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 Objections
Claim 4, 10, 12, 15, 18, 24, 26, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 4 and 18, “on to the surface” should be amended to “onto the surface.”
In claims 10 and 24, terminal punctuation should be added after the final limitation.
In claims 12 and 26, “aligns to second cell” should be amended to “aligns to the second cell.” Applicant should also clarify whether the recited overlap is between the cell boundaries themselves or between the areas defined by the cells.
In claim 15, the limitations following “the at least one processor is configured to” use the forms “receiving,” “comparing,” and “adjusting.” For grammatical consistency, these should be amended to “receive,” “compare,” and “adjust,” respectively.
In claim 27, terminal punctuation should be added after the final limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-12, 14, 25-26, 28 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 claims 14 and 28, each claim recites “adjusting the first height,” but neither claim nor its respective chain of parent claims introduces or identifies a “first height.” It is unclear whether the phrase refers to a gate height, a sub-base height, a finished cell height, or another height.
Regarding claims 11 and 25, each claim recites “the at least a first cell” and “the at least a first gate.” The respective parent claims introduce pluralities of cells and gates but do not identify the particular first cell and first gate used to determine the recited first gate offset. The relationship between the identified cell and gate is therefore unclear.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 7,220,079) in view of Gudat et al. (US 5,631,658).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method of paving a roadbed 12 with asphalt using a floating-screed paver 10 and a method for controlling a plurality of gates (106, 118) for dynamically paving a surface of a sub-base of material, wherein the gates are independently positioned by respective hydraulic cylinders 114 and 126. Changing the position of each panel changes the amount of paving material permitted to reach the roadbed 12 and floating screed 30. Lee further states that its assembly may have multiple independently controlled gates. See Lee, FIGS. 1–8 and the description of elements 104, 106, 114, 118, and 126. Lee fails to teach receiving a digital model comprising cells corresponding to the surface being paved, comparing the cells with corresponding cells of a desired digital model, and adjusting the respective panels in response to that comparison. Gudat teaches storing an actual three-dimensional site model and a desired three-dimensional site model, subdividing the site model into a continuous matrix of unit areas or grid elements, determining the difference between actual and target elevations of the grid elements, and supplying signals representing the model difference to automatic electrohydraulic machine or tool controls (470/472). Gudat expressly identifies pavers and asphalt layers as machines to which its system applies. See Gudat, FIGS. 7A–8, particularly the discussion of grid elements and actual and desired models 430 and 420. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gudat’s grid-based actual-versus-desired surface comparison to control the independently operated gates of Lee to permit the amount of asphalt supplied across the paving width to respond to local differences between the existing surface and the desired surface.
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified by Gudat teaches the aggregate material is asphalt paving material.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified by Gudat teaches the gates (106, 118) are independently rotated to different angular positions by cylinders 114 and 126. The angular positions change the degree of engagement of strike-off edges 112 and 124 and thus the amount of paving material delivered.
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified by Gudat teaches depositing asphalt on roadbed 12 and subsequently working it with floating screed 30. Gudat’s desired model 420 represents the desired final site surface. The deposited asphalt and underlying roadbed constitute the claimed surface before subsequent screed compaction, and the desired model supplies the desired final surface.
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified by Gudat teaches that floating screed 30 levels and compacts the deposited paving material to form a finished asphalt slab.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 7,220,079) in view of Gudat et al. (US 5,631,658) and further in view of Malone (US 5,549,412).
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified by Gudat teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach comparing the actual final surface to the desired final surface and adjusting the position in response to that comparison. Malone teaches comparing the actual final surface to the desired final surface (Malone’s rear profiler 110 and fresh-mat elevation measurers 118a, 118b measure the resulting mat 53; screed control 56 determines whether the measured profile is outside a desired range; Gudat’s desired model 420 supplies the desired surface); adjusting the position in response to comparing the actual final surface to the desired final surface (Malone’s screed control 56 takes corrective action in response to the measured profile; Lee’s cut-off panels 106 and 118 are independently positioned by cylinders 114 and 126.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Malone’s resulting-mat measurements as feedback in the Lee paving method and to adjust Lee’s independently positionable panels 106 and 118 for subsequent paving when the measured surface differs from desired model as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. This would correct the amount of material delivered in regions where the resulting paved surface departs from the desired surface.
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified by Gudat and Malone teaches the invention as described above, and Malone further teaches receiving sensor data from a sensor that is configured to measure the actual final surface (Malone’s fresh-mat elevation measures 118a and 118b measure the surface of mat 53 behind screed 46 and provide elevation data to screed control 56. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive the sensor data from Malone’s elevation measurers 118a and 118b in the modified Lee-Gudat method to obtain the resulting-surface measurements used for the feedback comparison as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Gudat teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach obtaining the sub-base model from a sensor ahead of the gates. Malone teaches the portion of the sub-base of the digital model is located ahead of the plurality of gates along a forward direction of travel of the plurality of gates, (Malone’s profiler 10 measures base surface 16 ahead of paver 40; Lee’s material-control panels 106 and 118 are on the paver); receiving the digital model of the portion of the sub-base includes receiving sensing data of the portion of the sub-base from a sensor located ahead of the plurality of gates along the forward direction of travel of the plurality of gates, (Malone’s elevation measurers 18a and 18b on profiler 10 measure base surface 16; profiler 10 may be pushed ahead of paver 40); and creating the digital model of the portion of the sub-base from the sensing data (Malone’s plotter 26 associates the measurements from elevation measurers 18a and 18b with position and creates stored base-surface profiles; Gudat represents actual site elevations in a digital model having grid elements.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain Gudat’s actual grid-based surface model from the ahead-of-paver measurements of Malone’s profiler 10 in the Lee-Gudat paving method so that the paver can account for those variations during paving as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Musil et al. (US 5,356,238) in view of Gudat et al. (US 5,631,658).
Regarding claim 15, Musil teaches a dynamic asphalt paver 10 for paving a surface of a sub-base with aggregate material having a plurality of gates (23,24) distributing the aggregate material receiving and distribution system 15, left and right vertically adjustable flow gates 23 and 24, and respective vertical positioning screw drives 28 and 29. The drives separately control the heights of the gates, and gate height controls the amount of material delivered toward the screed 12 by the respective conveyors 17 and 18. The gates thus independently move vertically to control the distribution of paving material. See Musil, FIG. 1 and the description of elements 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 28, and 29. Musil does not teach a processor receiving a cell-based digital model of the surface to be paved, comparing corresponding cells with a desired model, and adjusting each gate in response. Gudat teaches a computer 400 and stored actual and desired digital site models 430 and 420. Its site model is divided into grid elements; the computer determines differences between actual and desired elevations and sends corresponding signals to automatic electrohydraulic tool controls 470/472. See Gudat, FIGS. 7A–8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Gudat’s model-comparison control to Musil’s separately adjustable gates, so that the paving material supplied to the respective sides of the paver is varied according to the measured difference from the desired surface.
Regarding claim 16, Musil as modified by Gudat teaches an asphalt paver distributing asphalt paving material.
Regarding claim 17, Musil as modified by Gudat teaches screw drives 28 and 29 that adjust the respective height positions of gates 23 and 24.
Regarding claim 18, Musil as modified by Gudat teaches supplying paving material to the underlying roadbed ahead of its vibratory screed 12, which subsequently works the material. Gudat’s desired digital model 420 supplies the desired final surface toward which the machine is controlled.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Musil et al. (US 5,356,238) in view of Gudat et al. (US 5,631,658) and in further view of Vogele (EP3851584).
Regarding claim 19, Musil as modified by Gudat further teaches a vibratory paving screed 12 for working the paving material delivered to the sub-base but fails to teach that the processor is configured to control compaction of the distributed material to produce an actual final surface. Vogele teaches a road paver having an electronic control system 15, including a memory 17 and data processor 19, configured to automatically control the compaction performance of a paving screed 11. The control system adjusts the tamper frequency and/or stroke, or the vibration frequency and/or amplitude of the screed, to compact the paving material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of the Musil to control the compaction performance of Musil’s vibratory screed 12 as taught by Vogele to allow the paver to control compaction of the distributed paving material in accordance with the intended layer thickness, producing the compacted surface and further as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Musil et al. (US 5,356,238) in view of Gudat et al. (US 5,631,658) and Vogele (EP3851584) and in further view of Malone (US 5,549,412).
Regarding claim 22, Musil as modified by Gudat and Vogele teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach using the resulting-surface comparison to adjust the position of the material-flow gates. Malone teaches compare the actual final surface to the desired final surface,” (Malone’s rear profiler 110 and elevation measurers 118a, 118b measure the resulting mat 53; screed control 56 identifies measured profile characteristics outside a desired range; Gudat’s desired model 420 supplies the desired surface); adjust the position in response to comparing the actual final surface to the desired final surface (Malone’s screed control 56 takes corrective action based on the resulting-mat profile; Musil’s flow gates 23 and 24 have respective positioning drives 28 and 29) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of the Musil paver to use Malone’s resulting-mat measurements as feedback and adjust Musil’s separately positionable gates 23 and 24 for subsequent paving when the resulting surface differs from the desired model as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. This would correct material delivery on the respective sides of the paver based on the observed paving result.
Regarding claim 23, Musil as modified by Gudat, Vogele, and Malone teaches the invention as described above, and Malone further teaches receive sensor data from a sensor that is configured to measure the actual final surface (Malone’s fresh-mat elevation measurers 118a and 118b measure the surface of mat 53 behind screed 46 and provide elevation data to screed control 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processor of the modified paver to receive data from Malone’s elevation measurers in the paver of Musil to obtain the resulting-surface measurements used for the feedback comparison as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Musil et al. (US 5,356,238) in view of Gudat et al. (US 5,631,658) and in further view of Malone (US 5,549,412).
Regarding claim 24, Musil as modified by Gudat teaches the invention as described above, but fails to teach obtaining the sub-base model from a sensor ahead of the gates. Malone teaches the portion of the sub-base of the digital model is located ahead of the plurality of gates along a forward direction of travel of the plurality of gates, and (Malone’s profiler 10 measures base surface 16 ahead of paver 40; Musil’s gates 23 and 24 are on the paver); receiving the digital model of the portion of the sub-base includes receiving sensing data of the portion of the sub-base from a sensor located ahead of the plurality of gates along the forward direction of travel of the plurality of gates, and (Malone’s elevation measurers 18a and 18b on profiler 10 measure base surface 16; profiler 10 may be pushed ahead of the paver); and creating the digital model of the portion of the sub-base from the sensing data (Malone’s plotter 26 associates the measured base-surface elevations with position and creates stored profiles; Gudat’s computer 400 represents actual site elevations as a digital model having grid elements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Musil paver to receive Malone’s ahead-of-paver base-surface measurements and use them to create Gudat’s grid-based actual surface model to provide the local base elevations needed for comparison with the desired model before Musil’s gates 23 and 24 meter paving material as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11–14 and 25–28 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all limitations of their respective base and intervening claims, and if the outstanding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) issues and claim informalities are overcome.
Regarding claims 11 and 25, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest creating the digital model by determining a boundary of a particular cell relative to the position of a corresponding independently controlled gate to produce the recited cell-to-gate offset in the claimed dynamic paving system. Gudat accounts for the effective ends of a grading tool when determining which grid elements have been traversed, but does not use the position of an individual paving-material gate relative to a cell boundary to produce the claimed gate offset. Lee and Musil provide independently adjustable material controls, and Malone measures the base surface, but none supplies that particular cell-boundary-to-gate-position determination in the proposed combinations.
Regarding claims 13 and 27, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in the claimed dynamic paving system, determining an average sub-base height within a particular model cell, calculating a cell height difference between that average and the desired finished height of the corresponding desired cell, and determining whether that difference is below a threshold as part of the recited cell-based gate-control process. Gudat compares actual and desired site elevations at grid elements, but does not disclose this particular average-height and threshold calculation tied to an independently controlled paving-material gate.
Claims 12 and 14 depend from claims containing the allowable subject matter discussed above. Claims 26 and 28 likewise depend from claims containing the allowable subject matter discussed above.
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. Smith teaches a paver that scans the roadbed accounts for compaction to control individual screed blades.
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 September 29, 2026
