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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 03/12/2026:
claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 17, 19-22, 24-27 and 29-30 are currently pending;
claims 17, 19-22, 24-25 and 29-30 are withdrawn; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment “forming an interfacial bond directly between the outer surface of one or more of the aggregates and the cement paste without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste” in the respective independent claims 1 and 26; however, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 26 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, and 13-15 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 1 lines 20-21 reciting “any of the steps (i) to (iii)” is indefinite because the claimed “(iii)” is not previously recited, thus the metes and bounds of the claim is not well defined.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “any of the steps (i) to (ii)”.
Claim 6 reciting “wherein the process further comprises the addition of an agent in the form of a primer to the outer surface of at least one aggregate” is indefinite because the metes and bounds is not clear based on the limitation recited in claim 1 lines 7-9 reciting “forming an interfacial bond directly between the outer surface of one or more of the aggregates and the cement paste without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste”.
Examiner suggests to clarify the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claims 2, 7, 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 reciting “wherein the process further comprises the addition of an agent in the form of a primer to the outer surface of at least one aggregate” fail to include all the limitations of claim 1 lines 7-9 reciting “forming an interfacial bond directly between the outer surface of one or more of the aggregates and the cement paste without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste” because the “primer to the outer surface of at least one aggregate” in claim 6 is not consistent with the recitation in claim 1, which is “without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 1-2, 7, 9-10 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrasi et al. (US 2018/0208509 A1) (“Terrasi” hereinafter) in view of Li et al. (Influence of aggregate surface roughness on mechanical properties of interface and concrete, Construction and Building Materials, 2014) (“Li” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Terrasi teaches an elastic design process for the preparation of a structure (see Terrasi at [0001] teaching the present disclosure relates to improved concrete elements… to cementitious compositions suitable for producing such concrete elements; to methods of manufacturing such concrete elements and such cementitious composition; to the use of specific components in concrete elements and cementitious mixtures, see Terrasi at [0097] teaching the disclosure relates to processes (methods) for manufacturing a cementitious mixture, see Terrasi at [0115] teaching in one embodiment, the disclosure provides a method for manufacturing a concrete element as described herein, see Terrasi at [0040] teaching in particular, the mortars and concretes according to the disclosure show high strength and elastic modulus from early age, see Terrasi at [0104] teaching the person skilled in the art is in a position to find appropriate variants or alternatives to the above processes), which is taken to meet the claimed process because absent new and unexpected results, there is an elastic design process for manufacturing the concrete as taught by Terrasi,
the concrete structure having an enhanced flexural tensile strength (this limitation is directed to the property of the concrete structure, not a step in the claimed process. As such, the concrete as taught by Terrasi is taken to meet the claimed limitations), the process comprising
providing a cement paste comprising a mixture of water and cement (see Terrasi at [0038] teaching a cementitious mixture comprising (a) cement… (c) water, see Terrasi at [0099] teaching a process of manufacturing a cementitious mixture… comprising the steps of providing components (a) to (f)… and combining these components to obtain the cementitious mixture… the process may be continuous or batch-wise, see Terrasi at [0115] teaching said method comprising the steps of (i) providing a cementitious composition as described herein, (ii) casting or pumping the cementitious composition into moulds, see Terrasi at [0139] teaching the fresh concrete compositions possess high flowability). The cement mixture is taken to meet the claimed “cement paste” because it comprises a mixture of water and cement;
providing… one… aggregates having an outer surface; mixing the aggregates with the cement paste to form a cement mixture (see Terrasi at [0038] teaching a cementitious mixture comprising (a) cement, (b) aggregate, (c) water, see Terrasi at [0099] teaching a process of manufacturing a cementitious mixture… comprising the steps of providing components (a) to (f)… and combining these components to obtain the cementitious mixture… the process may be continuous or batch-wise,), which is taken to meet the claimed limitations because absent new and unexpected results, the aggregate has an outer surface, and mixing cement, water and aggregates forms concrete or cement mixture;
adding reinforcing fibers that have been pre-stressed into the cement mixture (see Terrasi at [0107] teaching the concrete element may be further… reinforced, see Terrasi at [0109]-[0110] teaching the disclosure provides a passively reinforced concrete element… and further means for reinforcement may also be provided in form of steel fibres or other structural fibers of different materials… the disclosure provides a prestressed concrete element (i.e. an actively reinforced concrete element)… the prestressing may be provided, e.g., in form of prestressing steel tendons, see Terrasi at [0099] teaching a process of manufacturing a cementitious mixture… comprising the steps of providing components (a) to (f)… and combining these components to obtain the cementitious mixture… the process may be continuous or batch-wise, see Terrasi at [0119] teaching for prestressed elements, step (I) also includes… pre-tensioning the prestressing tendons, see Terrasi at [0135] teaching the disclosed tendons further allow applying prestress in multiple directions); and
forming the concrete structure out of the cement mixture (see Terrasi at [0001] teaching the present disclosure relates to improved concrete elements… to cementitious compositions suitable for producing such concrete elements; to methods of manufacturing such concrete elements and such cementitious composition; to the use of specific components in concrete elements and cementitious mixtures, see Terrasi at [0099] teaching a process of manufacturing a cementitious mixture… comprising the steps of providing components (a) to (f)… and combining these components to obtain the cementitious mixture… the process may be continuous or batch-wise, see Terrasi at [0106] teaching the term concrete element… denotes any shaped article comprising or consisting of concrete as defined herein).
Terrasi does not explicitly teach a) forming an interfacial bond directly between the other surface of one or more of the aggregates and the cement paste without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste; and b) the interfacial bond between one or more of the aggregates being enhanced by… at least one of the following steps: (i) increasing the roughness of the outer surface of the aggregates by etching, embossing, or scratching and (ii) adding a substitute material for conventional sand into the cement mixture. However, Terrasi teaches that the term aggregate is known in the field… a broad variety of aggregates may be used… when selecting aggregates… the man skilled in the art considers the strength of the aggregate… the bond between the cement paste and the aggregate, and the surface characteristics of the aggregate… any of these properties could limit the ultimate strength of HPC (see Terrasi at [0055]-[0056]).
Like Terrasi, Li teaches concrete comprising cement, water and aggregates (see Li at page 338, section 1, left to right column teaching concrete is often considered a three-phase composite structure at the mesoscopic scale: cement paste, aggregates and their interface… it is generally accepted by many researchers that the structure of the interface, which is mainly influenced by the aggregates), cement and water/cement ratio of the mix, plays a key role in the mechanical behavior of concrete… the nature of the interface depends on the microstructure characteristics of aggregates). Li further teaches the following conclusions can be drawn from the experimental observations on the bond strength of the interface and mechanical properties of concrete… (1) the bond strength of the interface increases and tends to be constant as the roughness of the aggregates increases… (2) test results show that the surface roughness of coarse aggregates has an obvious influence on the interfacial cohesion… with increases in the roughness of the aggregate surfaces, the internal cohesion increases and finally reaches a maximum value (see Li at page 348, section conclusions, bullets 1-2). Interfacial cohesion between the cement paste and aggregates is taken to meet the claimed a) “forming an interfacial bond directly between the other surface of one or more of the aggregates and the cement paste without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste”.
Li also teaches the sandblasted surface (Fig. 1d (shown with Examiner’s annotation below)) was made by blasting a saw-cut surface using corundum… the roughness of the sandblasted… surfaces were beyond the measurement range of the surface roughmeter (see Li at page 339, section 2.1, paragraphs 2-3). The sandblasted surface is taken to meet the claimed b) “the interfacial bond between… one… of the aggregates being enhanced by… at least one of the following steps… (i) increasing the roughness of the outer surface of the aggregates by… scratching”.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
1219
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Li teaches that interfacial cohesion between the cement paste and aggregates increases with the roughness of the surface of the aggregate, and seek those advantages by increasing the roughness of the surface of aggregates in the method as taught by Terrasi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to increase the roughness of the surface of aggregates as taught by Li in the method as taught by Terrasi because interfacial cohesion between the cement paste and aggregates increases with the roughness of the surface of the aggregate.
With respect to the recitation, the interfacial bond between one or more of the aggregates being enhanced by adding reinforcing fibers that have been pre-stressed into the cement mixture, and wherein the enhanced flexural tensile strength is defined as the concrete structure having a higher Modulus of Rupture (MOR) and a lower Coefficient of Variation (COV) as measured according to ASTM C78 at 28 days as compared to the MOR and COV measured for an identical concrete structure formed without performing any of the steps (i) to (ii) that enhance the interfacial bonding between the one or more aggregates and the cement paste (this limitation is directed to the property of the concrete structure, not a step in the claimed process. The concrete comprising aggregates with rough surfaces and reinforcing fibers as taught by Terrasi in view of Li is taken to meet the claimed limitations).
Alternatively, since the method of making concrete comprising aggregates with rough surfaces and reinforcing fibers as taught by Terrasi in view of Li and the claimed elastic design process for the preparation of a concrete structure in claim 1 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., the interfacial bond between one or more of the aggregates being enhanced by adding reinforcing fibers that have been pre-stressed into the cement mixture, and wherein the enhanced flexural tensile strength is defined as the concrete structure having a higher Modulus of Rupture (MOR) and a lower Coefficient of Variation (COV) as measured according to ASTM C78 at 28 days as compared to the MOR and COV measured for an identical concrete structure formed without performing any of the steps (i) to (ii) that enhance the interfacial bonding between the one or more aggregates and the cement paste) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Terrasi in view of Li (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 2, Terrasi in view of Li teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Terrasi further teaches wherein the enhanced flexural tensile strength or coefficient of variation is accomplished without reducing the ratio of water to cement in the cement paste or the increasing the cementitious content of the cement mixture (see claim 1 rejection above, see Terrasi at [0001], [0038], [0040], [0055]-[0056], [0097], [0099], [0104], [0106]-[0107], [0109]-[0110], [0115] and [0135], wherein Terrasi does not teach the claimed “reducing the ratio of water to cement in the cement paste or the increasing the cementitious content of the cement mixture”, thus meeting the claimed recitation).
Regarding claim 7, Terrasi in view of Li teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Terrasi further teaches wherein the aggregates comprise a blend of… different aggregate types (see Terrasi at [0057] teaching component (b) is selected from high-strength aggregates based on limestone, quartzite, granite, rhyolite, basalt, diabase, dolomite, recycled concrete aggregates and mixtures thereof). The mixture of aggregates is taken to meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 27, Terrasi in view of Li teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 and 26 respectively above, and Terrasi further teaches wherein the reinforcing fibers are stiffer than the concrete structure, are stronger in tensile strength than the concrete structure and exhibit continuous deformation (claim 9), wherein the reinforcing fibers are twisted fibers (claim 10), and wherein the reinforcing fibers are twisted fibers; the reinforcing fibers are stiffer than the concrete structure, are stronger in tensile strength than the concrete structure and exhibit continuous deformation (claim 27) (see Terrasi at [0110]-[0111] teaching tendons allow for manufacturing of prestressed concrete elements in free forms… elements curved in two dimensions… CFRP tendons in… two dimensions… self-prestressed; and optionally curved in… two dimensions). Tendons curved in two dimensions is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the reinforcing fibers are twisted fibers” (claims 10 and 27). The recitations wherein the reinforcing fibers are stiffer than the concrete structure, are stronger in tensile strength than the concrete structure and exhibit continuous deformation (claims 9 and 27) are not steps in the claimed process, but properties of reinforcing fibers, and are being treated as being taught by Terrasi).
Claims 6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrasi in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carty et al. (US 7,048,795 B1) (“Carty” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Terrasi in view of Li teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Terrasi in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein the process further comprises the addition of an agent in the form of a primer to the outer surface of at least one aggregate.
Like Terrasi and Li, Carty teaches the bond between the cement paste and aggregate, and the surface characteristics of the aggregate (see Carty at C1 L13-18 teaching it is widely accepted that the strength of conventional concrete is strongly coupled to the strength of the aggregate included therein… ultimately, the strength of conventional concrete is limited by the strength of the aggregates, so opportunities to enhance the strength of concrete are rooted in the development of high-strength aggregate, see Carty at C1 L25-29 teaching the fracture path strongly favored the interface between the aggregate and the cement paste, signaling that better bonding of the cement paste to the aggregate would assist in the efficient transfer of the aggregate strength to the concrete composite).
Carty further teaches ceramic glazes offer an opportunity to establish a microscopically roughened surface that may enhance mechanical bonding… further, through careful control of the chemistry of the glaze, chemical bonding of the cement paste to the high-strength aggregate may be promoted… a strong chemical-mechanical bond offers the most efficient route for transferring the mechanical strength attributes of the aggregate to the concrete composite… to demonstrate the effect of enhancing the bonding between cement paste and porcelain aggregate via use of glaze… systematically altered the surface texture and chemistry of glazed aggregate (see Carty at C2 L25-48)… matte glazes high in calcium and silica (and therefore low in alumina and alkali) bonded strongly to the cement matrix… these high calcium-high silica glazes typically exhibit a craggy, rough surface providing both high surface area (for chemical interactions) and sufficient roughness to promote mechanical bonding… while data suggests that the contributions from the chemical bonding mechanism dominate those of the mechanical bonding mechanism, it is clear that the combination of chemical and mechanical enhances the bond between the cementitious matrix and the porcelain aggregate phase, greatly increasing the strength of the concrete (see Carty at C2 L43-54)… by enhancing the bonding between the cement matrix and the high-strength aggregate, the strength of the concrete is enhanced, thus providing a comparatively inexpensive method for producing high-strength concrete… this approach allows for the bonding of the cement matrix to a high-strength aggregate to be specifically manipulated to allow greater or lesser bonding, thus allowing the properties of the cement to be precisely controlled… in other words, by controlling the cement-aggregate interfacial strength, the strength or toughness of the concrete can be fine- tuned to fit the requirements of a specific application (see Carty at C2 L55-65)… the glaze… is applied to the aggregate bodies… to provide a thin… coating (see Carty C3 L45-49). High calcium-high silica glazes on aggregate is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the process further comprises the addition of an agent in the form of a primer to the outer surface of at least one aggregate”.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Carty teaches that high calcium-high silica glazes on aggregate surface exhibit a craggy, rough surface providing both high surface area (for chemical interactions) and sufficient roughness to promote mechanical bonding so as to control the cement-aggregate interfacial strength to fit the requirements of a specific application, and seek those advantages by adding high calcium-high silica glazes on aggregate surface in the method as taught by Terrasi in view of Li.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add high calcium-high silica glazes on aggregate surface in the method as taught by Terrasi in view of Li because high calcium-high silica glazes on aggregate surface exhibit a craggy, rough surface providing both high surface area (for chemical interactions) and sufficient roughness to promote mechanical bonding so as to control the cement-aggregate interfacial strength to fit the requirements of a specific application.
Regarding claims 13-14, Terrasi in view of Li teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and see claim 6 rejection based on Carty as it applies here as well. Carty also teaches Carty further teaches wherein the process further comprises adding a chemical admixture to the cement mixture that enhances the bond between the cement paste and the aggregates by providing elasticity in the interfacial zone there between (claim 13), and wherein the elasticity provided by the chemical admixture reduces any mismatch in stiffness and allows for more efficient load transfer from the cement paste to at least one of the aggregates and reinforcing fibers (claim 14) (see claim 6 rejection, see Carty at C2 L43-48 teaching matte glazes high in calcium and silica (and therefore low in alumina and alkali) bonded strongly to the cement matrix… these high calcium – high silica glazes typically exhibit a craggy, rough surface providing both high surface area (for chemical interactions) and sufficient roughness to promote mechanical bonding, see Carty C3 L45-49 teaching the glaze… is applied to the aggregate bodies… to provide a thin… coating). Matte glaze as taught by Carty is expected to provide elasticity in the interfacial zone (claim 13), and wherein the elasticity provided by the chemical admixture reduces any mismatch in stiffness and allows for more efficient load transfer from the cement paste to at least one of the aggregates and reinforcing fibers (claim 14).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrasi in view of Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferraris (Concrete Mixing Methods and Concrete Mixers: State of the Art. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol. 2001) (“Ferraris” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Terrasi in view of Li teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Terrasi does not explicitly teach wherein the process further comprises controlling the quality of the cement mixture through the use of quality control methodology and equipment relative to the mixing of the concrete paste and the aggregates.
Like Terrasi, Ferraris teaches method of concrete production (see Ferraris at Title teaching concrete mixing methods and concrete mixers: state of the art). Ferraris also teaches the performance of concrete is determined by its microstructure… its microstructure is determined by its composition, its curing conditions, and also by the mixing method and mixer conditions used to process the concrete (see Ferraris at page 391, left column, sentences 1-2). Ferraris further teaches the main consideration is the quality of the concrete produced… this quality is determined by the performance of the concrete and by the homogeneity of the material after mixing and placement (see Ferraris at page 391, right column, paragraph 2, sentences 2-3). “Quality is determined by the performance of the concrete and by the homogeneity of the material after mixing and placement” is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the process further comprises controlling the quality of the cement mixture through the use of quality control methodology and equipment relative to the mixing of the concrete paste and the aggregates” because one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the main consideration is the quality of the concrete produced.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Ferraris teaches that the main consideration is the quality of the concrete produced, and quality is determined by the performance of the concrete and by the homogeneity of the material after mixing and placement, and seek those advantages by adding a step of determining the quality performance of the concrete in the method as taught by Terrasi in view of Li.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a step of determining the quality performance of the concrete as taught by Ferraris in the method of production of concrete as taught by Terrasi in view of Li because the main consideration is the quality of the concrete produced, and quality is determined by the performance of the concrete and by the homogeneity of the material after mixing and placement.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-10 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrasi in view of Li and Ahmed et al. (A study of factors affecting the flexural tensile strength of concrete, KSU, 2014) (“Ahmed” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 26, Terrasi teaches an elastic design process for the preparation of a structure (see Terrasi at [0001] teaching the present disclosure relates to improved concrete elements… to cementitious compositions suitable for producing such concrete elements; to methods of manufacturing such concrete elements and such cementitious composition; to the use of specific components in concrete elements and cementitious mixtures, see Terrasi at [0097] teaching the disclosure relates to processes (methods) for manufacturing a cementitious mixture, see Terrasi at [0115] teaching in one embodiment, the disclosure provides a method for manufacturing a concrete element as described herein, see Terrasi at [0040] teaching in particular, the mortars and concretes according to the disclosure show high strength and elastic modulus from early age, see Terrasi at [0104] teaching the person skilled in the art is in a position to find appropriate variants or alternatives to the above processes), which is taken to meet the claimed process because absent new and unexpected results, there is an elastic design process for manufacturing the concrete as taught by Terrasi,
the concrete structure having an enhanced flexural tensile strength (this limitation is directed to the property of the concrete structure, not a step in the claimed process. As such, the concrete as taught by Terrasi is taken to meet the claimed limitations), the process comprising
providing a cement paste comprising a mixture of water and cement (see Terrasi at [0038] teaching a cementitious mixture comprising (a) cement… (c) water, see Terrasi at [0099] teaching a process of manufacturing a cementitious mixture… comprising the steps of providing components (a) to (f)… and combining these components to obtain the cementitious mixture… the process may be continuous or batch-wise, see Terrasi at [0115] teaching said method comprising the steps of (i) providing a cementitious composition as described herein, (ii) casting or pumping the cementitious composition into moulds, see Terrasi at [0139] teaching the fresh concrete compositions possess high flowability). The cement mixture is taken to meet the claimed “cement paste” because it comprises a mixture of water and cement;
providing… one… aggregates having an outer surface; mixing the aggregates with the cement paste to form a cement mixture (see Terrasi at [0038] teaching a cementitious mixture comprising (a) cement, (b) aggregate, (c) water, see Terrasi at [0099] teaching a process of manufacturing a cementitious mixture… comprising the steps of providing components (a) to (f)… and combining these components to obtain the cementitious mixture… the process may be continuous or batch-wise,), which is taken to meet the claimed limitations because absent new and unexpected results, the aggregate has an outer surface, and mixing cement, water and aggregates forms concrete or cement mixture;
adding reinforcing fibers that have been pre-stressed into the cement mixture (see Terrasi at [0107] teaching the concrete element may be further… reinforced, see Terrasi at [0109]-[0110] teaching the disclosure provides a passively reinforced concrete element… and further means for reinforcement may also be provided in form of steel fibres or other structural fibers of different materials… the disclosure provides a prestressed concrete element (i.e. an actively reinforced concrete element)… the prestressing may be provided, e.g., in form of prestressing steel tendons, see Terrasi at [0099] teaching a process of manufacturing a cementitious mixture… comprising the steps of providing components (a) to (f)… and combining these components to obtain the cementitious mixture… the process may be continuous or batch-wise, see Terrasi at [0119] teaching for prestressed elements, step (I) also includes… pre-tensioning the prestressing tendons, see Terrasi at [0135] teaching the disclosed tendons further allow applying prestress in multiple directions); and
forming the concrete structure out of the cement mixture (see Terrasi at [0001] teaching the present disclosure relates to improved concrete elements… to cementitious compositions suitable for producing such concrete elements; to methods of manufacturing such concrete elements and such cementitious composition; to the use of specific components in concrete elements and cementitious mixtures, see Terrasi at [0099] teaching a process of manufacturing a cementitious mixture… comprising the steps of providing components (a) to (f)… and combining these components to obtain the cementitious mixture… the process may be continuous or batch-wise, see Terrasi at [0106] teaching the term concrete element… denotes any shaped article comprising or consisting of concrete as defined herein).
Terrasi does not explicitly teach a) forming an interfacial bond directly between the other surface of one or more of the aggregates and the cement paste without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste; and b) the interfacial bond between one or more of the aggregates being enhanced by… at least one of the following steps: (i) increasing the roughness of the outer surface of the aggregates by etching, embossing, or scratching and (ii) adding a substitute material for conventional sand into the cement mixture. However, Terrasi teaches that the term aggregate is known in the field… a broad variety of aggregates may be used… when selecting aggregates… the man skilled in the art considers the strength of the aggregate… the bond between the cement paste and the aggregate, and the surface characteristics of the aggregate… any of these properties could limit the ultimate strength of HPC (see Terrasi at [0055]-[0056]).
Like Terrasi, Li teaches concrete comprising cement, water and aggregates (see Li at page 338, section 1, left to right column teaching concrete is often considered a three-phase composite structure at the mesoscopic scale: cement paste, aggregates and their interface… it is generally accepted by many researchers that the structure of the interface, which is mainly influenced by the aggregates), cement and water/cement ratio of the mix, plays a key role in the mechanical behavior of concrete… the nature of the interface depends on the microstructure characteristics of aggregates). Li further teaches the following conclusions can be drawn from the experimental observations on the bond strength of the interface and mechanical properties of concrete… (1) the bond strength of the interface increases and tends to be constant as the roughness of the aggregates increases… (2) test results show that the surface roughness of coarse aggregates has an obvious influence on the interfacial cohesion… with increases in the roughness of the aggregate surfaces, the internal cohesion increases and finally reaches a maximum value (see Li at page 348, section conclusions, bullets 1-2). Interfacial cohesion between the cement paste and aggregates is taken to meet the claimed a) “forming an interfacial bond directly between the other surface of one or more of the aggregates and the cement paste without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste”.
Li also teaches the sandblasted surface (Fig. 1d (shown with Examiner’s annotation below)) was made by blasting a saw-cut surface using corundum… the roughness of the sandblasted… surfaces were beyond the measurement range of the surface roughmeter (see Li at page 339, section 2.1, paragraphs 2-3). The sandblasted surface is taken to meet the claimed b) “the interfacial bond between… one… of the aggregates being enhanced by… at least one of the following steps… (i) increasing the roughness of the outer surface of the aggregates by… scratching”.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
1219
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Li teaches that interfacial cohesion between the cement paste and aggregates increases with the roughness of the surface of the aggregate, and seek those advantages by increasing the roughness of the surface of aggregates in the method as taught by Terrasi.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to increase the roughness of the surface of aggregates as taught by Li in the method as taught by Terrasi because interfacial cohesion between the cement paste and aggregates increases with the roughness of the surface of the aggregate.
With respect to the recitation, the interfacial bond between one or more of the aggregates being enhanced by adding reinforcing fibers that have been pre-stressed into the cement mixture, (this limitation is directed to the property of the concrete structure, not a step in the claimed process. The concrete comprising aggregates with rough surfaces and reinforcing fibers as taught by Terrasi in view of Li is taken to meet the claimed limitations).
Alternatively, since the method of making concrete comprising aggregates with rough surfaces and reinforcing fibers as taught by Terrasi in view of Li and the claimed elastic design process for the preparation of a concrete structure in claim 1 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., the interfacial bond between one or more of the aggregates being enhanced by adding reinforcing fibers that have been pre-stressed into the cement mixture) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Terrasi in view of Li (see MPEP 2112.01).
Terrasi in view of Li does not explicitly teach wherein the enhanced flexural tensile strength is defined as the concrete structure having a higher Modulus of Rupture (MOR) and a lower Coefficient of Variation (COV) as measured according to ASTM C78 at 28 days as compared to the MOR and COV measured for an identical concrete structure formed without performing any of the steps (i) to (ii) that enhance the interfacial bonding between the one or more aggregates and the cement paste.
Like Terrasi, Ahmed teaches concrete (see Ahmed at Title teaching a study of factors affecting the flexural tensile strength of concrete). Ahmed also teaches that the cracking and deflection behavior of concrete structure under flexure and minimum flexural reinforcement of concrete members depends upon the flexural tensile strength or modulus of rupture of concrete in addition to other factors (see Ahmed at page 147, left column, section 1), which is taken to meet the claimed determining a flexural tensile strength measured as the Modulus of Rupture according to ASTM C78 or an associated coefficient of variation at 28 days for the concrete is enhanced over the flexural tensile strength or coefficient of variation measured for an identical concrete structure formed without performing any of the steps (i) to (iv) that enhance the interfacial bonding between the one or more aggregates and the cement paste.
Additionally, MPEP states that a rationale for supporting a rejection under 35 USC 103 is routine optimization… optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that flexural tensile strength or modulus of rupture of concrete is a result effective variable that could be optimized to provide the desired cracking and deflection behavior of concrete structure under flexure and minimum flexural reinforcement of concrete members as taught by Ahmed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the flexural tensile strength or modulus of rupture of concrete as taught by Ahmed in the method as taught by Terrasi in view of Li through routine optimization so as to provide the desired cracking and deflection behavior of concrete structure under flexure and minimum flexural reinforcement of concrete members, and arrive at the claimed method step of flexural strength comparison.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 9-10 and 27, Terrasi in view of Li and Ahmed teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 26 respectively above, and Terrasi further teaches the limitations of claims 2, 7, 9-10 and 27 (see claims 2, 7, 9-10 and 27 rejections based on Terrasi as it applies here as well).
Claims 6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrasi in view of Li and Ahmed as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carty.
Regarding claims 6 and 13-14, Terrasi in view of Li and Ahmed teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Carty further teaches the limitations of claims 6 and 13-14 (see claims 6 and 13-14 rejections based on Carty as it applies here as well).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrasi in view of Li and Ahmed as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferraris.
Regarding claim 15, Terrasi in view of Li and Ahmed teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Carty further teaches the limitations of claim 15 (see claim 15 rejection based on Ferraris as it applies here as well).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments “forming an interfacial bond directly between the outer surface of one or more of the aggregates and the cement paste without any interposed layer between the aggregate outer surface and the cement paste” in the respective independent claims 1 and 26 have obviated the rejection based on the teachings of Carty, and Carty in view of Pinkerton and Ahmed. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejections are outlined above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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 R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights