DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to the application received on 28 February 2025. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Priority
The claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged. A certified copy of the foreign application has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS received on 28 February 2025 has been considered.
Interpretation of Claims Under 35 USC 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (specifically, "device" or "part") that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1:
"a working device configured to supply the first paving material" is interpreted as a mechanism for receiving and supplying paving material, such as the hopper and conveyor described in the specification at page 7 lines 3-18;
"image information captured by an imaging device" (this limitation meets the 3-prong test by being equivalent to "imaging device to capture image information," moreover the language of dependent claim 7 confirms that the imaging device is intended as an element of claim 1) is interpreted as one or more cameras, or lidar (spec page 8 line 31-page 9 line 18);
In claim 9:
"a storage part configured to store log information" is interpreted as a database, as shown by the symbol associated with reference numeral (48a) in Fig. 3; and
In claim 11:
"a communication part configured to receive or transmit information" is interpreted as a device for performing wireless communication, such as a Bluetooth, Wifi, or wireless LAN device (spec page 12 lines 3-11).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2021-155970 A (Kato et al.). Kato was cited in the IDS received on 28 Feb 2025 and a copy was provided. Cites to Kato in this Office action rely on a computer-generated translation into English, a copy of which has been added to the application file.
Claim 1.
Kato discloses a road machine comprising:
a tractor (para [0019] - "asphalt finisher 1");
a screed disposed behind the tractor and configured to level a first paving material (para [0020] - "The asphalt finisher 1 receives the asphalt mixture [...] and compacts it with the screed 12"); and
a working device configured to supply the first paving material in front of the screed (para [0020] - "The asphalt finisher 1 receives the asphalt mixture (asphalt blend) transported by dump trucks or the like from the front hopper, supplies it to the rear auger 11 via a conveyor"),
wherein the road machine is configured to
perform a process for paving an area having milling marks with the first paving material based on the milling marks on a second paving material, the second paving material having been used to pave a road surface, and the milling marks being shown in image information captured by an imaging device (para [0016] - "the laying boundary portion, which is the boundary between the laying direction indicator body that is continuous with the laying direction by the asphalt finisher and the surface to be paved, is detected by the sensor unit, and the screed control device operates the actuator so that the widener end of the screed does not deviate from the laying boundary portion", para [0031] - "laser distance sensors may be used instead of the first and second ultrasonic sensors 51 and 52. [...] Alternatively, a two-dimensional laser scanner may be used to scan a plane perpendicular to the laying direction to detect the position and distance of the laying direction indicator. Alternatively, a two-dimensional image including the paved surface 2 and the laying direction indicators may be captured, and the position and distance of the laying direction indicators may be detected using image processing technology").
Claim 2.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the road machine is configured to
identify, based on the milling marks, a milled surface that represents an area where the second paving material has been milled (para [0031]), and
perform a process for paving the milled surface included in the road surface with the first paving material (para [0016], para [0020]).
Claim 3.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the road machine is configured to
move the tractor along a path determined based on the identified milled surface, as the process for paving the area having milling marks with the first paving material (para [0019] - "the asphalt finisher 1, which moves in the laying direction (forward) on the surface to be paved 2 where the asphalt is laid").
Claim 4.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 3, and further discloses wherein a center line between a plurality of boundary lines which are boundary lines of the milled surface in a vehicle width direction is used as the path of the road machine at a predetermined position (para [0003] - "if the operator of the asphalt finisher has poor driving skills, they will not be able to drive the asphalt finisher according to construction standards (for example, straight in the direction of construction), causing it to frequently move closer to and further away from the formwork and joint areas", para [0019] - "The laying direction in which the asphalt finisher 1 moves is the direction in which the formwork materials 3, which form the edge of the pavement width, are continuously installed").
Claim 5.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the road machine is configured to
move the tractor along a path determined based on a boundary line between an area where the milling marks exist and an area where the milling marks do not exist, represented by the image information, as the process for paving the area having milling marks with the first paving material (para [0003], para [0019]).
Claim 6.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the screed is capable of extending and retracting in a vehicle width direction of the road machine (para [0020] - "the screed 12 of the asphalt finisher 1 is equipped with a left widener 13L and a right widener 13R on both the left and right sides of the screed body, respectively, and the left and right positions of the outer ends 132 of the wideners can be adjusted by extending and retracting the piston rod of the hydraulic cylinder 131"), and
the road machine is configured to
control extension and retraction of the screed based on a length in the vehicle width direction of the area having milling marks, as the process for paving the area having milling marks with the first paving material (para [0023] - "The automatic control of the left and right wideners 13L and 13R of the screed 12 described above is performed by the screed control device 6 based on detection information from the sensor unit 5", para [0024] - "the screed control device 6 receives sensor signals via signal cables from the sensor unit 5 on the left widener 13L side and the sensor unit 5 on the right widener 13R side, and determines the deviation of the widener outer end 132. Then, based on the determination result, the screed control device 6 outputs a drive signal to each hydraulic cylinder 131 via the drive signal cable in order to correct the misalignment of the widener outer end 132").
Claim 7.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 6, and further discloses wherein:
the imaging device is provided near a distal end of the screed (para [0021] - "Sensor mounting frames 4 are provided on the outer ends of the left and right wideners 13L and 13R, respectively, and these sensor mounting frames 4 hold the sensor unit 5 in the required position. This sensor mounting frame 4 has a structure that allows the mounting position of the sensor unit 5 to be adjusted in the front-to-back, up-and-down, and left-to-right directions"); and
the road machine is configured to
control extension and retraction of the screed based on an end, in the vehicle width direction, of the area having milling marks, which is shown in the image information captured by the imaging device provided near the distal end of the screed (para [0023], para [0024]).
Claim 8.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the imaging device is attached near a distal end of the screed or an upper end of the tractor, or both (para [0021]).
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 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of US 11,674,271 B2 (Hoisington).
Claim 9.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 1.
Hoisington teaches the limitations not expressly further disclosed by Kato, namely:
the road machine further comprising
a storage part configured to store log information indicating a result of the process for paving the area where the milling marks have appeared with the first paving material (col 6 ln 37-45 - "controller 102 may be in communication with additional sensors mounted to or within machine 10 [...] controller 102 may be in communication with additional displays or operator stations, for example, a central control station for the worksite, an electronic log or memory that stores operating instructions and/or records the positions and other operational aspects of machine 10 over a worksite").
As of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kato and Hoisington because both relate to control systems for paving machines. The combination would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Hoisington by providing a system that preserves a record of the paving machine's operation.
Claim 11.
Kato discloses a road surface paving system, comprising a road machine [
a tractor (para [0019]);
a screed disposed behind the tractor and configured to level a first paving material (para [0020]);
a working device configured to supply the first paving material in front of the screed (para [0020]); and
a control part configured to
perform a process for paving an area having milling marks with the first paving material based on the milling marks on a second paving material, the second paving material having been used to pave a road surface, and the milling marks being shown in image information captured by an imaging device (para [0016], para [0031]).
Hoisington teaches the limitations not expressly further disclosed by Kato, namely:
a road machine and a communication terminal, wherein the road machine includes:
a communication part configured to receive or transmit information (col 6 ln 37-45); and
wherein the communication terminal is configured to transmit or receive the information to and from the communication part provided on the road machine (col 6 ln 37-45).
See claim 9 for a statement of an obviousness rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of US 12,211,291 B2 (Tanabe).
Claim 10.
Kato discloses the road machine according to claim 2.
Tanabe teaches the limitations not expressly further disclosed by Kato, namely:
the road machine further comprising
a trained model configured to output an area of the milled surface shown in the image information based on the image information captured by the imaging device (col 3 ln 48-51 - "The apparatus inputs an image representing the surroundings of a vehicle into a classifier to identify the types of objects represented in respective pixels of the image", col 6 ln 14-17 - "in the result 410 of identification regarding the pixels of the image 400, the pixels are classified into the travel lane 401, [...] a different road surface 404"),
wherein the road machine is configured to
identify the milled surface captured in the image information by inputting the image information captured by the imaging device provided on the road machine into the trained model (col 3 ln 48-51, col 6 ln 14-17).
As of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kato and Tanabe because both relate to systems for providing a vehicle with external environment sensors. The combination would yield predictable results according to the teachings of Tanabe by allowing the vehicle to recognize additional aspects of its environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Todd Melton whose telephone number is (571)270-3871. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9:30am - 6:00pm (Eastern time). 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights