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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the language "the two position measuring points" lacks proper antecedent basis because the claim previously recites "at least two position measuring points." Since the earlier recitation encompasses more than two position measuring points, it is unclear which two position measuring points are subsequently referenced. The language should be amended to recite "the at least two position measuring points."
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the language "upon paving the first pavement layer" is unclear because "upon" may indicate before, during, or immediately after paving. For consistency with the specification, the language should be changed to "when paving the first pavement layer" or "during paving of the first pavement layer."
Regarding claim 1, the language "allows determining at least a progression track traveled" is grammatically awkward. The language should be changed to "allows at least a progression track traveled ... to be determined" or "allows determining at least the progression track traveled."
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the language "a progression through which" is inconsistent with the terminology used throughout the specification, which refers to "a progression of" the orientation or lateral inclination angle. For consistency and clarity, the language "a progression through which" should be changed to "a progression of."
Regarding claim 8, the language "provided in a stationary manner at a chassis" is awkward. The language should be changed to "provided in a stationary manner on the chassis" or "fixed relative to the chassis."
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed if the above 112 rejections and claim objections are overcome.
The prior art of record teaches road pavers having automated steering, automated screed control, GNSS-based positioning, and systems for recording and utilizing paving-related position information. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a method in which paving data recorded while paving a first pavement layer, the paving data allowing determination of at least a progression track traveled by a screed outer edge of the first road paver during paving of the first pavement layer, is subsequently used to control the first road paver or a second road paver while paving a second pavement layer over the first pavement layer. In particular, the prior art does not teach or suggest recording paving data during formation of one pavement layer and subsequently reusing that recorded paving data to control paving of a later pavement layer based on the previously traveled progression track. These limitations, in combination with the remaining limitations of the independent claims, are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
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. Graham teaches a paver that saves and recalls screed settings.
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 July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights