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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1–5, 8, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Svensson (EP0054529 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Svensson teaches an unbalance exciter comprising: at least two unbalance shafts arranged parallel to one another; wherein (62, 64; Figs. 2a–2b) each of the unbalance shafts comprises its own, separately controllable drive for generating a drive torque; (12, 14, 30; Figs. 3a–3b); a coupling device is provided for coupling the two unbalance shafts so that they can counter-rotate; and wherein (70, 72; Figs. 2a–2b) the coupling device comprises a backlash device for enabling a specific backlash in the rotational positions of the two unbalance shafts relative to one another (72a, 80, 82, 84, 86; Figs. 4a–4b; reference claims 3–5).
Regarding claim 2, Svensson teaches the invention as described above, wherein the backlash device provides at least two rotational limit stops to define limit positions of the angle of rotation enabled by the backlash (84; Figs. 4a–4b).
Regarding claim 3, Svensson teaches the invention as described above, wherein the drives can be controlled alternatingly in such a way that one of the drives generates a stronger drive torque than the other drive; and wherein (12, 14, 30; Figs. 3a–3b; description pp. 4–5) depending on which drive is currently generating a stronger drive torque, one of the two limit positions of the two unbalance shafts defined by the respective rotational stop is set in relation to one another (62, 64, 84, 86; Figs. 2–4).
Regarding claim 4, Svensson the invention as described above, wherein a “forward travel” operating state is provided, wherein (30, 56; Figs. 1 and 3a) one of the unbalance shafts is a first unbalance shaft and the other unbalance shaft is a second unbalance shaft; (62, 64) the first unbalance shaft is driven by the drive assigned to it and the second unbalance shaft is not driven or is driven more weakly than the first unbalance shaft by the drive assigned to it; and wherein (12, 14; Fig. 3a) when the first unbalance shaft is driven, the backlash in the backlash device is overcome and the second unbalance shaft is entrained by the coupling device (70, 72, 84, 86; description pp. 4–5).
Regarding claim 5, Svensson teaches the invention as described above, wherein a “backward travel” operating state is provided, wherein (30, 56; Figs. 1 and 3b) the second unbalance shaft is driven by the drive assigned to it and the first unbalance shaft is not driven or is driven more weakly than the second unbalance shaft by the drive assigned to it, and wherein (14, 12; Fig. 3b) when the second unbalance shaft is driven, the backlash in the backlash device is overcome and the first unbalance shaft is entrained by the coupling device (72, 70, 84, 86; description pp. 4–5).
Regarding claim 8, Svensson teaches the invention as described above, wherein both unbalance shafts respectively bear a gear wheel; (62, 64, 70, 72) the gear wheels are arranged to intermesh with one another, and wherein (70, 72; Fig. 2a) one or both of the gear wheels is rotatable relative to the unbalance shaft bearing them over an angular range defined by rotational limit stops (72a, 64a, 84, 86; Figs. 4a–4b).
Regarding claim 9, Svensson teaches the invention as described above, wherein the backlash device comprises two rotational limit stops on one of the unbalance shafts, which are rotated relative to one another by an angle corresponding to the predefined angle of rotation range (84, on shaft-fixed disc 82 and sleeve 80; Figs. 4a–4b).
Regarding claim 14, Svensson teaches a soil compaction device, comprising: an upper mass; (2; Fig. 1); a lower mass that is movable relative to the upper mass, the lower mass including a ground contact plate for compaction; (4, 8; Fig. 1); a vibration decoupling device acting between the upper mass and the lower mass; and (6; Fig. 1) at least one unbalance exciter, belonging to the lower mass, for applying an unbalance force to the ground contact plate; wherein (10; Fig. 1) the unbalance exciter is an unbalance exciter including at least two unbalance shafts arranged parallel to one another; wherein (62, 64; Figs. 2a–2b); each of the unbalance shafts comprises its own, separately controllable drive for generating a drive torque; (12, 14, 30; Figs. 3a–3b); a coupling device is provided for coupling the two unbalance shafts so that they can counter-rotate; and wherein (70, 72; Figs. 2a–2b) the coupling device comprises a backlash device for enabling a specific backlash in the rotational positions of the two unbalance shafts relative to one another (72a, 80, 82, 84, 86; Figs. 4a–4b).
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) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson (EP0054529A1).
Regarding claim 10, Svensson teaches the unbalance exciter according to claim 1, as discussed above. Svensson further teaches a backlash connection between shaft 64a and gear 72a, defined by engagement surfaces 84 on shaft-fixed disc 82 and gear-mounted pin 86 (Figures 4a–4b). Svensson does not expressly teach wherein the backlash device comprises two rotational limit stops on both unbalance shafts, which are respectively rotated by a partial angle of rotation relative to the other; and wherein the sum of the partial angle of rotations corresponds to the specified angle of rotation range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate Svensson’s bounded lost-motion connection at both shaft-to-gear interfaces, rather than at only one interface, and to divide the required angular range between those connections, in order to use a common coupling construction at both shafts while retaining the required total phase adjustment, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
This modification would replace the fixed shaft-to-gear connection on the first shaft with a second bounded lost-motion connection. Each connection would provide a respective partial angular range. Because the meshing gears constrain their relative rotation, the available relative phase adjustment between the shafts would be the sum of the angular clearances at the two shaft-to-gear interfaces. Selecting partial ranges whose sum equals the original required range would therefore preserve the total phase adjustment. When either shaft supplies the driving torque, both connections would transmit that torque through their engaged stops. Changing which shaft supplies the driving torque would reverse the loading of the connections and take up their respective clearances toward the opposite stops. Thus, the duplicated connections would perform the same bounded torque-transmission function, with the total angular clearance distributed between them.
Regarding claim 11, Svensson teaches the invention as described above, wherein the coupling device comprises two gear wheels intermeshing with one another, which are respectively arranged on one of the unbalance shafts; (70a, 72a, 62a, 64a; Fig. 4a) one of the gear wheels is a first gear wheel which is fixedly arranged on the first unbalance shaft; (70a, 62a; Fig. 4a) the other of the gear wheels is a second gear wheel which is arranged on the second unbalance shaft so as to be rotatable relative to it; (72a, 64a; Fig. 4a). Svensson does not expressly teach the following arrangement: the backlash device comprises a driver which is inserted into the second unbalance shaft; both rotational limit stops are provided on the second gear wheel; and wherein the driver strikes against one of the rotational limit stops depending on the direction of flow of the drive torque between the two gear wheels. Svensson instead provides pin 86 on gear 72a and engagement surfaces 84 on shaft-connected disc 82. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the locations of the cooperating driver and rotational limit stops in Svensson’s coupling to provide an alternative mounting arrangement while preserving the bounded relative rotation and torque-dependent engagement, since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. This mechanical-inversion rationale addresses the exchanged locations of the driver and stops.
Regarding claim 12, Svensson teaches the invention as described above, wherein the coupling device comprises two gear wheels intermeshing with one another, which are respectively arranged on one of the unbalance shafts (gears 70a and 72a; shafts 62a and 64a). Svensson provides a bounded lost-motion connection at gear 72a, using gear-mounted pin 86 and engagement surfaces 84 on shaft-fixed disc 82. Svensson does not expressly teach wherein both gear wheels are rotatably arranged relative to the unbalance shaft bearing them; a driver is inserted in each of the unbalance shafts; two rotational limit stops are respectively provided on both gear wheels; and wherein the two drivers strike against one of the rotational limit stops assigned to them depending on the direction of flow of the drive torque between the two gear wheels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the placement of Svensson’s pin and engagement surfaces, inserting the pin into the shaft and providing the engagement surfaces on the gear, in order to secure the driver directly to the shaft and eliminate the separate shaft-fixed disc while preserving the bounded lost-motion connection, since it has been held that mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. It further would have been obvious to provide this same connection between each gear and its respective shaft, replacing the first gear’s fixed connection with a second bounded lost-motion connection, in order to use the same coupling construction at both shafts. The respective angular clearances could be selected so that their sum preserves the required total phase adjustment. In the resulting arrangement, each gear would rotate relative to its shaft within the range permitted by its inserted driver and two gear-carried stops. Torque transmitted between the shafts through the meshing gears would load one stop at each connection. Changing which shaft supplies the driving torque would reverse the loading and move the drivers into engagement with their respective opposite stops. The modification would therefore retain direction-dependent torque transmission while distributing the bounded relative rotation between both shaft-to-gear connections.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svensson (EP0054529A1) in view of Forstner (US20220243416A1).
Regarding claim 13, Svensson teaches the invention as described above, including two unbalance shafts (62 and 64), each driven by a respective hydraulic motor (12 and 14). Svensson does not expressly teach wherein both unbalance shafts and both drives are constructed identically. Forstner teaches reducing component diversity and manufacturing complexity through component commonality in unbalance exciters. Forstner further describes a two-shaft arrangement in which each shaft can have an individual electric motor, together with implementing exciter variants using substantially identical components. Forstner does not expressly disclose the exact claimed identity of both shafts and both drives. Its component-commonality teaching nevertheless provides a reason to standardize corresponding components performing the same functions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct both unbalance shafts and both drives of Svensson identically, applying the component-commonality approach taught by Forstner, in order to reduce the number of different parts that must be manufactured, stocked, and assembled. Svensson’s motors alternate between directly driving their respective shafts and being driven through the coupling. Using the same motor construction for those corresponding duties would permit either motor to perform either role. Likewise, the shafts could use a common construction providing the same bearing, eccentric-weight, motor, and gear-mounting interfaces, with the different fixed and rotatable gear connections provided by their respective attached coupling components. Thus, identical shaft and drive constructions would preserve the separately selectable drives and bounded phase-adjustment operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record, including Svensson (EP0054529A1), fails to teach or suggest, in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims, wherein an “on-the-spot compaction” operating state is provided by a repeated switching over between the “forward travel” operating state and the “backward travel” operating state; the time periods in which the “forward travel” operating state and the “backward travel” operating state are respectively activated are identical, but each shorter than 5 seconds.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, including Svensson (EP0054529A1), fails to teach or suggest, in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims, wherein a “slow travel” operating state can be provided, in which a repeated switching between the “forward travel” and “backward travel” operating states takes place; and wherein the time periods in which the “forward travel” and “backward travel” operating states are activated vary depending on the desired direction of travel, but are each shorter than 8 seconds.
Although Svensson teaches selecting forward or backward travel by changing which hydraulic motor drives the coupled unbalance shafts, it does not teach or suggest using repeated switching between those operating states, with the claimed relationships between their activation periods, to provide on-the-spot compaction or slow travel. The distinction resides in the claimed timed alternation in combination with the inherited limitations, rather than in the numerical time limits alone. The prior art of record does not establish a reason to modify the known exciter to provide these particular operating arrangements.
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. Antsey teaches a geared vibration exciter with a bounded lost-motion connection permitting 180 degrees of relative rotation between an eccentric weight and its shaft to change the vibration output.
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 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights