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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on November 14, 2025. Claims 1-7 were previously pending, of which claim 3 has been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claim 8 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-13 filed November 14, 2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. $112(b) rejection , applicant’s amendment to claim 3 has corrected the “preferably” language cited in the rejection, foregoing the condition. Therefore, the objection to the claim is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding U.S.C. $ 103 Rejections have been fully considered and they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,) are clearly defined in the prior art although the office has maintained the rejection below. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to show a “phase angle” in any form was considered and clarified in the office action below. No new limitations were presented in the amended claims so they are not persuasive . Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in the Final Office Action below.
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.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Commuri et al., US 2015/0030392 Al (Hereinafter, “Commuri”) in view of Persson et al., WO 2020/067984 A1 (Hereinafter, “Persson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Commuri discloses the method of controlling operation of a vibratory roller, said vibratory roller comprising a roller drum and a vibratory mechanism; See Fig.1 and [0019], “vibratory compactor, or roller 10 is shown in FIG. 1 … includes forward and rear drum 12 and 14 … may have eccentric weights 16 mounted therein.”
determining a temperature of a surface to be compacted by the vibratory roller; In [0019], “Sensor module 22 … may include infrared temperature sensors 26 for measuring the surface temperature of the asphalt base.”
determining a desired phase angle as a function of said determined temperature, the phase angle being the difference in angular position between an eccentric force generated by the vibratory mechanism and the displacement of the roller drum and being determined based on signals from each of an accelerometer See at least [0019], “speed of the eccentric weights 16, and may be, for example, 10-12 impulses per linear foot (eccentric force) … Accelerometer 24 and temperature sensors 26 may be mounted to a frame 30 of roller 10.” And [0040], “The asphalt mixtures are thermorheologically simple materials and the time-temperature superposition principle is applicable in the linear viscoelastic state. Dynamic modulus and phase angle of asphalt mixtures can be shifted along the frequency axis to form single characteristic master curves at a desired reference temperature or frequency.” Further in [0044], “several features such as the compaction equipment, rolling pattern, lay-down temperature of the mix, lift thickness and other parameters may influence the actual modulus … One method for measuring is by using a Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) to determine the modulus … The slope and offset are then adjusted (desired phase angle), or modified to minimize the square of the error between the estimated and measured modulus.”
Commuri’s method discloses the application of a vibratory roller machine based on material dynamic modulus, but does not explicitly disclose the use of an eccentric position sensor or machine phase angle. However, Persson teaches in [0042], “The actual phase angle is determined based on signals from each of the accelerometer 15 and the eccentric position sensor 23.” Also [0043], “vibration frequency adjusts quickly to the predefined phase angle, i.e. to the optimal phase angle.
maintaining the phase angle at, or close to, said desired phase angle by controlling the vibration frequency of the vibratory mechanism. In [0040], “When the vibratory roller 1 operates the vibration frequency is continuously controlled so as to maintain a predefined phase angle cp, i.e. the difference in angular position of the eccentric force and the displacement of the roller drum 3, to achieve optimal compaction efficiency and/or energy efficiency. Typically, a predefined phase angle cp in the range of 125° to 135° degrees is used for this purpose”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Commuri’s vibratory rolling method with the vibratory rolling process disclosed in Persson with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the compaction process, see Persson [0005].
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Commuri discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
wherein the step of determining a temperature comprises measuring a temperature (using an infrared sensor). In [0019], “Sensor module 22 associated with IACA 5 consists of accelerometers 24 mounted to frame 30 for measuring the vibrations of the compactor 10 during operation and may include infrared temperature sensors 26 for measuring the surface temperature of the asphalt base”.
Regarding Claim 3, Commuri discloses a vibratory rolling method, but does not explicitly disclose machine phase angle sampling rates. However, Persson teaches a vibratory roller machine with the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein said desired phase angle is determined continuously.
In [0042], “The actual phase angle is determined based on signals from each of the accelerometer 15 and the eccentric position sensor 23. The phase angle is determined continuously by the control unit 19 and used as a control parameter for controlling the frequency of the vibratory mechanism 2.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Commuri’s vibratory roller method with the vibratory rolling process disclosed in Persson with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the compaction process, see Persson [0005].
Regarding Claim 5, Commuri discloses a vibratory rolling method, but does not explicitly disclose amplitude settings. However, Persson teaches a vibratory rolling process including the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein said vibratory roller has at least two amplitude settings. In [0009], “According to one aspect of the present disclosure there is provided a method of controlling operation of a vibratory roller comprising a roller drum and a vibratory mechanism having at least two amplitude settings”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Commuri’s vibratory rolling method with the vibratory roller amplitude limitations disclosed in Persson with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize of the compaction process, see Persson [0005].
Regarding Claim 6, Commuri discloses the following limitation dependent on claim 1:
further comprising the step of adjusting the speed at which the vibratory roller is operated based on said determined temperature. In [0044], “It will be understood that because of the speed of the roller 10, and the rapidity of the pace at which samples are taken, the display, in the absence of any filtering, would likely rapidly alternate between estimated densities so that the display may be unreadable. Low pass filters can be used to smooth out the signal and provide a stable display without flicker to the user. Once no change in compaction in the layer being rolled is occurring, roller 10 ceases making passes, or moving along the portion 40. The modulus of layer Ll estimated by the IACA 5 after the initial calibration is based on the assumption that the target stiffness Mr for the specified mix for layer L1 is indeed achieved during compaction in the field. However, several features such as the compaction equipment, rolling pattern, lay-down temperature of the mix, lift thickness and other parameters may influence the actual modulus at any given location”.
Regarding Claim 8, Commuri does not explicitly disclose phase angle sampling rates. However, Persson teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 3:
wherein said desired phase angle is determined every 0.2 seconds.
In [0042], “The actual phase angle is determined based on signals from each of the accelerometer 15 and the eccentric position sensor 23. The phase angle is determined continuously (including every 0.2 seconds) by the control unit 19 and used as a control parameter for controlling the frequency of the vibratory mechanism 2, which provides for quick and accurate control of the vibration frequency of the vibratory roller”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Commuri’s method with the vibratory roller phase angle limitations disclosed in Persson with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the compaction process, see Persson [0005].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Commuri in view of Persson in further view of Gandrud et al., US 20030048082 A1 (Hereinafter, “Gandrud”).
Regarding Claim 7, Commuri in view of Persson discloses a vibratory roller system, but does not explicitly disclose a two roller system. However, Gandrud teaches the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein said vibratory roller comprises two roller drums and two vibratory mechanisms, and wherein the phase angle is maintained at, or close to, said desired phase angle by controlling the vibration frequency of each of the two vibratory mechanisms. In [0051], “In a two-roller drum system, either the speed of one or both eccentric masses can be altered. The speed of one of the eccentric masses can also be increased or decreased temporarily to provide for an increase or decrease in the phase difference between the vibrations of each roller drum. The eccentric mass can also be adjusted in order to obtain desired performance at any point. Changing the vibration frequency will also change the phase of the eccentric motion to the drum movement thus improving performance. This and other improved control features are contemplated by the present invention as the invention provides for improved monitoring of vibration information and improved control of vibrating systems”.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Commuri and Persson’s vibratory roller method with the two vibratory roller limitations disclosed in Gandrud with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve monitoring of vibration information and improve control of vibrating systems, see Gandrud [0051].
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 BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669