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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s reply dated 7/3/26 has been entered.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has traversed the Official Notice taken by applicant in the preceding Office Action. Although MPEP 2144.03 permits documentary evidence to be provided in a manner that “does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection,” the examiner is making a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments (including a recitation requiring that the “energy storage” be an “energy resource tank”).
The examiner additionally notes applicant’s arguments and citations arguing that “Luby teaches an electric road construction sit concept in which a service vehicle transport and supplied electrical energy” and that it would be non-obvious to incorporate e.g. a second interface for transmission of energy resources comprising fuel, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, or liquids. The examiner respectfully notes that applicant’s citations are selective and incomplete. Luby specifically teaches “paver 200 may be a fully electric paver which lacks combustion engine or a hybrid electric paver which is only partly electrically powered” (Para 0035) and “service vehicle 100 may be an electrically powered vehicle, or a hybrid electric vehicle” (Para 0031). And so rather than requiring a substantial redesign as applicant asserts, the use of multiple fuel sources (to constitute a hybrid system) is already specifically envisioned by Luby.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “at least one interface” and later in the claim recites a second interface and in claim 3 recites a first interface. It would enhance the grammatical structure of the claim to recite that the first and second interfaces are part of the previously recited at least one interface.
Claims 8 recites “the at least one interface” and “at least one connecting unit” and later in the claim recites a second interface/second connecting unit and in claim 11 recites a first interface/connecting unit. It would enhance the grammatical structure of the claim to recite that the first and second interfaces are part of the previously recited at least one interface.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the interface and the connection unit". Parent claim 8, as amended, recites, “at least one connecting unit” and “at least one interface” and a second connecting unit and a second interface. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which is being referred to.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luby (US 20220379756 A1), in view of Dundar (US 20190256343 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luby teaches a road construction machine formed as a road finisher or a feeder vehicle for conveying paving material to a road finisher, wherein the road construction machine is self-propelled (Fig 2, machine 200/finisher) and comprises a primary drive (Fig 2, Para 0035, “propulsion to the paver via the tracks 240”), a material hopper (Fig 2, hopper 220), at least one electrical load (Fig 2, Para 0035, electric drive system 210), and at least one interface which is connectable to a mobile supply machine for energy resources transmission (Fig 4, Para 0043, cable 310 interface on 200 able to connect to supply machine 100, as seen).
While Luby teaches that the paver 200 may be hybrid (Para 0031, 0035), Luby is not explicit on Luby is silent on at least one energy resource tank and wherein the road construction machine is connectable to the mobile supply machine via a second interface for the transmission of energy resources comprising fuel, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen or liquids required to operate galvanic cells.
Dundar teaches at least one energy resource tank (Fig 2, 104/road construction vehicle as a modification to Luby has a fuel thank 106) and wherein the road construction machine is connectable to the mobile supply machine via a second interface for the transmission of energy resources comprising fuel, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen or liquids required to operate galvanic cells (Fig 2, 104/road construction vehicle as a modification to Luby has a connectable interface 124/200 to allow supply of fuel, as seen).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Luby by having additionally having the energy resource tank and second interface to allow for the supplying of liquid fuel as disclosed by Dundar because Luby discloses a hybrid vehicle and incorporating the tank and second interface particulars recited would allow for refueling and resupplying the paver of Luby without having to make a separate visit to a fuel station (Para 0002 of Dundar).
Regarding claim 2, Luby teaches wherein the road construction machine is loadable with paving material by the mobile supply machine (Fig 4, machine 200 is loadable by supply machine 100).
Regarding claim 3, Luby teaches wherein the road construction machine is connectable to the mobile supply machine via a first interface for the transmission of electrical power (Fig 4, Para 0043, cable 310 able to connect to supply machine 100, as seen, electric supply).
Regarding claim 5, Luby teaches wherein the first interface and/or the second interface are arrangeable at a docking end of the road construction machine (Fig 3-4, docking end/rear end with 202), the docking end comprising a pushing device of the road construction machine (Fig 7, pushing device 710).
Regarding claim 6, Luby teaches wherein the road construction machine is mechanically connectable to the mobile supply machine via the first interface and/or via the second interface (Fig 4, 310 is mechanical/physical connection), such that the road construction machine can transmit force to the mobile supply machine (Fig 4, 310 can have a force applied to it e.g. by being sandwiched between vehicles and them subsequently applied to the road machine).
Regarding claim 7, Luby as modified teaches wherein the first interface and/or the second interface each has an opening for receiving a connecting unit of the mobile supply machine (Fig 3 of Dundar, second interface has an opening 200 accommodating connecting unit 116).
Regarding claim 8, Luby teaches a paving train comprising at least one road construction machine formed as a road finisher or a feeder vehicle for conveying paving material to a road finisher, wherein the road construction machine is self-propelled (Fig 2, machine 200/finisher) and comprises a primary drive (Fig 2, Para 0035, “propulsion to the paver via the tracks 240”), a material hopper (Fig 2, hopper 220), at least one electrical load (Fig 2, Para 0035, electric drive system 210), and at least one interface (Fig 4, Para 0043, cable 310 interface on 200 able to connect to supply machine 100, as seen), wherein the paving train further comprises a mobile supply machine with at least one connecting unit (Fig 4, Para 0043, cable 310/connecting unit able to connect to supply machine 100, as seen), and
wherein each of the at least one interface of the road construction machine is connectable to one of the at least one connecting unit of the mobile supply machine for energy resources transmission (Fig 4, Para 0043, cable 310 permits energy/energy resource transfer between 100/200).
While Luby teaches that the paver 200 may be hybrid (Para 0031, 0035), Luby is not explicit on Luby is silent on at least one energy resource tank and wherein the road construction machine is connectable to the mobile supply machine via a second interface for the transmission of energy resources comprising fuel, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen or liquids required to operate galvanic cells.
Dundar teaches at least one energy resource tank (Fig 2, 104/road construction vehicle as a modification to Luby has a fuel thank 106) and wherein a second interface and a second connecting unit are connectable to each other for the transmission of energy resources comprising fuel, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, or liquids required to operate galvanic cells (Fig 2, 104/road construction vehicle as a modification to Luby has a connectable interface 124 to allow supply of fuel, as seen via second connecting unit 116).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Luby by having additionally having the energy resource tank and second interface to allow for the supplying of liquid fuel as disclosed by Dundar because Luby discloses a hybrid vehicle and incorporating the tank and second interface particulars recited would allow for refueling and resupplying the paver of Luby without having to make a separate visit to a fuel station (Para 0002 of Dundar).
Regarding claim 9, Luby teaches wherein the mobile supply machine is a material supply vehicle for supplying paving material (Fig 4, machine 200 is loadable by supply machine 100).
Regarding claim 10, Luby teaches wherein the interface and the connection unit are electromechanical units that mate together (Fig 4, Para 0043 interface and 310 are mechanical and convey electricity and mate, as seen).
Regarding claim 11, Luby teaches wherein a first interface and a first connecting unit are connectable to each other for transmitting electrical power (Fig 4, Para 0043, interface and 310 are mechanical and convey electricity and mate, as seen). .
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached 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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights