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 .
The amendment filed 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffman (EP 2927883, see the English translated document cited in the PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman discloses a ground compactor for compacting ground material, comprising at least one compactor roller 1 rotatable on a machine frame about a roller rotation axis substantially orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the compactor and a vertical direction of the compactor and extending substantially in a transverse direction of the compactor (see Figs. 1-2, under “Description” paragraphs after brief description of drawings), with an edge processing device 10 associated therewith for processing a side edge of compacted ground material (see Figs. 5-6), wherein the edge processing device 10 comprises an edge processing disk supported on a disk carrier/folding arm 4 for rotation about an edge processing rotation axis, wherein the edge processing rotation axis is set or can be set at a first angle of incidence with respect to the transverse direction of the compactor in the longitudinal di-rection of the compactor (see Figs. 6 and 12, paragraphs starting “As shown FiGS.1 to 8…into the tilt position”) so that the edge processing rotation axis does not lie in a plane spanned by the transverse direction of the compactor and the vertical direction of the compactor (see annotated Figs. 13 &15).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
539
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman discloses the first angle of incidence (as shown in Figs. 6 and 12) is variable with holding arm 4 (see paragraph starting “Figs. 1 to 15 show a road roller 1…..The holding arm 4 is connected to a piston rod 7, which is movable in a hydraulic cylinder 8…”).
Regarding claim 4, Hoffman discloses the edge processing rotation axis, starting from the disk carrier 4, is set in the direction away from the at least one compactor roller 1 at the first angle of incidence with respect to the compactor transverse direction in a compactor working movement direction essentially parallel to the compactor longitudinal direction with a ball joint 11 (see Figs 5-6, 9 & 11-12, paragraph starting “As shown in FIGS. 1-8, the holding device….”).
Regarding claim 5, Hoffman discloses the edge processing rotation axis is set or can be set at a second angle of incidence with respect to the compactor transverse direction in the compactor vertical direction with inherently manipulating a ball joint 11 (see Fig. 9. paragraph starting “As shown in FIGS. 1-8, the holding device….”).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman discloses the second angle of incidence is variable with inherently manipulating a ball joint 11 (see Fig. 9. paragraph starting “As shown in FIGS. 1-8, the holding device….”).
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman discloses the edge processing rotation axis, starting from the disk carrier 4, is set in the direction away from the at least one compactor roller 1 at the second angle of incidence with respect to the compactor transverse direction in a compactor downward direction essentially parallel to the compactor vertical direction with inherently manipulating a ball joint 11 (see Fig. 9. paragraph starting “As shown in FIGS. 1-8, the holding device….”).
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman discloses the edge processing disk10 is supported on the disk carrier 4 in a radially inner region (see Figs. 3-4, 7-8, 10 & 13) with respect to the edge processing rotation axis so as to be rotatable about the edge processing rotation axis and has a circular outer peripheral rim 2 concentric with the edge processing rotation axis.
Regarding claim 10, Hoffman discloses the edge processing disk 10 has, on an edge processing side facing the at least one compactor roller 1, an edge processing surface which is non-orthogonal with respect to the edge processing rotation axis at least in regions, or/and in that the edge processing disk 10 has, on a deflecting side facing away from the at least one compactor roller 1, a deflecting surface which is non-orthogonal with respect to the edge processing rotation axis at least in regions (see Figs. 9-12, paragraph starting “In the embodiment of FIGS. 10 to 12….”).
Regarding claim 12, Hoffman discloses the edge processing disk 10 has substantially the same thickness between the edge processing surface and the deflecting surface in all peripheral regions and radial regions (see Fig. 12).
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 2, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (EP 2927883).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, although Hoffman fails to specifically teach the first angle of incidence is in the range of 5°-15° and the second angle of incidence is in the range of 25°-35°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the range of the first and second angle of incidence in order to achieve the best workability and result while cutting the edge of the paving material.
Regarding claim 11, Hoffman disclose the edge processing surface is straight in trapezoidal shaped cross section of the edge processing disk/ work tool 10 as shown in Figs. 12 and 15). However, Hoffman fails to specifically teach the edge processing surface is convexly curved at least in regions, or/and in that the deflecting surface is concavely curved at least in regions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the straight section of the disk with the curved section in order to smoothly remove the cutting paved material while the edge processing disk in use.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (EP 2927883) in view of Shao et al (CN 215758431, see the English translated document cited in the PTO-892).
Regarding claim 13, Hoffman fails to discloses or fairly teach a scraper for scraping off ground material adhering to the edge processing disk and overlapping it on its edge processing side.
Shao et al disclose a compactor 100 comprising a roller and an edge processing disk/cutting wheel 301 supported by a disk carrier/rotating arm main body 312 and a scraper/cleaner 304 for scraping/cleaning off ground material adhering to the edge processing disk and overlapping it on its edge processing side facing the compactor 100 the scraper/cleaner is associated with the edge processing disk/cutting wheel 301 (see Figs. 1-2, paragraph under the subtitle “Specific implementation examples” starting “In the preferred embodiment of the utility model, the cutting mechanism 300 further comprises a cleaner 304;….. cleaner 304 can be a brush, also can be a flexible cleaning structure, and cleaner 304 connected with the rotating arm main body 312, when the rotating arm main body 312 close to the road surface, the cleaner 304 can clean the material in front of the cutting wheel 301…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the scraping/cleaning tool to Hoffman’s work tool as taught by Shao et al in order to improves the cutting precision and cutting quality while in use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Hoffman never discusses and gives no reason to expect an angle of incidence of edging processing disk relative to the transverse direction in the longitudinal direction as recited in claim 1 and the tilting in Hoffman is a deployment motion for a stowable tool and Hoffman does not disclose or suggest the first angle of incidence limitation of claim 1, it is not persuasive because Hoffman still shows the angle of incidence as to the transverse direction in the longitudinal direction does not lie in a plane spanned by the transverse direction and the vertical direction of the compact as depicted in annotated Figs. 13 & 15 above.
Further, with respect to applicant’s argument that a processing tool pivotably supported at a machine frame of the compactor in such a manner that the axis of rotation of this tool can be pivoted in an upward direction or a downward direction relative to a transversal direction of the compactor but not in a longitudinal direction, it is more limited than the claim scope.
Furthermore, examiner believes that Hoffman’s working tool/processing disk are structurally connected and operated by the cylinders 9, 12, 13 and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to manipulate these three cylinders respectively in operation for moving the working tool in every directions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jong-Suk (James) Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-7044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6AM- 4PM. 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, Allana Bidder can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.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.
/JONG-SUK (JAMES) LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
