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 .
Priority
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application (U.S. Patent Application 18/182,295):
At least para. [0011]-[0013], [0017], [0071]-[0073], [0075], [0079], [0085], and [0088]-[0090] of the specification of the instant application recite new matter which was not disclosed in prior-filed application.
The figures 4 and 5 of the instant application were not disclosed in the prior-filed application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5-7 and 18-20 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.
Claim 5 recites “at least 40%.” However, it is unclear what 40% entails. Is it 40% of the positive amount or something else? Is it 40% of the sufficient amount of the positive amount or something else? Examiner interprets the limitation “at least 40%” as “at least 40% of anything” for examining purposes. No, it’s 40% of the minimum amount.
Claim 6 recites “about 50-70%.” However, it is unclear what 50-70% entails. Is it 50-70% of the positive amount or something else? Is it 50-70% of the sufficient amount of the positive amount or something else? Examiner interprets the limitation “about 50-70%”as “about 50-70% of anything” for examining purposes.
Claim 7 recites “about 60%.” However, it is unclear what 60% entails. Is it 60% of the positive amount or something else? Is it 60% of the sufficient amount of the positive amount or something else? Examiner interprets the limitation “about 60%”as “about 60% of anything” for examining purposes.
Claim 18 recites “at least 40%.” However, it is unclear what 40% entails. Is it 40% of the positive amount or something else? Is it 40% of the sufficient amount of the positive amount or something else? Examiner interprets the limitation “at least 40%” as “at least 40% of anything” for examining purposes.
Claim 19 recites “about 50-70%.” However, it is unclear what 50-70% entails. Is it 50-70% of the positive amount or something else? Is it 50-70% of the sufficient amount of the positive amount or something else? Examiner interprets the limitation “about 50-70%”as “about 50-70% of anything” for examining purposes.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the texture” in lines 8 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner interprets the limitation “the texture” as “any texture” for examining purposes.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles (FR 3098528 A1) in view of Tevlin (AU 628360 B2) further in view of Meshida et al. (JP2000104209A, hereinafter “Meshida”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Gilles and Meshida, a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 1, Gilles discloses a method of building a road using a binder and a reinforcement, the method comprising:
moving a machine over a surface on which the road is to be built (Gilles at para. [0066]: “the unit 1 is movable on the roadway, for example rolling using wheels 5 for rolling on the roadway, which are rotatably mounted under the chassis 2”);
generating a signal indicative of a texture at the surface during movement of the machine over the surface (Gilles at para. [0092]: “unit 1 comprises an automatic detector 20 of cracks F of the roadway in the images of the front zone Z of the roadway, using the calculator CAL”; Cracks function as a form of texture);
detecting a location of the texture on the surface (Gilles at para. [0086]: “means 10 for prescribing the length and width of the locations 200 where the gravel and binder must be distributed at any time by the assemblies 7, 8”);
determining, using a specially programmed processor, a positive amount of the binder to be applied to the location of the texture on the surface that (Gilles at para. [0086]: “means 10 for prescribing the length and width of the locations 200 where the gravel and binder must be distributed at any time by the assemblies 7, 8”; The length and width of locations 200 correspond to the amount of the material to be applied; para. [0088]: “Unit 1 comprises at least one CAL calculator configured to automatically generate at least one instruction 200 for localized spreading of binder and gravel in a delimited location of the front zone Z of the roadway”); and
automatically applying the positive amount of the binder to the location of the texture on the surface to build the road (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”).
However, Gilles does not explicitly state:
varies based on the signal and based on an embedment specification of the reinforcement.
In the same field of endeavor, Tevlin teaches:
varies based on the signal (Tevlin at pg. 10, ln. 4-16: “The apparatus 12 of the present invention enables the material 40 to be sprayed from the nozzles 20 at a transversely variable material application rate, over the length of the spray bars 14 and 16, ie. across the width of the section of road or pavement, that is to be sprayed. Such a transversely variable material application rate is required to enable certain road or pavement, surfaces to be readily and effectively sprayed with road surfacing material. In particular, such performance is required where the road or pavement, has variations in surface texture arising from road widening and increased traffic flow which has produced a relatively low surface texture in the wheel paths”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles by adding the application of the positive amount of the material that varies based on the texture as taught by Tevlin with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin is to provide variable material application for resurfacing existing pavement which is required where the pavement has variations in surface texture.
However, Gilles in view of Tevlin does not explicitly state:
based on an embedment specification of the reinforcement.
In the same field of endeavor, Meshida teaches:
based on an embedment specification of the reinforcement (Meshida at para. [0062]: “If the amount of binder per 100 m2 is less than 70 liters, the bond strength and adhesive force between the road surface and the aggregate and between the aggregates may be insufficient. On the contrary, if it exceeds 270 liters, the cause of the flash phenomenon may occur. Becomes The amount of the binder spread varies depending on the particle size of the first aggregate. Generally, the amount of the binder spread is larger when the aggregate having a larger particle size is used as the first aggregate. Will increase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin by adding the embedment specification of the reinforcement of Meshida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida is to use an optimal amount of binder.
Regarding claim 2, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 1.
Gilles further discloses wherein:
the texture corresponds to voids at the surface between existing reinforcements (Gilles at para. [0092]: “unit 1 comprises an automatic detector 20 of cracks F of the roadway in the images of the front zone Z of the roadway, using the calculator CAL”; Cracks function as a form of voids).
Meshida further teaches:
the positive amount is sufficient to at least partially fill the voids and to embed newly added reinforcements by a minimum amount (Meshida at para. [0006]: “The present invention has been made to solve the above-mentioned drawbacks of the prior art, and provides a stable and stable aggregate without the use of an excessive amount of binder”; para. [0062]: “If the amount of binder per 100 m2 is less than 70 liters, the bond strength and adhesive force between the road surface and the aggregate and between the aggregates may be insufficient. On the contrary, if it exceeds 270 liters, the cause of the flash phenomenon may occur. Becomes The amount of the binder spread varies depending on the particle size of the first aggregate. Generally, the amount of the binder spread is larger when the aggregate having a larger particle size is used as the first aggregate. Will increase”; The amount of the binder is adjusted to be not excessive (i.e., “minimum amount”) to ensure the bond strength for the aggregate (i.e., “reinforcements”) and any positive amount of binder applied to voids will at least partially fill the voids).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida by adding the positive amount of Meshida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida is to use an optimal amount of binder.
Regarding claim 3, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 2.
Gilles further discloses wherein the positive amount is sufficient to completely fill a majority of the voids (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”).
Regarding claim 4, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 3.
Gilles further discloses wherein the positive amount is sufficient to overfill the majority of the voids (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”).
Regarding claim 5, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 4.
Gilles further discloses wherein the minimum amount is at least 40% (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”).
Regarding claim 6, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 5.
Gilles further discloses wherein the minimum amount is about 50-70% (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”).
Regarding claim 7, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 6.
Gilles further discloses wherein the minimum amount is about 60% (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”).
Regarding claim 8, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 1.
Gilles further discloses wherein:
generating the signal includes generating the signal with at least one sensor mounted to the machine (Gilles at para. [0091]: “Unit 1 comprises a system 110 for taking pictures, comprising one (or more) camera 11, fixed to the chassis and oriented towards the front zone Z of the roadway, to obtain images I acquired from this front zone Z of the roadway”; para. [0092]: “an automatic detector 20 of cracks F of the roadway in the images of the front zone Z of the roadway, using the calculator CAL”); and
automatically applying the positive amount of the binder includes causing the machine to automatically apply the positive amount of the binder in real or near-real time as the at least one sensor generates the signal (Gilles at para. [0086]: “means 10 for prescribing the length and width of the locations 200 where the gravel and binder must be distributed at any time by the assemblies 7, 8”; para. [0106]: “the invention has also made it possible to detect and repair cracks F of small or large thickness and of various shapes while being very disjointed from each other in the direction of advance Y. The unit 1 according to the invention thus automatically detects and repairs cracks F, which relieves the user who can then concentrate on driving the vehicle”; The length and width of locations 200 correspond to the positive amount of the binder to be applied).
Regarding claim 16, Gilles discloses a method of building a new road over the top of an old road, the method comprising:
moving a distributor over a surface of the old road (Gilles at para. [0066]: “the unit 1 is movable on the roadway, for example rolling using wheels 5 for rolling on the roadway, which are rotatably mounted under the chassis 2”);
generating a signal indicative of a texture at the surface during movement of the distributor over the surface (Gilles at para. [0092]: “unit 1 comprises an automatic detector 20 of cracks F of the roadway in the images of the front zone Z of the roadway, using the calculator CAL”; Cracks function as a form of texture);
detecting a location of the texture on the surface (Gilles at para. [0086]: “means 10 for prescribing the length and width of the locations 200 where the gravel and binder must be distributed at any time by the assemblies 7, 8”);
determining, using a specially programmed processor, a positive amount of asphalt to be applied to the location of the texture on the surface that (Gilles at para. [0086]: “means 10 for prescribing the length and width of the locations 200 where the gravel and binder must be distributed at any time by the assemblies 7, 8”; The length and width of locations 200 correspond to the amount of the asphalt to be applied; para. [0088]: “Unit 1 comprises at least one CAL calculator configured to automatically generate at least one instruction 200 for localized spreading of binder and gravel in a delimited location of the front zone Z of the roadway”);
automatically spraying the positive amount of asphalt at the location of the texture on the surface (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”);
applying the aggregate over the asphalt to build the new road (Gilles at para. [0065]: “any type of aggregate could be used instead of gravel”; claim 1: “a binder distribution assembly (8) and a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”; Fig. 1 shows that the binder distribution assembly 8 is disposed upstream and the gravel distribution assembly 7 is disposed downstream, and thus the gravel (i.e., “aggregate”) is applied over the binder (i.e., “asphalt”)).
However, Gilles does not explicitly state:
varies based on the signal and based on an embedment specification of an aggregate.
In the same field of endeavor, Tevlin teaches:
varies based on the signal (Tevlin at pg. 10, ln. 4-16: “The apparatus 12 of the present invention enables the material 40 to be sprayed from the nozzles 20 at a transversely variable material application rate, over the length of the spray bars 14 and 16, ie. across the width of the section of road or pavement, that is to be sprayed. Such a transversely variable material application rate is required to enable certain road or pavement, surfaces to be readily and effectively sprayed with road surfacing material. In particular, such performance is required where the road or pavement, has variations in surface texture arising from road widening and increased traffic flow which has produced a relatively low surface texture in the wheel paths”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles by adding the application of the positive amount of the material that varies based on the texture as taught by Tevlin with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin is to provide variable material application for resurfacing existing pavement which is required where the pavement has variations in surface texture.
However, Gilles in view of Tevlin does not explicitly state:
based on an embedment specification of an aggregate.
In the same field of endeavor, Meshida teaches:
based on an embedment specification of an aggregate (Meshida at para. [0062]: “If the amount of binder per 100 m2 is less than 70 liters, the bond strength and adhesive force between the road surface and the aggregate and between the aggregates may be insufficient. On the contrary, if it exceeds 270 liters, the cause of the flash phenomenon may occur. Becomes The amount of the binder spread varies depending on the particle size of the first aggregate. Generally, the amount of the binder spread is larger when the aggregate having a larger particle size is used as the first aggregate. Will increase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin by adding the embedment specification of the aggregate of Meshida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida is to use an optimal amount of binder.
Regarding claim 17, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 16.
Gilles further discloses wherein:
the texture corresponds to voids at the surface of the old road, between pieces of existing aggregate (Gilles at para. [0092]: “unit 1 comprises an automatic detector 20 of cracks F of the roadway in the images of the front zone Z of the roadway, using the calculator CAL”; Cracks function as a form of voids, and the crack (i.e., “voids”) exists between existing aggregates on the roadway).
Meshida further teaches:
the positive amount is sufficient to at least partially fill the voids and to embed newly applied aggregate by a minimum amount (Meshida at para. [0006]: “The present invention has been made to solve the above-mentioned drawbacks of the prior art, and provides a stable and stable aggregate without the use of an excessive amount of binder”; para. [0062]: “If the amount of binder per 100 m2 is less than 70 liters, the bond strength and adhesive force between the road surface and the aggregate and between the aggregates may be insufficient. On the contrary, if it exceeds 270 liters, the cause of the flash phenomenon may occur. Becomes The amount of the binder spread varies depending on the particle size of the first aggregate. Generally, the amount of the binder spread is larger when the aggregate having a larger particle size is used as the first aggregate. Will increase”; The amount of the binder is adjusted to be not excessive (i.e., “minimum amount”) to ensure the bond strength for the aggregate and any positive amount of binder applied to voids will at least partially fill the voids).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida by adding the positive amount of Meshida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida is to use an optimal amount of binder.
Regarding claim 18, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 17.
Gilles further discloses wherein:
the positive amount is sufficient to overfill the majority of the voids; and
the minimum amount is at least 40% (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”).
Regarding claim 19, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 18.
Gilles further discloses wherein the minimum amount is about 50-70% (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and NPL-1 (Laurent, John et al. “3D laser road profiling for the automated measurement of road surface conditions and geometry.” (2013)).
Regarding claim 9, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida does not explicitly state:
wherein generating the signal indicative of the texture includes generating a signal indicative of a distance between existing reinforcements to an upper surface of an existing binder holding the existing reinforcements in place.
In the same field of endeavor, NPL-1 teaches:
wherein generating the signal indicative of the texture includes generating a signal indicative of a distance between existing reinforcements to an upper surface of an existing binder holding the existing reinforcements in place (NPL-1, pg. 4, ln. 3-6: “The figure 5 shows a 2m (half lane) transverse profile where the general depression of the profile corresponds to the presence of a rut, the sharp drop in the center of the profile corresponds to a crack point and the height variations (in blue) around the red line correspond to the macro-texture of the road surface”; The height variations necessarily includes a distance between the top surface of aggregates (i.e., “existing reinforcements”) and the lowest surface between aggregates (i.e., “upper surface of an existing binder holding the existing reinforcements in place”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida by adding the signal of NPL-1 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and NPL-1 is to provide accurate detection of road texture.
Regarding claim 10, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and NPL-1 teaches the method of claim 9.
NPL-1 further teaches further including generating a virtual map of the surface based on the distance (NPL-1 at FIG. 4, 5, 9, 12, and 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and NPL-1 by adding the virtual map of NPL-1 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and NPL-1 is to provide accurate visualization of road texture.
Claims 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee et al. (US 2009/0142133 A1, hereinafter “Glee”).
Regarding claim 11, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida does not explicitly state:
further including:
collecting at least one of environmental data or historical data for the different locations of the surface prior to application of the binder or reinforcement; and
selectively adjusting the positive amount according to the at least one of environmental data or historical data.
In the same field of endeavor, Glee teaches:
further including:
collecting at least one of environmental data or historical data for the different locations of the surface prior to application of the binder or reinforcement (Glee at para. [0033]: “A predicted temperature map of a work area, including paving material temperatures at each of the selected positions behind machines 12, 14 and 16 may be generated”); and
selectively adjusting the positive amount according to the at least one of environmental data or historical data (Glee at para. [0044]: “where paving material temperature immediately behind paving machine 12 is determined to be too cool, electronic control unit 32 may output control signals to conveyor system 23 to increase its rate of supplying paving material to screed 24, and may also output control signals to a propulsion system of machine 12 (not shown) to increase the speed of operation of ground engaging elements 22 to increase machine travel speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida by adding collecting at least one of environmental data of Glee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee is to optimize paving work under certain conditions (see Glee at para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee teaches the method of claim 11.
Glee further teaches:
wherein environmental data includes at least one of geographical information, climate information, weather information (Glee at para. [0033]: “A predicted temperature map of a work area, including paving material temperatures at each of the selected positions behind machines 12, 14 and 16 may be generated”), or traffic information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee by adding the weather information of Glee with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee is to optimize paving work under certain conditions (see Glee at para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee teaches the method of claim 11.
Glee further teaches:
further including selectively causing the machine to automatically apply (Glee at para. [0044]: “where paving material temperature immediately behind paving machine 12 is determined to be too cool, electronic control unit 32 may output control signals to conveyor system 23 to increase its rate of supplying paving material to screed 24, and may also output control signals to a propulsion system of machine 12 (not shown) to increase the speed of operation of ground engaging elements 22 to increase machine travel speed”).
Gilles further discloses at least one of a primer or a hardener (Gilles at para. [0034]: “the computer being programmed to have the binder distribution assembly and the gravel distribution assembly execute the at least one other spreading instruction entered to spread binder and gravel in said at least one other delimited location of the front zone”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee by adding selective application of a material (e.g., Glee at para. [0044]: “paving material”) based on the environmental data of Glee and by replacing the material of Glee with the primer (e.g., Gilles at para. [0034]: “the binder”) of Gilles. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee is to optimize paving work under certain conditions (see Glee at para. [0003]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida, Glee, and Hou et al. (CN 108596396 A, hereinafter “Hou”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Hou, a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 13, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee teaches the method of claim 11.
However, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee does not explicitly state:
wherein historical data includes information regarding historical performance of an existing road previously built at the location of the surface.
In the same field of endeavor, Hou teaches:
wherein historical data includes information regarding historical performance of an existing road previously built at the location of the surface (Hou et al. at para. [0023]: “This method is based on the route's road conditions, traffic volume data and maintenance history data over the years”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Glee by adding the historical data of Hou with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida, Glee, and Hou is to accurately predict the road conditions in future years and assist in the preventive maintenance (see Hou at para. [0023]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Marsolek (US 2020/0201307 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida does not explicitly state:
further including:
monitoring the positive amount of the binder being applied; and
selectively coordinating a rendezvous with a supply machine based on the monitoring.
In the same field of endeavor, Marsolek teaches:
further including:
monitoring the positive amount of the binder being applied (Marsolek at para. [0051]: “Off-board computer 68 receives data messages via communication device 80c indicative of … amount of material deposited by paver 18 (e.g., as determined by production monitoring system 74”); and
selectively coordinating a rendezvous with a supply machine based on the monitoring (Marsolek at para. [0022]: “haul trucks 16 transport hot asphalt from plant 30 to worksite 10 so that when the asphalt is loaded into paver 18, the temperature of the asphalt is still high enough to be properly deposited and compacted. When the paving operation on worksite 10 is delayed for any reason, haul trucks 16 can be delayed from unloading their fresh asphalt”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida by adding selectively coordinating the rendezvous of Marsolek with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method Gilles in view of Tevlin further in view of Meshida and Marsolek is to supply fresh asphalt without reducing overall efficiency of the surfacing operation (see Marsolek at para. [0022]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilles in view of NPL-1 further in view of Tevlin and Meshida.
Regarding claim 20, Gilles discloses a road building machine, comprising:
a vehicle (Gilles at para. [0066]: “the unit 1 is movable on the roadway, for example rolling using wheels 5 for rolling on the roadway, which are rotatably mounted under the chassis 2”);
a distribution arrangement mounted to the vehicle and configured to distribute a binder on to a surface as the vehicle moves over the surface (Gilles at para. [0073]: “The binder distribution assembly 8 thus comprises a plurality of nozzles 800 distributed in the width direction X. Each nozzle 800 is capable of being selectively opened to spread binder downwards in the prescribed width range P”; para. [0106]: “The unit 1 according to the invention thus automatically detects and repairs cracks F, which relieves the user who can then concentrate on driving the vehicle”);
at least one sensor mounted to the vehicle and configured to generate (Gilles at Fig. 1 and para. [0091]: “Unit 1 comprises a system 110 for taking pictures, comprising one (or more) camera 11, fixed to the chassis and oriented towards the front zone Z of the roadway”; para. [0106]: “The unit 1 according to the invention thus automatically detects and repairs cracks F, which relieves the user who can then concentrate on driving the vehicle”; The detection signal of cracks is indicative of that there is some distance between existing reinforcement at the surface of the road and the upper surface of the existing binder at the bottom of the crack);
a locating device configured to detect a location of the texture (Gilles at para. [0086]: “means 10 for prescribing the length and width of the locations 200 where the gravel and binder must be distributed at any time by the assemblies 7, 8, i.e. instructions 200 for locating the spreading of gravel and binder mentioned above, are provided”); and
a controller in communication with the distribution arrangement, the at least one sensor, and the locating device (Gilles at Claim 6: “the image capture system (110) or the computer (CAL) is configured to obtain the acquired images of the front zone of the roadway from raw images of the camera (11)”; Claim 9: “the computer (CAL) being programmed to have the binder distribution assembly (8) and the gravel distribution assembly (7) execute the at least one other spreading instruction (200')”), the controller being specially programmed to:
determine a positive amount of the binder to be applied to the location of the distance (Gilles at para. [0086]: “means 10 for prescribing the length and width of the locations 200 where the gravel and binder must be distributed at any time by the assemblies 7, 8”; The length and width of locations 200 correspond to the amount of the material to be applied; para. [0088]: “Unit 1 comprises at least one CAL calculator configured to automatically generate at least one instruction 200 for localized spreading of binder and gravel in a delimited location of the front zone Z of the roadway”);
automatically cause the distribution arrangement to distribute the positive amount of the binder on to the surface at the location of the texture as the vehicle moves over the surface (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”); and
embedding the reinforcement into the binder (Gilles at claim 1: “a gravel distribution assembly (7), mounted on the chassis (2) and capable of being controlled according to at least one localized spreading instruction (200) for spreading binder and gravel in at least one delimited location of the front zone (Z) of the roadway”; By spreading gravel over the binder, gravel (i.e., “reinforcement”) is at least partially embedded into the binder).
However, Gilles does not explicitly state:
a signal indicative of a distance between existing reinforcement at the surface to an upper surface of existing binder during movement of the vehicle over the surface,
based on the signal and based on an embedment specification for reinforcement to be newly applied.
In the same field of endeavor, NPL-1 teaches:
a signal indicative of a distance between existing reinforcement at the surface to an upper surface of existing binder during movement of the vehicle over the surface (NPL-1, pg. 4, ln. 3-6: “The figure 5 shows a 2m (half lane) transverse profile where the general depression of the profile corresponds to the presence of a rut, the sharp drop in the center of the profile corresponds to a crack point and the height variations (in blue) around the red line correspond to the macro-texture of the road surface”; The height variations necessarily includes a distance between the top surface of aggregates (i.e., “existing reinforcements”) and the lowest surface between aggregates (i.e., “upper surface of an existing binder holding the existing reinforcements in place”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Gilles by adding the signal of NPL-1 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the machine of Gilles in view of NPL-1 is to provide accurate detection of road texture.
However, Gilles in view of NPL-1 does not explicitly state:
based on the signal and based on an embedment specification for reinforcement to be newly applied.
In the same field of endeavor, Tevlin teaches:
based on the signal (Tevlin at pg. 10, ln. 4-16: “The apparatus 12 of the present invention enables the material 40 to be sprayed from the nozzles 20 at a transversely variable material application rate, over the length of the spray bars 14 and 16, ie. across the width of the section of road or pavement, that is to be sprayed. Such a transversely variable material application rate is required to enable certain road or pavement, surfaces to be readily and effectively sprayed with road surfacing material. In particular, such performance is required where the road or pavement, has variations in surface texture arising from road widening and increased traffic flow which has produced a relatively low surface texture in the wheel paths”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Gilles in view of NPL-1 by adding based on the signal as taught by Tevlin with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the machine of Gilles in view of NPL-1 further in view of Tevlin is to provide variable material application for resurfacing existing pavement which is required where the pavement has variations in surface texture.
However, Gilles in view of NPL-1 further in view of Tevlin does not explicitly state:
based on an embedment specification for reinforcement to be newly applied.
In the same field of endeavor, Meshida teaches:
based on an embedment specification for reinforcement to be newly applied (Meshida at para. [0062]: “If the amount of binder per 100 m2 is less than 70 liters, the bond strength and adhesive force between the road surface and the aggregate and between the aggregates may be insufficient. On the contrary, if it exceeds 270 liters, the cause of the flash phenomenon may occur. Becomes The amount of the binder spread varies depending on the particle size of the first aggregate. Generally, the amount of the binder spread is larger when the aggregate having a larger particle size is used as the first aggregate. Will increase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Gilles in view of NPL-1 further in view of Tevlin by adding the embedment specification of Meshida with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the machine of Gilles in view of NPL-1 further in view of Tevlin and Meshida is to use an optimal amount of binder.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12392095. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 16 are anticipated by the reference patent claim 1.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12392095 recites “moving a machine over a surface on which the road is to be built; generating a signal indicative of a texture of the surface during movement of the machine over the surface; detecting a location of the texture on the surface; determining, using a specially programmed processor, an amount of a material to be applied to the location of the texture on the surface based on the signal; and automatically applying the amount of the material to the location of the texture on the surface to build the road, wherein: the material is an asphalt material; the amount of the material is selected at least in part based on a specified parameter of an aggregate to be subsequently applied on top of the material; and the method further includes: detecting an actual parameter of the aggregate during application of the aggregate on to the material; and selectively adjusting the amount of the material being applied based on the actual parameter of the aggregate” (emphasis added).
Therefore, patent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12392095 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claims 1 and 16. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights