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 .
The amendment filed 8/14/2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Pedersen et al (US 2016/0115654).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Pedersen et al disclose a slipform adjustable width trail paver and an inherent method, the paver comprising: at least one machine frame 102; at least three travelling devices 304 connected to the machine frame; at least one conveyor 108 connected to the machine frame such that the conveyor is pivotable relative to the machine frame about a first axis and about a second axis (see annotated Fig. 2); at least one first actuator configured to pivot the conveyor about the first axis and at least one second actuator configured to pivot the conveyor about the second axis, such that the conveyor is movable by at least the first actuator and the second actuator within a zone of movement defined relative to the machine frame (see annotated Fig. 2) and a controller 112 configured to define at least one area of collision between the at least one conveyor and a part of the machine frame and/or one of the traveling devices within the zone of movement (see the annotated Fig.4 as below) and to determine a position of the conveyor relative to the area of collision/ the peripheral area around the machine while in use and for the method steps of defining with the controller to the at least one area of collision within the zone or the movement (see Figs 1-3, Para [0030]-[0033] and [0049]-[0054]).
PNG
media_image1.png
747
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Petersen et al disclose at least one third actuator configured to move the conveyor translationally in a first longitudinal direction relative to the machine frame, such that the conveyor is movable by at least the first actuator, the second actuator and the third actuator within the zone of movement defined relative to the machine frame (see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Petersen et al disclose each of the actuators has an adjustment position; and the controller is configured to determine the position of the conveyor relative to the area of collision based at least in part on the adjustment positions of the actuators (see Figs. 1-4).
With respect to claims 4 and 16, Petersen et al disclose the controller 112 is configured to emit a control signal when it is determined that the conveyor is within a predetermined distance from the area of collision (see Para [0054]).
With respect to claims 5 and 17, Petersen disclose the control signal includes a stop signal to stop at least one of the actuators and/or a control signal for emitting an audible and/or a visual warning signal (see Para Para [0054]).
With respect to claim 7, Petersen disclose the controller 112 is configured to manually and/or automatically adjust the area of collision defined within the zone of movement (see Para [0055]-[0056]).
With respect to claim 11, Petersen disclose the controller includes a computer-readable medium and the controller is configured to store in the computer-readable medium data representative of different areas of collision corresponding to different applications of the slipform paver such that the the area of collision is adjustable by selecting one of the different applications (see Para [0053]).
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.
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al (US 2016/0115654).
With respect to claims 8 and 12, although Petersen et al fails to specifically disclose the controller 112 is configured to adjust the area of collision defined within the zone of movement in response to a change in position of one of the traveling devices and/or a change in structure of the machine frame as recited in claim 8, the controller is configured to determine and to define as the area of collision an overlapping area of the zone of movement of the conveyor and a space occupied by the machine frame and the travelling devices as recited in claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the control device in order to protect of the workers with defining such a boundary of collision area with adjusting the travelling device.
With respect to claim 9, although Petersen et al fails to specifically disclose the machine frame 102 is alterable in structure by adding or removing or different positioning of assembly groups, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the machine frame to be able to alter the parts in order to add or remove or position differently in order to use the machine at the desired condition for the pavement site.
With respect to claim 10, Petersen disclose the controller includes a computer-readable medium and the controller is configured to store in the computer-readable medium data representative of the assembly groups which may be added or removed or differently positioned, SO that the different structures of the machine frame are stored in the computer-readable medium and SO that the area of collision is adjustable by selecting one of the different structures of the machine frame from the computer-readable medium (see Para [0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Pederson fails to teach the features of original claim 6 but then took the unsupportable position that these features would be obvious to protect the workers with defining such a boundary of collision area, it is not persuasive because the newly added limitation from claim 6, “(a controller configured to define at least one area of collision) between the at least one conveyor and a part of the machine frame and/or one of the traveling devices” is clearly shown in annotated Fig. 4 of Pederson insofar as the position of each structures as to the conveyor and orientation of the movement zone for the conveyor are not specifically defined with respect to the structural elements of the slipform paver within the body of amended claim 1. Further, merely the area of collision for the safety of operation could be any peripheral area of the conveyor’s movement while in use.
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 Jong-Suk (James) Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6AM- 4PM. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.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.
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
