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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/14/2026.
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, 5, 10, 11, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. CN 216739134. Zhao et al. disclose a compaction roller comprising:
A plurality of compaction drums (3, 5) see Fig. 1.
At least two marking units, each comprising a paint storage box (61), booster pumps
(62), a plurality of nozzles (63), a plurality of electromagnetic valves (12) all
configured to spray paint while the surface is being compacted. Fig. 2.
A housing (4) configured to support the at least two marking units mounted to the
compaction roller frame. See [0022-0026].
With respect to claims 11, 14, 17 Zhao et al. disclose at least one of the marking units (61) is configured to apply a road marking, such as paint to the surface while being compacted. And the other of said at least two marking units applies another road marking to the surface while being compacted.
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.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. CN 216739134. Zhao et al. disclose a compaction roller comprising:
A plurality of compaction drums (3, 5) see Fig. 1.
At least two marking units, each comprising a paint storage box (61), booster pumps
(62), a plurality of nozzles (63), a plurality of electromagnetic valves (12) all
configured to spray paint while the surface is being compacted. Fig. 2.
A housing (4) configured to support the at least two marking units mounted to the
compaction roller frame. See [0022-0026].
Although Zhao et al. do not disclose the use of spray cans, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the marking unit of Zhao et al. with spray cans, as a matter of design choice, since spray assemblies and spray cans are art recognized equivalents.
6. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. CN 216739134 in view of Dolinar US 8,935,057.
Zhao et al. disclose a compaction roller having a spray bar assembly for applying road paint to the surface being compacted while being compacted. What Zhao et al. do not disclose a control system. However, Dolinar discloses a roadway mark data acquisition and analysis system comprising:
A GPS based paint sprayer including a receiver for determining a GPS location of a
road marking machine.
A GPS based locator for sampling discrete geographical location data of a pre-existing
roadway marks. See Fig. 2.
An optical camera system including a
A computer (27) including a geolocation sampling program and machine vision program
configured to receive GPS and image data in order to create a location based
marking model for controlling a plurality of paint nozzles and reservoirs providing
a plurality of paint colors for controlled paint activation and “control the spray
width and dispensing cycle so that an original mark may be exactly reproduced”.
See Figs. 1-4, 6-8, 11, 15, 26; Cols. 19-21. 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 compaction roller of Zhao et al. with the GPS/Imager/paint activation control system taught by Dolinar, in order to improve mark locationreproduction and quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 6-8 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.
8. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1, 5-11, 13, 14, 17, 18 in the reply filed on 7/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are defined by reference to the embodiments shown in Figs. 1-6 rather than by structure
of the claims. This is not found persuasive because in paragraph 2 of the Restriction,
Species I is defined as a soil compaction machine having a fixed spray applicator
adjacent an cutting wheel. Whereas Species II is defined as a soil compaction machine having movable spray applicators. Species III is defined as a soil compaction machine having a tape dispenser.
Therefore the argument is not persuasive and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Conclusion
9. 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 9/23/2026
