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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15, and 17-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments/arguments to the claims have overcome the §101 rejection previously applied in the Final Office Action mailed 16 June 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the §102/103 rejection are believed to be addressed in the rejection as outlined below.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “A unit for determining a remaining utilization capacity” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr et. at. (US Patent Publication 2022/0389666) in view of Kuhn et. al. (US Patent Publication 2014/0172285).
Regarding claims 1, and 19, Farr discloses a method for and a road construction machine, wherein the road construction machine is a road paver of a feeder for a road paver, the road construction machine comprising: at least one energy supply source, wherein the at least one energy supply source comprises a battery; a driver's control station, wherein at least one unit for determining a remaining utilization capacity of at the least one energy supply source connected to at least one electrical consumer used on-a the road construction machine is arranged, (abstract; ¶50)
wherein the unit is adapted for indicating the remaining utilization capacity determined on the basis of a current charging state of the at least one energy supply source as a remaining utilization duration, or a remaining utilization range for the at least one electrical consumer, (abstract; ¶50)
Farr discloses displaying a remaining paving time to the driver but does not appear to determine a capacity required for a planned work measure.
Khun however teaches wherein the unit is adapted for indicating a target utilization capacity required for a planned work measure by the at least one electrical consumer as target utilization duration or target utilization range. (abstract; ¶42, 44)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the unit is adapted for indicating a target utilization capacity required for a planned work measure by the at least one electrical consumer as target utilization duration or target utilization range as taught by Kuhn with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 2, and 20, Kuhn teaches wherein the unit is adapted for indicating a target utilization capacity required for a planned work measure by the at least one electrical consumer as target utilization duration, and target utilization range. . (abstract; ¶42, 44)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the unit is adapted for indicating a target utilization capacity required for a planned work measure by the at least one electrical consumer as target utilization duration or target utilization range as taught by Kuhn with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, Farr further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on current operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer, the current operation conditions comprising a current, or averaged energy demand of the at least one electrical consumer. (¶42-43)
Regarding claim 4, Farr further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on current operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer, the current operation conditions comprising a current, or averaged energy demand of the at least one electrical consumer. (¶42-43)
Regarding claim 6, Farr further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a comparison of the current operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer with target operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer, or the current working conditions of the battery with the target working conditions of the battery. (¶50)
Regarding claim 9, Kuhn teaches wherein the unit is configured for correcting the determined remaining utilization capacity based on the result of the comparison to determine a corrected remaining utilization capacity. (¶43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the unit is configured for correcting the determined remaining utilization capacity based on the result of the comparison to determine a corrected remaining utilization capacity as taught by Kuhn with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, Kuhn teaches wherein the unit has at least one adjustable display field, by which the remaining utilization capacity or the corrected remaining utilization capacity may be displayed, or the unit is configured to output a signal if the remaining utilization capacity or the corrected remaining utilization capacity is less than a predetermined percentage of the target utilization capacity. (¶18, 50, 54)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the unit has at least one adjustable display field, by which the remaining utilization capacity or the corrected remaining utilization capacity may be displayed, or the unit is configured to output a signal if the remaining utilization capacity or the corrected remaining utilization capacity is less than a predetermined percentage of the target utilization capacity as taught by Kuhn with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, Farr further discloses a road construction machine, having at least one unit according to claim 1. (¶44, 50)
Regarding claim 13, Farr further discloses wherein the road construction machine is a road paver, a feeder for a road paver, a roller vehicle or a milling vehicle. (abstract)
Regarding claim 17, Farr further discloses wherein the at least one electrical consumer is an electrically operated heating device or the at least one electrical consumer is an electrically operated electro-hydraulic unit or the at least one electrical consumer is an electrically operated longitudinal conveyor device or the at least one electrical consumer is an electrically operated transverse conveyor device or an electrically operated undercarriage drive of the road construction machine. (¶47-48)
Claims 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farr in view of Kuhn as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Amitani et. al. (US Patent Publication 2025/0108703).
Regarding claim 5, Amitani teaches wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on current working conditions of the battery, the current working conditions comprising a current working temperature of the battery or a uniform or fluctuating load. (¶77, 117, 119)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on current working conditions of the battery, the current working conditions comprising a current working temperature of the battery or a uniform or fluctuating load as taught by Amaitani with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Farr further discloses wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a comparison of the current operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer with target operating conditions of the at least one electrical consumer, or the current working conditions of the battery with the target working conditions of the battery. (¶50)
Regarding claim 8, Kuhn teaches wherein the unit is configured for correcting the determined remaining utilization capacity based on the result of the comparison to determine a corrected remaining utilization capacity. (¶43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the unit is configured for correcting the determined remaining utilization capacity based on the result of the comparison to determine a corrected remaining utilization capacity as taught by Kuhn with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, Amaitani teaches wherein the unit is configured for transmitting a remaining utilization capacity or a corrected remaining utilization capacity to at least one remote receiver. (¶95)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the unit is configured for transmitting a remaining utilization capacity or a corrected remaining utilization capacity to at least one remote receiver as taught by Amaitani with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, Farr further discloses wherein the road construction machine is a road paver, a feeder for a road paver, a roller vehicle or a milling vehicle. (Abstract)
Regarding claim 15, Armatani teaches wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a current outside temperature of the road construction machine, a current driving speed of the road construction machine, or a current paving material temperature, and wherein a driving speed of the road construction machine or a paving material temperature is controlled based on the remaining utilization duration- or the remaining utilization range for the at least one electrical consumer. (¶114)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a current outside temperature of the road construction machine, a current driving speed of the road construction machine, or a current paving material temperature, and wherein a driving speed of the road construction machine or a paving material temperature is controlled based on the remaining utilization duration- or the remaining utilization range for the at least one electrical consumer as taught by Amaitani with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 18, Amaitani teaches wherein a remaining utilization capacity is transmittable from the road paver or feeder to the roller vehicle. (¶95)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein a remaining utilization capacity is transmittable from the road paver or feeder to the roller vehicle as taught by Amaitani with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 21, Armitani teaches wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a current outside temperature of the road construction machine, a current driving speed of the road construction machine, or a current paving material temperature, and further comprising controlling a driving speed of the road construction machine or a paving material temperature based on the remaining utilization duration, or the remaining utilization range for the at least one electrical consumer. (¶114)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Farr with wherein the determination of the remaining utilization capacity is based on a current outside temperature of the road construction machine, a current driving speed of the road construction machine, or a current paving material temperature, and further comprising controlling a driving speed of the road construction machine or a paving material temperature based on the remaining utilization duration, or the remaining utilization range for the at least one electrical consumer as taught by Amaitani with a reasonable expectation of success because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights