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 § 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.
Claim(s) 17-18, 24, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 2015/0086268).
With regards to claim 17 and 27, Johnson et al. discloses a grinder system for a grinder truck (1), comprising: a grinder head (3) including cutting teeth, the grinder head being configured to be rotatably secured to the grinder truck (figure 1-3; paragraph 0021); a controller (55) operatively coupled to the grinder head (paragraph 0025); and a display screen (60) operatively coupled to the controller, the display screen being configured to display an interface, the interface including buttons,wherein one of the buttons is configured such that selection of the one of the buttons causes the controller to control the grinder head to initiate a first motion corresponding to a first cut type; and wherein another of the buttons is configured such that selection of the another of the buttons causes the controller to control the grinder head to initiate a second motion corresponding to a second cut type, the second motion being different from the first motion and the second cut type being different from the first cut type (paragraph 0047; figures 1-10).
As to claim 18 and 28, Johnson discloses wherein the first cut type is one of a rumble cut type, a reflector cut type, a sine wave cut type, and a grind cut type; and wherein the second cut type is another of the rumble cut type, the reflector cut type, the sine wave cut type and the grind cut type (paragraph 0047).
As to claim 24, Johnson et al. discloses wherein the cutting teeth are coated with carbide or diamond (paragraph 0022).
As to claim 26, Johnson et al. discloses wherein the grinder head includes panels (2) concealing the cutting teeth (paragraph 0022).
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) 19-23 and 29-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2015/0086268).
As to claim 19 and 29, Johnson discloses multiple buttons, the buttons corresponding to a different one of: a rumble cut type, a sine wave cut type. Johnson et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Johnson et al. does not explicitly teach four of the buttons corresponding to a different one of: a rumble cut type, a reflector cut type, a sine wave cut type, and a grind cut type. However, it would have been within the level of one skilled in the art to include a button for each cut type as claimed, since it would provide the operator with an easy way to change cut type when operating the machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art to modify the grinder system of Johnson et al., to include four buttons as claimed, provide the operator with an easy way to change cut type when operating the machine.
As to claim 20-21 and 30-31, Johnson et al. discloses the controller (60) is configured to control a depth of the first cut type and the second cut type to be cut by the grinder head (paragraph 0008, 0025 and 0042). Johnson et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Johnson et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the interface includes additional buttons configured to receive inputs for selecting a depth. However, it would have be within the level of one skilled in the art to include buttons to control the depth of the grinder head so that the operator can manually control the height of the grinder head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art to modify the grinder system of Johnson et al., to include button to manually control the depth of the cut.
As to claim 22 and 32, Johnson et al. discloses wherein the interface includes buttons configured to receive inputs for selecting different profiles between cuts of a rumble strip to be cut by the grinder head (paragraph 0047). Johnson et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Johnson et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the interface includes additional buttons configured to receive inputs for selecting a spacing. However, it would have be within the level of one skilled in the art to include buttons to control the spacing between cuts so that the operator can manually control the spacing of the grinder head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art to modify the grinder system of Johnson et al., to include button to manually control the spacing of the cut.
As to claim 23 and 33, Johnson et al. discloses wherein the interface includes buttons configured to receive inputs for selecting different profiles (paragraph 0047). Johnson et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Johnson et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the interface includes additional buttons configured to receive inputs for selecting a slope of one of the first cut type and the second cut type to be cut by the grinder head. However, it would have be within the level of one skilled in the art to include buttons to control the slope of the cuts so that the operator can manually control the slope of the grinder head. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art to modify the grinder system of Johnson et al., to include button to manually control the slope of the cut.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2015/0086268) in view of Bertrand (US 5,421,669).
As to claim 25, Johnson et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Johnson et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising three cylinders operably connected to the grinder head and configured to move the grinder head along three mutually perpendicular axes. Bertrand teaches a grinder truck (15) having a grinder head (77) rotatably secured to the truck, and a linear cylinder (34/41) to control x position, a vertical cylinder (53/51/55/57) to control the up/down y position and a horizontal cylinder (29) to control the left/right z position (figure 2). It would have been obvious to on of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Johnson et al to include three cylinders as taught by Bertrand, since it would provide control of the cutter in the x, y, z directions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights