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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 25, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on March 25, 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 page 4 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.
Applicant's arguments regarding U.S.C. $ 103 Rejections have been fully considered and they are 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., 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) are not explicitly 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 in light of the new prior art relied upon from Oetken. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, as presented in the 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson et al., WO 2020/067984 A1 (Hereinafter, “Persson”) in view of Oetken et al., US 2016/0298308 A1 (Hereinafter, “Oetken”).
Regarding Claim 1, Persson discloses the method of controlling operation of a vibratory roller, said vibratory roller comprising a roller drum and a vibratory mechanism; See [0024], “FIG. 1 illustrates a vibratory roller 1 comprising a roller drum 3, a vibratory mechanism 2 mounted inside the roller drum 3 and a control unit 19.”
determining a temperature of a surface to be compacted by the vibratory roller; See [0023], “The work material sensor 130 may be configured to sense a parameter indicative of the work material Z, such as a 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 and an eccentric position sensor; See [0010], “A predefined phase angle, i.e. difference in angular position between an eccentric force generated by the vibratory mechanism and the displacement of the roller drum, is thus used to control the vibration frequency.” And [0042], “The actual phase angle is determined based on signals from each of the accelerometer 15 and the eccentric position sensor 23.”
and maintaining the phase angle at, or close to, said desired phase angle by controlling the vibration frequency of the vibratory mechanism. See [0043], “If the phase angle deviates from the predefined phase angle, the vibration frequency is immediately adjusted by the control unit 19. Since the vibratory roller 1 already from start may work at the high amplitude setting the vibration frequency adjusts quickly to the predefined phase angle, i.e. to the optimal phase angle.” Also [0044-0046] for more details.
Persson discloses a method for controlling a vibratory roller but does not teach "determining a temperature of a surface to be compacted by the vibratory roller; determining a desired phase angle as a function of said determined temperature". However, Oetken teaches vibrational compactor system and control thereof which includes "determining a temperature of a surface to be compacted by the vibratory roller;" See [0023], “The work material sensor 130 may be configured to sense a parameter indicative of the work material Z, such as a temperature.” Oetken additionally teaches that the forces imparted from the roller is based in part on surface temperature (Oetken [0012]);
These two thus render obvious the limitation of "determining a desired phase angle as a function of said determined temperature" as it flows as a logic extension from the teachings that Persson teaches that Phase angle is selected in order to ensure proper transfer of vibrational force from the roller (Persson Page 7 "When the vibratory roller 1 operates the vibration frequency is continuously controlled so as to maintain a predefined phase angle F, 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 F in the range of 125° to 135° degrees is used for this purpose") to the surface and Oetken teaches that this transfer of force from the roller to the surface is based in part on the surface temperature (Oetken [0012], "As the compactor machine travels over the surface, vibrational forces generated by the compactor machine and imparted to the surface act in cooperation with the weight of the machine to compress the work material to a state of greater compaction and density. The vibrational forces imparted to the surface may be determined based on properties of the work material, such as temperature.") thus that the optimal phase angle would be based in part on the temperature of the work surface flows naturally from the relationship of these two teachings.
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 modify Persson to include the setting/adjusting of the phase angle (which is set in order to impart a proper amount of force on the surface) based on work surface temperature in order to achieve a desired compacting force. One would be motivated to implement the setting of phase angle based in part on surface temperature to improve the operational efficiency of the compactor by allowing it to respond to the characteristics (temperature) of the surface material, see Oetken [0005], [0008] and [0012] (Oetken teaches operational efficiency is improved via adjusting the desired vibrational parameter (which in the teachings of Persson would be phase angle) based on the surface temperature).
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Persson discloses a method for operating a vibratory roller, but does not disclose temperature sensors. However Oetken teaches: wherein the step of determining a temperature comprises measuring a temperature (using an infrared sensor). See [0031], “At step 306, a temperature of the work material Z is sensed by the work material sensor 130 … the work material sensor 130 is a thermal imager, a thermal scanner, or other sensor capable of sensing the temperature of the work material Z.” Non-contact temperature data using an infrared sensor is well known in the art.
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 Persson’s vibratory rolling method with the temperature sensing limitations disclosed in Persson with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine vibrational forces on the surface based on properties of the work material, such as temperature, see Oetken [0012].
Regarding Claim 3, Persson discloses 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.”
Regarding Claim 5, Persson discloses 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”.
Regarding Claim 6, Persson discloses a method for operating a vibratory roller, but does not disclose temperature sensors. However Oetken teaches: further comprising the step of adjusting the speed at which the vibratory roller is operated based on said determined temperature. See [0040], “method 300, the temperature of the work material Z sensed at step 306 may be used to determine a vibration effort based on lookup tables … Each table may relate a temperature of the work material Z to an optimal vibrational amplitude and frequency.” And [0029], “Various factors may be taken into account prior to setting the initial vibration effort including … a temperature of the work material Z … a velocity of the compactor machine 102.”
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 Persson’s vibratory rolling method with the temperature sensing limitations disclosed in Persson with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine vibrational forces on the surface based on properties of the work material, such as temperature, see Oetken [0012].
Regarding Claim 7, Persson discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the phase angle is maintained at, or close to, said desired phase angle by controlling the vibration frequency of See [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, which provides for quick and accurate control of the vibration frequency of the vibratory roller. And [0043], “If the phase angle deviates from the predefined phase angle, the vibration frequency is immediately adjusted by the control unit 19. Since the vibratory roller 1 already from start may work at the high amplitude setting the vibration frequency adjusts quickly to the predefined phase angle, i.e. to the optimal phase angle.“
Persson discloses a vibratory roller system, but does not explicitly disclose a two roller system. However, Oetken teaches the following: wherein said vibratory roller comprises two roller drums and two vibratory mechanisms, and See [0016], “Both the first roller drum 110 and the second roller drum 112 may have a vibratory mechanism 120.”
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 Persson’s vibratory rolling method with the two roller limitations disclosed in Oetken with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve a target compaction, see Oetken [0020].
Regarding Claim 8, Persson discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 3:
wherein said desired phase angle is determined every 0.2 seconds. In Persson teaches [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, which provides for quick and accurate control of the vibration frequency of the vibratory roller”.
It would be obvious to one in the art per to select any preferable range of determining the phase angle, including every 0.2 seconds ,to manage the phase angle frequency as merely a matter of routine optimization In re Aller, Persson teaches "continuous" updating and that this “continuous” updating is needed for “quick and accurate control” (i.e. that the update rate is results effective parameter for the operation of vibratory roller); but is mute as to the specific rate or ranges included in "continuous" , however the setting of the specific update rate is merely a result of routine optimization of a results effective parameter balancing the need for system responsiveness (by setting a quicker update rate) and computational load/processor requirements (quicker updating requires more determinations and as a result higher power and/or computational load compared to slower updating). Further the Applicant's specification when detailing the update frequency first discloses it as "continuous" and then gives a series of "preferable" ranges, as such there is no explicit evidence or contemplation that 0.2s specifically is critical to operation or results in unexpected and non-predictable results compared to other update frequencies under the range of "continuous". In fact 0.2s is only ever disclosed through the ranges, 0.2s itself is not specifically remarked on in the specification.
Conclusion
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
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights