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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the language "repeating steps of preheating asphalt along the roadway, compressing template into the roadway, removing templates, and allowing the roadway to cool" is indefinite because it is unclear whether the asphalt is preheated before every template, after a group of templates, or only during subsequent repetitions of the process.
Regarding claim 18, the language "said rungs are between 0.25 and 0.75 inches in diameter, width and height" is indefinite because it is unclear whether each rung simultaneously possesses a diameter, width, and height within the recited range or whether the limitation is intended to apply to different rung configurations.
Regarding claim 19, the language "said rungs have a substantially constant dimension" is indefinite because the claim does not specify which dimension is substantially constant.
Regarding claim 20, the language "said V-shaped section" lacks antecedent basis because claim 20 depends from claim 16, which does not recite a V-shaped section. V-shaped sections are first introduced in claim 17. Therefore, the scope of claim 20 cannot be reasonably determined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,2, 4-8, 10, 15, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the language "compressing template into the roadway" is grammatically incorrect and should be amended to "compressing the template into the roadway" or "compressing the templates into the roadway," as appropriate.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the language "after their compaction into the roadway by compaction apparatus" should be amended to recite "after their compaction into the roadway by a compaction apparatus" or "by the compaction apparatus."
Regarding claim 2, the language "musical notes template" appears to be a typographical error and should be amended to "musical note templates."
Regarding claim 4, the language "coating at least one of said asphalt surface or said compressing ridged steel, grid-like musical note templates" should be amended to "coating at least one of said asphalt surface and said ridged steel, grid-like musical note templates" for grammatical clarity.
Regarding claim 6, the language "note templates are lengths of ridged or semi-rigid steel plates, angle iron, cold rolled steel, wire rope or cable" is unclear due to inconsistent grammar and should be revised to clearly identify the materials from which the note templates are formed.
Regarding claim 7, the method steps "selectively and progressively compress," "remove," and "correct" are inconsistent with the remaining method steps and should be amended to the gerund form "compressing," "removing," and "correcting" for consistency.
Regarding claim 8, the language "used to create divots into heated asphalt" should be amended to "used to create divots in heated asphalt."
Regarding claim 10, the language "guide marks or legends" is inconsistent with the earlier recitation of "legends and symbols" and should be clarified for consistency.
Regarding claim 15, the language "said one or more note releasably connectable template modules" is grammatically unclear and should be amended to "said one or more releasably connectable note template modules" or similar language that clearly identifies the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 17, the language "said note template include" should be amended to "said note template includes."
Regarding claim 20, the language "said V-shaped section are" contains a grammatical error and should be amended to "said V-shaped sections are" or "said V-shaped section is," as appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell et al. (5,215,402) (“Stowell”) in view of Wiley (2003/0103810), Bowman (4,105,354) and Arnold (12,371,863).
Regarding claim 1, Stowell teaches a method of imprinting an asphalt surface comprising selectively and progressively compressing a grid-like template into heated and pliable asphalt using a compaction apparatus (col. 5, lines 40-60), removing the template after it has been compressed into the asphalt (col. 5, lines 61-65), allowing the asphalt to cool and harden (col. 5, lines 65-67), and repeating the imprinting process along the roadway to create a desired pattern (col. 5, line 68-col. 6, line 10). Stowell further teaches preheating asphalt prior to imprinting, where necessary, and the use of release agents to facilitate template removal. Stowell does not expressly teach preheating the asphalt, that the template comprises ridged steel members or that the template represents musical notes representing various acoustic sounds of a melody. Wiley teaches imprinting an asphalt surface and preheating the asphalt before imprinting (paragraph [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preheat the asphalt of Stowell as taught by Wiley to allow imprinting on a surface that hasn’t been freshly laid. Bowman teaches an imprinting apparatus having ridged steel imprinting members arranged in a grid-like configuration for forming impressions in a paving material (col. 5, lines 12-15; col. 4, lines 33-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the grid-like template of Stowell using rigid metallic imprinting members as taught by Bowman because rigid metallic members provide a durable imprinting structure capable of withstanding repeated compressive loading while maintaining the desired imprint geometry. Arnold teaches forming a musical roadway by arranging roadway impressions having predetermined spacing corresponding to selected musical notes that produce varying acoustic sounds and melodies when traversed by vehicle tires (column 3, lines 25-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the template pattern of Stowell so that the spacing of the imprinting members corresponded to musical notes, as taught by Arnold, in order to produce a roadway capable of generating a desired musical melody when traversed by vehicles.
Regarding claim 3, Stowell as modified by Wiley, Bowman and Arnold teaches the step of selectively and progressively compressing ridged steel, grid-like musical note templates representing various acoustic sounds of a melody linearly along the roadway, one after another, into the heated and pliable asphalt surface using a compaction apparatus is carried out on an asphalt surface immediately after said asphalt surface is initially rolled for a roadway.
Regarding claim 4, Stowell as modified by Wiley, Bowman and Arnold teaches the step of coating at least one of said asphalt surface or said compressing ridged steel, grid-like musical note templates with a release agent to minimize adherence between said asphalt surface and said compressing ridged steel, grid-like musical note templates (Column 2, Lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 5, Stowell as modified by Wiley, Bowman and Arnold teaches the ridged steel, grid-like musical note templates each comprise an open framework specifically designed to produce a certain frequency. Stowell teaches an open framework which would produce a certain frequency depending on spacing.
Regarding claim 6, Stowell as modified by Wiley, Bowman and Arnold teaches the note templates are lengths of ridged or semi-rigid steel plates, angle iron, cold rolled steel, wire rope or cable of substantially constant diameter.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell et al. (5,215,402) (“Stowell”) in view of Arnold (12,371,863).
Regarding claim 11, Stowell teaches a method of imprinting an asphalt surface with a musical melody, comprising: (a) providing a pliable template (10) comprising one or more releasably connectable template modules for impressing a predefined pattern in said asphalt surface; (b) positioning said template on said asphalt surface; (c) compressing said note template into said asphalt surface using a compaction apparatus (14) separate from said template to leave an impression of said predefined pattern in said asphalt surface; (d) removing said compaction apparatus from said template; and (e) lifting said template clear of said asphalt surface (Column 1, Line 65-Column 2, Line 11). Stowell fails to teach the template is a note template. Arnold teaches forming a musical roadway by arranging roadway impressions having predetermined spacing corresponding to selected musical notes that produce varying acoustic sounds and melodies when traversed by vehicle tires (column 3, lines 25-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the template pattern of Stowell so that the spacing of the imprinting members corresponded to musical notes, as taught by Arnold, in order to produce a roadway capable of generating a desired musical melody when traversed by vehicles.
Regarding claim 12, Stowell as modified by Arnold teaches the note template is impressed into said asphalt surface immediately after said asphalt surface is initially rolled (“freshly rolled”).
Regarding claim 13, Stowell as modified by Arnold teaches the step of coating one of said asphalt surface or said note template with a release agent to minimize adherence between said asphalt surface and said template (Column 2, Lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 14, Stowell as modified by Arnold teaches the compaction apparatus is at least one of a drum roller or plate compactor (14).
Regarding claim 15, Stowell as modified by Arnold teaches said one or more note releasably connectable template modules each comprise an open framework specifically designed to produce a certain frequency. Stowell teaches an open framework which would produce a certain frequency depending on spacing.
Regarding claim 16, Stowell as modified by Arnold teaches the note templates are lengths of ridged or semi-rigid steel plates, angle iron, cold rolled steel, wire rope or cable (16) of substantially constant diameter.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell et al. (5,215,402) (“Stowell”) in view of Arnold (12,371,863) and in further view of Bowman (4,105,354).
Regarding claim 17, Stowell as modified by Arnold teaches sections (16) that are integrally connected in substantially parallel relation by a length of a frame, said sections representing rungs extending therebetween within the frame but fails to teach v shaped section. Bowman teaches an asphalt imprinting device comprising V-shaped sections that are integrally connected in substantially parallel relation by a length of a frame, said V-shaped sections representing rungs extending therebetween within the frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the rungs of Stowell V shaped sections as taught by Bowman as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 18, Stowell as modified by Arnold and Bowman teaches the rungs are between 0.25 and .75 inches in diameter, width and height (Bowman, Column 5, Lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 19, Stowell as modified by Arnold and Bowman teaches the rungs have a substantially constant dimension.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would be allowed if the above claim objections are overcome.
Claim 20 is 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 and further if the dependency is corrected to be dependent on claim 17.
Claim 2 is 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 and if the above claim objections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892. Ross teaches imprinting asphalt and preheating it.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th.
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 at 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 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.
/ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights