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 .
Application Status
This office action is in response to the application submitted on 07/24/2024. The application was filed with a preliminary amendment. Claims 1, 3, and 6-9 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending and rejected as detailed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Application has claimed priority to PCT/CZ2023/000003, filed on 01/24/2023, and CZPV 2022-63, filed 02/09/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words. 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 § 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.
Claims 4-9 are 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the device" in the preamble to the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-9 are rejected for the same reason as claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritz (US PG Pub 2021/0189667), herein Fritz-1, in view of Shelstad (US PG Pub 2022/0220676) and Fritz (US PG Pub 2019/0204852), herein Fritz-2.
Regarding claim 1, Fritz-1 teaches a method of differential height adjustment of the surface of the traffic area, in which the surface of the traffic area before adjustment is measured and a digital model of the surface of the traffic area before adjustment is calculated, (Fig. 6 and [0091]-[0092] teaches determining the surface of a traffic area and storing said surface in a digital model) the design of the target surface of the traffic area after adjustment is determined, (Fig. 5 and [0087]-[0090] teach determining a target profile for the road surface to be after working) a differential height adjustment model is calculated from the height differences of these surfaces, (Figs. 7 and 8; and [0087], [0098], [0100], [0104]-[0106], and others; teach the system determining a height adjustment calculated from the models and determining a model for the adjustment height of the machine) during adjustment, the X, Y position of the right and left working parts of the working tool of the construction machine, which creates a new surface by modifying, or the X,Y position of the unmodified surface of the areas adjacent to the right and left working parts of the working tool, is determined and the appropriate target height adjustment Ft (X,Y) is determined from the differential model of the height adjustments from the unmodified surface of the traffic area, ([0100]-[0107] teach determining X, Y positions of the working part of the machine and storing those values. Using those values the system determines the appropriate height adjustment relative to the machine in the traffic area) this information is transmitted to the control computer of the construction machine, which makes the necessary settings of the construction machine to achieve the required height of the modification ([0083]-[0084] and [0106] teach transmitting information to the control computer of the device to control the height of the machine tools to achieve the required modification height) and and data from a total station, arranged stationary outside the construction machine, is used to determine the X, Y position, ([0080]-[0083] teaches the system using total stations to determine the vehicle coordinates in (x, y, z) space and using these total station coordinates to determine the location of the working tool) and then the height of the adjustments Ft (X, Y) is determined from the differential model of the height adjustments, ([0100]-[0107] teach determining X, Y positions of the working part of the machine and storing those values. Using those values the system determines the appropriate height adjustment relative to the machine in the traffic area) characterized in that data from a GNSS receiver arranged on the construction machine is additionally used to determine the X, Y position of the right and left working parts of the working tool of the construction machine, or the X,Y position of the unmodified surface of the areas adjacent to the right and left working parts of the working tool, ([0081]-[0083] teaches using the combination of a GNSS system with a total station to determine the locations of the working tool)
Fritz-1 does not teach the cross slope of the modification; and wherein the X, Y coordinates from the GNSS receiver are used to automatically determine the orientation and position of the total station.
However, Shelstad teaches “the cross slope of the modification” ([0043], [0057], [0060], and [0069] teach using a cross slope sensor to ensure that the cross slope modification is maintained)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Fritz-1 and Shelstad; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of road surfacing vehicles. As Shelstad teaches in [0060] control of the road slope ensures that that new surface of the road is the proper thickness. [0067] furthers this by ensuring that the road is level. Both of these ideas are advantageous to ensure the road surface is properly worked upon.
The combination of Fritz-1 and Shelstad does not teach wherein the X, Y coordinates from the GNSS receiver are used to automatically determine the orientation and position of the total station.
However, Fritz-2 teaches “wherein the X, Y coordinates from the GNSS receiver are used to automatically determine the orientation and position of the total station.” ([0057]-[0062] teaches the system determining the location and orientation of a total station based on GNSS coordinates known for a construction vehicle in an x, y, z, coordinate system)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Fritz-1 and Shelstad with Fritz-2; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to control systems for road surfacing machines. The use of GNSS and total stations doubles the precision used by allowing two forms of checking that the machine is properly following the track. As Fritz-2 teaches in [0020]-[0023] the use of a combined total station with GNSS system allows for the machine to move and be controlled even in the event of poor GNSS signal. The determination of accurate total station locations ensure that the machine moves properly and is oriented as best as it can.
Regarding claim 3, Fritz-1 teaches the method according to claim 1 characterized in that together with the information about the height adjustments on the right and left side of the working part of the working tool from the unmodified surface of the traffic area, ([0083]-[0084] and [0106] teach transmitting information to the control computer of the device to control the height of the machine tools to achieve the required modification height) .
Fritz-1 does not teach information about the target cross slope of the working tool is also sent to the control computer of the construction machine, which is calculated from the design of the target surface after modification, or from a combination of the digital model of the surface of the traffic area before modification and the digital differential model of the height adjustments.
However, Shelstad teaches “information about the target cross slope of the working tool is also sent to the control computer of the construction machine, which is calculated from the design of the target surface after modification, or from a combination of the digital model of the surface of the traffic area before modification and the digital differential model of the height adjustments.” ([0043]-[0044] teaches determining the target cross slope of the road and sending it to the control device of the machine. [0039]-[0041] teach the leveling system of the machine is used to determine the height of the road surface after modification)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Fritz-1 with Shelstad; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of road surfacing vehicles. As Shelstad teaches in [0060] control of the road slope ensures that that new surface of the road is the proper thickness. [0067] furthers this by ensuring that the road is level. Both of these ideas are advantageous to ensure the road surface is properly worked upon.
Regarding claim 4, Fritz-1 teaches the device for carrying out the method according to claim 1, including a construction machine with a working tool, (Fig. 1 and [0075] teach a construction machine with a working tool) wherein the construction machine is provided with a control computer of the construction machine, (Fig. 2, item 22; [0084], and [0104]-[0106] teach a computer operable to control the construction machine) and height of the work tool, ([0104]-[0106] teach the computer operatable to control the height of the working tool) and the control computer of the construction machine is connected to a central computer equipped with a central data storage, (Fig. 2 items 10 and 24; and [0084]-[0086] teach a central computer for the work machine equipped with a central storage system) characterized in that at least one reflecting prism (7) is placed on the construction machine ([0082] teach a prism being placed on the construction machine) for at least one total station (8), arranged immovably outside the construction machine. ([0080]-[0082] teach the use of total stations in conjunction with the construction machine)
Fritz-1 does not teach adapted to adjust the cross slope.
However, Shelstad teaches “adapted to adjust the cross slope.” ([0066]-[0068] teaches a leveling system adapted to control the cross slope of the construction machine tool)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Fritz-1 and Shelstad; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of road surfacing vehicles. As Shelstad teaches in [0060] control of the road slope ensures that that new surface of the road is the proper thickness. [0067] furthers this by ensuring that the road is level. Both of these ideas are advantageous to ensure the road surface is properly worked upon.
Regarding claim 5, Fritz-1 teaches the device according to claim 4, characterized in that at least one GNSS receiver (6) is placed on the construction machine, (Fig. 1, item 16b; and [0081] teach the GNSS receiver placed on the construction machine)
Fritz-1 does not teach while the reflecting prism (7) is arranged in the vertical axis of the GNSS receiver (6) antenna with a known vertical offset from the phase center of the receiver antenna ( 6) GNSS or at a location outside the vertical axis of the receiver antenna (6) GNSS, where this location has a known longitudinal, transverse and height offset from the phase center of the receiver antenna (6) GNSS
However, Fritz-2 teaches “while the reflecting prism (7) is arranged in the vertical axis of the GNSS receiver (6) antenna with a known vertical offset from the phase center of the receiver antenna ( 6) GNSS or at a location outside the vertical axis of the receiver antenna (6) GNSS, where this location has a known longitudinal, transverse and height offset from the phase center of the receiver antenna (6) GNSS” (Fig 3 items 10, 14, and R; [0050] and [0052] teach the reflector prism and GNSS receiver located on a vehicle together. [0056]-0057] further teach that the prism and GNSS receiver have known coordinates in reference of each other.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Fritz-1 with Fritz-2; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of road surfacing machines. As Fritz-2 teaches in [0022] it is possible to control the machine with a combination of GNSS and total station prisms. The location of the GNSS receiver and the prism need to be known in the coordinate system. As Fritz-2 teaches in [0057] knowing the different reference points for the total station prism and GNSS receiver would allow for the machine to navigate effectively. This set-up improves machine function.
Regarding claim 6, Fritz-1 teaches the device according to claim 4.
Fritz-1 does not teach characterized in that the central computer (5) is arranged on the construction machine and is connected to the control computer (3) of the construction machine via a communication interface.
