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.
Claims 1-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the language “edge-filling equipment” is used to identify equipment supported on the road construction device in place of a lateral guide; however, the claim subsequently recites that “the edge-filling apparatus includes a conveyor.” It is unclear whether the recited “edge-filling apparatus” refers to the previously recited “edge-filling equipment,” the road construction device when configured as an edge-filling device, or a separate apparatus. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Appropriate correction is required so that a single term is consistently used for each distinct structure. For example, “edge-filling equipment” may be used for the removable components and “edge-filling device” may be used for the road construction device when configured for edge filling.
Claims 2, 17, and 18 are rejected for the same reason by virtue of their dependency from claim 1. Additionally, claim 2 recites that “the road construction device is used as an edge-filling apparatus,” whereas claim 1 states that the road construction device is configured to be used as an “edge-filling device” and separately identifies “edge-filling equipment” and an “edge-filling apparatus.” It is therefore unclear whether the “edge-filling apparatus” of claim 2 refers to the road construction device itself or to the equipment recited in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because the language “road building material” is inconsistent with the term “road construction material” used in claim 1 and throughout the remaining claims. The language “road building material” should be changed to “road construction material” for consistency.
Claims 1, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 22 are objected to because the term “advantageously” introduces preferred or optional subject matter into the claims and results in an improper claim format. It is unclear from the form of the claims whether the language following “advantageously” is intended to constitute a required limitation. The claims should be amended either to positively recite the subject matter as a required limitation or to delete the optional language.
Regarding claim 1, the language “advantageously so as to block the mouth” should be amended either to recite “wherein the conveyor is arranged so as to block the mouth,” if blocking the mouth is required, or to delete the phrase if it is merely a preferred embodiment.
Regarding claim 11, the language “advantageously in place of the lateral guide” should be amended either to positively require that the edge-filling wing replace the lateral guide or to delete the phrase.
Regarding claim 15, the language “in a range of 1.5-3.0 m, advantageously 1.7-2.5 m” improperly presents a broad required range together with a preferred narrower range. The claim should be amended to recite the intended range without the term “advantageously,” or the narrower range should be presented in a separate dependent claim.
Regarding claim 17, the language “advantageously in place of the lateral guide” should be amended either to positively require that the extension conveyor replace the lateral guide or to delete the phrase.
Regarding claim 19, the language “advantageously in such a manner that the conveyor blocks the mouth” should be amended either to positively require installation of the conveyor so that it blocks the mouth or to delete the phrase.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the language “advantageously in place of the lateral guide” should be amended either to positively require attachment in place of the lateral guide or to delete the phrase.
Claim 2 is objected to because the claim recites that the conveyor is attached to the “floor of the hopper,” whereas paragraph [0031] states that the conveyor is “attached to the hopper.” Although paragraph [0065] provides support for installation of the conveyor on the floor of the hopper, the terminology should be reviewed and made consistent throughout the disclosure and claims.
Claim 13 is objected to because the recitation “on which a hydraulic cylinder configured to move the edge-filling wing in a vertical direction is arranged” could incorrectly suggest that the hydraulic cylinder is arranged directly on the vertical sliding bar. The specification states in paragraph [0074] that the edge-filling wing is arranged on the lateral shifting device by means of the vertical sliding bar and identifies hydraulic cylinder 65 as controlling vertical movement. The claim should be amended to more clearly identify the structural relationship among the vertical sliding bar, the hydraulic cylinder, and the edge-filling wing.
Claim 16 is objected to because the claim recites determining the “width” of the edge-filling wing, whereas paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0075], and [0076] describe adjustment of the “length” of the edge-filling wing. Although paragraph [0077] uses the term “width,” it appears that the state of hydraulic cylinder 62 determines the telescopic length or extension of the wing rather than its width. The terminology should be clarified and made consistent. If the dimension determined using hydraulic cylinder 62 is the telescopic length of the edge-filling wing, “width” should be changed to “length” or “extension.”
Claim 18 is objected to because the phrase “the road construction material is configured to fall” attributes a configuration to the road construction material rather than to the conveyor arrangement. The claim should be amended to recite, for example, “wherein the extension conveyor is positioned relative to the conveyor such that road construction material falls from the conveyor onto the extension conveyor.”
Claims 19-22 are objected to because claim 19 initially refers to a “spreading device for spreading road construction material” but subsequently recites a “spreading device for spreading construction material.” The phrase “spreading device for spreading construction material” should be changed to “spreading device for spreading road construction material” for consistency.
Claim 20 is objected to because the claim recites that “the conveyor is attached to the hopper,” whereas claim 2 recites that the conveyor is attached to the “floor of the hopper.” The claims should use consistent terminology if the same structural arrangement is intended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed if the above 112 rejections and claim objections are overcome.
The prior art of record, including references teaching road construction spreading devices and references teaching edge-filling devices, fails to teach or suggest a road construction device configured to be selectively transformed between a spreading device and an edge-filling device by providing edge-filling equipment configured to be supported on the road construction device in place of a lateral guide, wherein the conveyor is removably arranged at the bottom of the feed reservoir to permit conversion of the device between the two operating configurations. The prior art further fails to teach or suggest the corresponding method of modifying a spreading device by removing at least one lateral guide and installing the removable conveyor to convert the same road construction device into an edge-filling device. These limitations, in combination with the remaining limitations of the independent claims, are not taught or suggested by the prior art of record and therefore distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
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. Wolf teaches a spreader with edge wings.
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 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights