum roller, rubber-tired roller or waste compactor (Fig 2, see 112(b) issue above, taken as optional/exemplary) , comprising the steps of: a) (directly or indirectly) driving a travel unit using an electric motor (Fig 2, electric motor 22 drives wheels indirectly via 7) ; b) determining an actual value of an operating parameter (Fig 2, paragraph bridging pages 5-6 of translation , temperature sensor 25 ) ; c) determining a target value of the operating parameter (Fig 2, paragraph bridging pages 5-6 of translation , temperature limit T.sub.1 ); ; d) comparing the actual value of the operating parameter with the target value of the operating parameter (Fig 2, paragraph bridging pages 5-6 of translation , “when exceeding a temperature limit T.sub.1” ) ; e) generating a braking torque by a hydraulic throttle in a brake hydraulic circuit, the brake hydraulic circuit comprising a brake hydraulic pump, if the actual value of the operating parameter deviates from the target value, in particular is greater than the target value of the operating parameter, the throttle being arranged in a hydraulic line with a hydraulic pump (please note that the entirety of the limitation is phrased as a contingent limitation. As stated in MPEP 2114.04(II), “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” The condition of the actual value of the operation parameter deviating from the target value is not positively recited as being required to occur and consequently, this recited step is not required by the claim. ) ; f) transmitting the braking torque via a mechanical coupling from the brake hydraulic pump to a device directly or indirectly driving the travel unit (please note that the entirety of the limitation is phrased as a contingent limitation. As stated in MPEP 2114.04(II), “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” The condition of the actual value of the operation parameter deviating from the target value , as recited in step e, is not positively recited as being required to occur and consequently, this recited step is not required by the claim.) . Regarding claim 2, Gottwick teaches wherein the operating parameter is: a speed of the electric motor; and/or a travel speed of the compaction machine; and/or a temperature of the electric motor and/or a converter and/or a battery (Fig 2, temperature sensor 25 is associated with motor 22) ; and/or a state of charge of a battery; and/or an amperage applied to or output at an electric motor and/or a converter; and/or a torque at the electric motor; or a parameter correlating therewith; or a combination of at least two of the above parameters (note at least one alternative is taught, as indicated as above) . Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Gottwick (DE 102007037357 A1), as discussed, is the best available reference and teaches the parent claim of claim 3. Gottwick teaches a hydraulic system (page 1 of translations, “electrohydraulic” braking system). Claim 3 recites, “ in step a), driving a traction pump in a traction drive hydraulic circuit of the compaction machine by the electric motor; additionally driving a steering feed pump in a steering hydraulic circuit of the compaction machine, wherein the steering feed pump also feeds hydraulic fluid into the traction drive hydraulic circuit, and wherein the steering feed pump is coupled to the traction pump via a mechanical coupling; in step e), generating a braking torque at the steering feed pump by a hydraulic throttle if the actual value of the operating parameter deviates from the target value, in particular is greater than the target value of the operating parameter, the throttle being arranged in a hyd raulic line between the steering feed pump and a steering device in the steering hydraulic circuit and in step f), transmitting the braking torque from the steering feed pump to the traction pump of the traction drive hydraulic circuit via the mechanical coupling .” This limitation is not taught or rendered obvious based on the art available to the examiner, individually or in combination. Note, in view of the 112(b) issues presented above, dependent claims 4-13 are assumed to depend from claim 3. Relevant prior art considered includes: Dagner ( US 20230099177 A1 ) teaches a hydraulic steering system with at least one steering element actuated with pressurized fluid and an electrohydraulic pressurized fluid source with at least one steering pressurized fluid pump that can be driven by at least one electric motor . Kirst ( WO 2020200509 A1 ) teaches a soil-compacting machine (1) for compacting soil (8), in particular a tandem roller, single-drum compactor, pneumatic-tired roller or trench roller, comprising a machine frame (3), at least one running unit (6), which has a wheel (7) or a roller facing (5), a running drive (4) for driving the running unit (6), and a steering drive (9) for adjusting the direction of travel of the soil-compacting machine (1), the soil-compacting machine (1) comprising at least one electric motor (11). Bauer ( DE 102017221754 A1 ) teaches a traction drive, which is provided in particular for a mobile working machine, which is used for driving wheels assigned to a first drive axle and which has at least one primary energy source and a first electric motor . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See discussion under allowable subject matter above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8745 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT typically 8am-4pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7741 . 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. /THEODORE N YAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676