However, Shelstad teaches “characterized in that the central computer (5) is arranged on the construction machine and is connected to the control computer (3) of the construction machine via a communication interface.” (Fig. 5, and [0062]-[0063] teach computer system of the machine connected via a communication interface of the vehicle.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Fritz-1 with Shelstad; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of road surfacing vehicles. As Shelstad teaches in [0062]-[0063] the sue of a separable computer interface allows for the system to be spread out, but the communication functionality of the computers allows for continuous usage even when not immediately close by. The use of a communications interface ensures the various computer elements can talk effectively.
Additionally, this claim would be obvious as the MPEP teaches a design may be obvious when it is made separable, portable, etc. MPEP 2144.04 V. As Fritz-1 teaches a computer system for a machine, the computer is not necessarily using a communication interface. As it appears to just be modifying the computer structure to make separable and/or portable, the central computer to the control computer. The compute elements are found in Fritz-1, Fig. 4 and [0084] teach the control computer and control system as one integrated system. Using a communication interface between them would appear to be a way to make one of the computers portable or separable from the system, see In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) for making portable and/or In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) for making separable.
Regarding claim 7, Fritz-1 teaches the device according to claim 4, characterized in that the central computer (5) and the control computer (3) of the construction machine are formed by one common control computer of the construction machine. (Fig. 4 and [0084] teach the control computer and control system as one integrated system)
Regarding claim 8, Fritz-1 teaches the device according to claim 4, characterized in that the construction machine is a road milling machine (1), (Fig. 1 and [0075] teach a milling machine) the working tool is a milling drum (2) (Fig. 1, item 4; and [0075] teach a milling drum) and the height adjustment is the milling depth. ([0075]-[0077] and others teach the system adjusting the milling depth of the machine)
Regarding claim 9, Fritz-1 teaches the device according to claim 4.
Fritz-1 does not teach the construction machine is a road paver, the working tool is a screed plate and the height adjustment is the thickness of the paving.
However, Shelstad teaches “the construction machine is a road paver,” ([0051]-[0052] teach the work machine as a road paver) “the working tool is a screed plate” ([0051]-[0052] teach the working tool as a screed plate) and “the height adjustment is the thickness of the paving.” ([0043]-[0044], [0057], and [0060] teach ensuring the road surface height is a proper thickness)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Fritz-1 with Shelstad; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the control of road surfacing vehicles. As Shelstad teaches in [0003] the control systems of pavers are just like milling machines, the only difference is one removes material, the other adds it. Shelstad’s system would work perfectly with both pavers and milling machines, so the incorporation of such a machine would be obvious. [0011] of Shelstad further teaches that the systems used by the machines are similar and scope and could be substituted for each other in a broad way with regards to a control scheme.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hill (US PG Pub 2015/0275482) teaches novel tools and techniques for controlling road-forming machines, such as paving machines, graders, and the like. Some techniques allow a control system of a road-forming machine to transition from receiving position data from one positioning device to receiving data from another without ceasing operation and/or while limiting any resulting discontinuity in the formed road surface to within acceptable tolerances.
Horn (US PG Pub 2023/0250595) teaches leveling system for a construction machine, in particular a road construction machine or a road finishing machine comprising: a layer thickness measurement system, configured to measure a current layer thickness and determine respective actual layer thickness values for a plurality of positions, a processor configured to determine, based on a layer thickness profile including a plurality of set layer thickness values allocated to a plurality of the positions, as well as the actual layer thickness values for the positions, control values per position for height regulation of a tool of the construction machine.
Snoeck (US Pat 8,794,867) teaches an asphalt milling machine control is provided for an asphalt milling machine of the type which mills an asphalt pavement surface over which the machine travels. The machine has a milling machine body, and a rotatable milling drum mounted on the lower portion of the milling machine body, the bottom surface of the milling drum contacting the asphalt pavement surface to mill the surface to a design elevation. The machine further includes a plurality of machine body supports which are adjusted to raise or lower the height of the milling machine body and the rotatable milling drum with respect to the asphalt pavement surface. This defines the elevation of the surface that results from milling with the drum. The control includes a floating plate, mounted to the side of the milling machine and the rotatable milling drum, or a pair of floating plates mounted to either side of the machine, for sliding over the surface adjacent to the area to be milled. The floating plates have associated sensors and are vertically movable with respect to the machine body and the rotatable milling drum. The control includes a GNSS receiver on the machine body for determining the two dimensional coordinates of the floating plate or plates. The control includes a memory which stores a map of the unmilled asphalt pavement surface, and data defining a desired design surface. The control includes a sensor for detecting the relative vertical position of the floating plate with respect to the machine body and an inclinometer. Finally, the control includes a processor, responsive to the GNSS receiver, the inclinometer, and the sensors. Cross checking of various measurements may be made to determine error conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665