DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[a]spects of the disclosure are directed to” (line 1) is redundant to the purpose of the abstract and should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frost et al. (U.S. Patent 10,156,050) in view of Jackson (U.S. Patent 2,306,125).
Applicant’s prior patent ‘050 discloses the screed system including the patterned plate. That reference discusses the ‘125 patent teaching the tamper bar system forward of the screed, which is a common arrangement, and having a patterned tamper plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tamper bar subsystem of Jackson with the screed system of Frost in order to optimally compact the laid material, as is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the components of Jackson are independently movable.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the tamper plate is curved (Figure 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Jackson includes a drive subsystem.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used respective pattens as desired in order to obtain a desired appearance. As exemplified by the opposite arrangements of claims 7 and 8, there is no criticality in this aspect. Aesthetic appearance of the finished surface is not a patentably distinguishing characteristic in this instance.
The patterns meet the recitations of claims 9 and 17.
Claims 1-4, 7-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson (U.S. Patent 2,306,125) in view of Frost et al. (U.S. Patent 10,156,050).
Jackson discloses the screed and tamper discussed above. Frost teaches the patterned plate discussed above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the plate of Frost as the plate of Jackson in order to obtain a desired finished appearance, as is the purpose of patterned plates.
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frost/Jackson or Jackson/Frost as applied above, and further in view of Sandstrom (U.S. Patent 5,727,900).
Sandstrom teaches receiving material information and determining vibration amount based thereon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Frost/Jackson or Jackson/Frost in this manner in order to achieve a homogenous compaction in the shortest possible time, as taught by Sandstrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach screed systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher 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.
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights