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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrical components" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obayashi (JP2020-079528) in view of Nippon (JP 2020-032953) and Dagner (DE 10 2021126363)
Regarding claim 1, Obayashi teaches an electric roller comprising: a pair of front and rear compaction wheels (11, 21); a vehicle frame (10) rotatably supporting the compaction wheels; at least one compaction-wheel electric motor (22) to drive the compaction wheels; a compaction-wheel inverter to control rotation speed of the compaction- wheel electric motor; at least one battery (18) to supply power to the compaction-wheel electric motor, wherein the electric roller has no internal combustion engine and uses only the battery as a power source for the compaction wheels. Obayashi fails to teach an inverter and a control unit. Nippon teaches a roller with compaction wheels and a control unit (13) to output a signal to the compaction-wheel inverter according to a degree of inclination of a forward-backward lever (86) (paragraph [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the control unit of Nippon on the roller of Obayashi as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. Dagner teaches a roller having an electric motor having an inverter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an inverter on the roller of Obayashi as taught by Dagner as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, Obayashi as modified by Nippon and Dagner teaches the at least one compaction-wheel electric motor comprises two or more compaction-wheel electric motors (Dagner). Dagner teaches a compactor having two electric motors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include two electric motors on the roller of Obayashi as taught by Dagner as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 3, Obayashi as modified by Nippon and Dagner teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a potentiometer. Hamm teaches a roller with a lever and a potentiometer (32) to detect a degree of inclination and outputs the result. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a potentiometer in the roller of Obayashi as taught by Hamm as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, Obayashi as modified by Nippon and Dagner teaches the battery (18) is provided in at least one of a front space and a rear space of the vehicle frame.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obayashi (JP2020-079528) in view of Nippon (JP 2020-032953) and Dagner (DE 10 2021126363) and in further view of Zhao (WO2020142942).
Regarding claim 4, Obayashi as modified by Nippon and Dagner teaches but fails to teach the control unit outputs signals in stages. Zhao teaches a method for controlling a motor wherein the control unit outputs signals to the compaction-wheel inverter in two or more stages of an acceleration range, so that an aimed rotation speed of the compaction- wheel electric motor is gradually reached (page 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to gradually increase the speed of the motor of Obayashi as taught by Zhao as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obayashi (JP2020-079528) in view of Nippon (JP 2020-032953) and Dagner (DE 10 2021126363) and in further view of Hoogzaad (8,030,861)
Regarding claim 5, Obayashi as modified by Nippon and Dagner teaches but fails to teach decelerating the wheel in two or more stages. Hoogzaad teaches a method for controlling deceleration wherein the control unit outputs signals to the compaction-wheel inverter in two or more stages of a deceleration range, to gradually stop the electric motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to gradually increase the speed of the motor of Obayashi as taught by Zhao as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obayashi (JP2020-079528) in view of Nippon (JP 2020-032953) and Dagner (DE 10 2021126363) and in further view of Oh et al. (9,174,547) (“Oh”).
Regarding claim 6, Obayashi as modified by Nippon and Dagner teaches but fails to teach the electric roller is equipped with electrical components including a lamp and an alarm, and the at least one battery comprises two or more batteries having different voltages from each other and electrically connected to the compaction-wheel electric motor and the electrical components, respectively. Oh teaches an electric vehicle with an auxiliary battery and a drive battery with different voltages. The examiner takes official notice that electrical components such as lamps and alarms are old and well known on compactor machines and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lamps and alarms on the compactor of Obayashi and to power them with an auxiliary battery to power them as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further to allow the vehicle accessories to be used without the motor.
Regarding claim 8, Obayashi as modified by Nippon and Dagner teaches but fails to teach the electric roller is equipped with electrical components including a lamp and an alarm, and the at least one battery comprises two or more batteries having different voltages from each other and electrically connected to the compaction-wheel electric motor and the electrical components, respectively. Oh teaches an electric vehicle with an auxiliary battery and a drive battery with different voltages. The examiner takes official notice that electrical components such as lamps and alarms are old and well known on compactor machines and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lamps and alarms on the compactor of Obayashi and to power them with an auxiliary battery to power them as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further to allow the vehicle accessories to be used without the motor. Using an auxiliary battery would allow the electrical components, including the lamp, work even when the control unit has a system failure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obayashi (JP2020-079528) in view of Nippon (JP 2020-032953) and Dagner (DE 10 2021126363) and in further view of Commuri (WO2021/133680).
Regarding claim 9, Obayashi as modified by Nippon and Dagner teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach a display. Commuri teaches a compactor having a display provided on a dashboard displays a speedometer, along with vehicle information kept in the control unit (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a display on the roller of Obayashi as taught by Commuri as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. He teaches an all electric road roller.
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 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights