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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges canceled Claim 20 and new Claims 22 and 23 in the response filed on 10/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Guillaume fails to disclose manufacturing concrete by using the separated aggregates and at least part of the clarified water, resulting from clarification and dewatering step, as raw materials. Applicant further argues that Guillaume does not specify what happens to the cement cakes 10 formed by the filter press 9. Thus, Guillaume fails also to disclose the following step of claim 1 of the present patent application: manufacturing cement using the dewatered laitance as a raw material.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In that regard, Examiner acknowledges that Guillaume does not explicitly teach the aggregates being reused in manufacturing concrete and the dewatered laitance being reused in manufacturing cement.
However, Bosch teaches a method for recycling and recovering concrete sludge (concrete mix), wherein aggregates (sand), laitance (cement), and water are separated and be used again for the manufacturing of concrete/cement (Col. 2: Lines 43-57 and Col. 3: Lines 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recycle and reuse all parts of the separated components in Guilaume’s concrete sludge in cement/concrete manufacturing in order to reduce waste and conserve natural resources.
Applicant argues that although Bosch discloses that the grit dumped on the heap 8 can eventually can be used again and that the sand dumped on the heap 15 eventually can be used again, Bosch fails to recite that said grit and said sand can be used as raw materials for manufacturing concrete. Applicant argues that the concrete sludge contained in the buffer tank 18 is absolutely not dewatered, so Bosch cannot, in any way, disclose the use of dewatered laitance as a raw material for manufacturing cement. Therefore, Bosch, as Guillaume, fails to disclose at least the following feature of claim 1 of the present application: manufacturing cement by using the dewatered laitance as a raw material.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Bosch is directed to separating concrete mixture into its individual components, and recognizes that these separated components are intended to be used again. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would use these separated components again in the manufacturing in concrete/cement (Abstract, Col. 2: Lines 40-42 and 55-57, and Col. 3: Lines 54-56).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2860785 (“Guillaume”) in view of EP 0519567 (“Bosch”). For FR 2860785, all citations refer to the provided English language translation document.
With regards to Claim 1, Guillaume teaches a method for recycling and recovering concrete sludge comprising the following steps:
a concrete sludge treatment step comprising separating aggregates, contained in the concrete sludge, from water loaded with laitance contained in the concrete sludge (Abstract and Page 2: Lines 1-3)
a clarification and dewatering step comprising clarifying the water loaded with laitance which has been separated during the concrete sludge treatment step and in dewatering the laitance contained in the water loaded with laitance (Page 2: Lines 1-3 and 39-41; Page 3: Lines 24-25).
Guillaume teaches the separated aggregates, clarified water resulting from the clarification and dewatering step, and the dewatered laitance, wherein the clarified water is reusable in the concrete manufacturing and/or washing process of various parts of the treatment, recycling and production facilities, including for washing of vehicles (Page 2: Lines 1-3 and 41-42).
Guillaume does not explicitly teach the aggregates being reused in manufacturing concrete and the dewatered laitance being reused in manufacturing cement.
However, Bosch teaches a method for recycling and recovering concrete sludge (concrete mix), wherein aggregates (sand), laitance (cement), and water are separated and be used again for the manufacturing of concrete/cement (Col. 2: Lines 43-57 and Col. 3: Lines 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recycle and reuse all parts of the separated components in Guilaume’s concrete sludge in cement/concrete manufacturing in order to reduce waste and conserve natural resources.
With regards to Claims 9 and 10, please see Fig. 1 and Page 2: Lines 34-38 and 45-51.
With regards to Claim 11, please see Fig. 1 and Page 2: Lines 34-42.
With regards to Claims 12 and 13, please see Page 2: Lines 41-42.
With regards to Claim 16, Guillaume teaches the recycling and recovering method as set forth above.
Guillaume does not explicitly teach the claimed collection step.
However, Guillaume recognizes that its recovered materials are reusable in concrete manufacturing, in recycling and recovering treatments, recycling and production facilities, and washing vehicles (Page 2: Lines 41-42). Due to these materials being reused in recycling and production facilities, one of ordinary skill in the art would envisage a collection step in collecting concrete sludge from different concrete manufacturing plants in order to obtain more sludge/waste to perform the method of recycling and recovering concrete sludge.
Claims 2-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2860785 (“Guillaume”) in view of EP 0519567 (“Bosch”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of GB 2457068 (“Jensen et al.”).
With regards to Claims 2-4, 8, and 17, Guillaume recognizes that treatment plants separates its aggregates from liquids loaded with cement by settling, cycloning, spinning, filtering, etc. (Page 2: Lines 1-3).
Guillaume does not teach the claimed first and second separation steps, wherein the first predetermined value is comprised between 300-700 μm and the second predetermined value is between 60-100 μm, wherein the second separation step is carried out at least partially by centrifugation.
However, Jensen et al. teaches a first separation step consisting in separating coarse aggregates, contained in its concrete sludge and having dimensions larger than a predetermined value, from the water loaded with laitance and fine aggregates which is contained in the concrete sludge, and a second separation step consisting in separating fine aggregates, contained in the water loaded with laitance and fine aggregates which has been separated during the first separation step and having dimensions larger than a second predetermined value, from the water loaded with laitance, the second predetermined value being lower than the first predetermined value. Jensen et al. teaches the first predetermined value is larger than 300-700 μm and the second predetermined value is larger than 60-100 μm. Jensen et al. teaches the second separation step is carried out at least partially by centrifugation (Abstract and Page 6: Lines 11 bridging over to Page 8: Line 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed separation steps in order to effectively separate the coarse and fine aggregates in Guillaume’s concrete sludge.
With regards to Claims 5 and 18, Guillaume teaches the first separation step comprising a step of washing the concrete sludge (Fig. 1 and Page 3: Lines 19-21).
With regards to Claims 6 and 19, please see Page 2: Lines 41-42.
With regards to Claim 7, Guillaume teaches the first separation step is carried out using a concrete recycler (Fig. 1).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2860785 (“Guillaume”) in view of EP 0519567 (“Bosch”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3357581 (“Bernd”). All citations refer to the provided English language translation document.
Guillaume teaches the recycling and recovering method as step forth above.
Guillaume does not teach a concrete sludge screening step as claimed.
However, Bernd teaches a method for recycling and recovering concrete sludge that includes a concrete sludge screening step which is carried out prior to a concrete sludge treatment step and which consists in separating concrete blocks, which have dimensions larger than a predetermined dimension, from concrete sludge. Bernd further teaches a step of crushing the separated concrete blocks (Page 2: Lines 21-35 Lines 45-47; Page 3: Lines 1-7; Page 7: Lines 19-28 and 35-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have such method step in Guillaume in order for large aggregates still be used in concrete production and not be wasteful (Page 2: Lines 21-23).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2860785 (“Guillaume”), in view of EP 0519567 (“Bosch”), and in view of US Pat. No. 5407561 (“Iida et al.”)
With regards to Claims 21 and 22, Guillaume teaches a method for recycling and recovering concrete sludge comprising the following steps:
a concrete sludge treatment step comprising separating aggregates, contained in the concrete sludge, from water loaded with laitance contained in the concrete sludge (Abstract and Page 2: Lines 1-3)
a clarification and dewatering step comprising clarifying the water loaded with laitance which has been separated during the concrete sludge treatment step and in dewatering the laitance contained in the water loaded with laitance (Page 2: Lines 1-3 and 39-41; Page 3: Lines 24-25).
Guillaume teaches the separated aggregates, clarified water resulting from the clarification and dewatering step, and the dewatered laitance, wherein the clarified water is reusable in the concrete manufacturing and/or washing process of various parts of the treatment, recycling and production facilities, including for washing of vehicles (Page 2: Lines 1-3 and 41-42).
Guillaume does not explicitly teach the aggregates being reused in manufacturing concrete. Guillaume teaches the clarification and dewatering step being carried out, however, does not explicitly teach it being carried out using pressure exerted by a water column from using a decanter apparatus.
Bosch teaches a method for recycling and recovering concrete sludge (concrete mix), wherein aggregates (sand), laitance (cement), and water are separated and be used again for the manufacturing of concrete/cement (Col. 2: Lines 43-57 and Col. 3: Lines 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recycle and reuse all parts of the separated components in Guilaume’s concrete sludge in cement/concrete manufacturing in order to reduce waste and conserve natural resources.
Iida et al. teaches a clarification and dewatering step being carried out using a vertical decantation silo (pressure decanter) including a decantation chamber configured to be supplied with water loaded with laitance, and a pressing chamber located below the decantation chamber and configured to receive decanted laitance, the laitance being dewatered in the pressing chamber by pressure exerted by a water column contained in the decantation chamber. Iida et al. further teaches the pressing chamber is equipped with a water outlet pipe, and the recycling and recovering method further comprises isolating the pressing chamber from the decantation chamber and placing a lower portion of the pressing chamber in communication with outside of the vertical decantation silo when a water flow rate through the water outlet pipe is lower than a predetermined flow rate (i.e. an arbitrary value), so as to drop by gravity the dewatered laitance out of the vertical decantation silo (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1, Col. 1: Lines 45 bridging over to Col. 2: Line 25, Col. 2: Lines 53-65, and Col. 3: Lines 19-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the claimed invention for Guillaume to use a pressure decanter, as demonstrated by Iida et al., to allow laitance to separate efficiently from water/liquid all in one apparatus (i.e. streamlining the decanting process) (Col. 2: Lines 17-25).
With regards to Claim 23, Guillaume teaches a method for recycling and recovering concrete sludge comprising the following steps:
a concrete sludge treatment step comprising separating aggregates, contained in the concrete sludge, from water loaded with laitance contained in the concrete sludge (Abstract and Page 2: Lines 1-3)
a clarification and dewatering step comprising clarifying the water loaded with laitance which has been separated during the concrete sludge treatment step and in dewatering the laitance contained in the water loaded with laitance (Page 2: Lines 1-3 and 39-41; Page 3: Lines 24-25).
Guillaume teaches the separated aggregates, clarified water resulting from the clarification and dewatering step, and the dewatered laitance, wherein the clarified water is reusable in the concrete manufacturing and/or washing process of various parts of the treatment, recycling and production facilities, including for washing of vehicles (Page 2: Lines 1-3 and 41-42).
Guillaume does not explicitly teach the aggregates being reused in manufacturing concrete. Guillaume teaches the clarification and dewatering step being carried out, however, does not explicitly teach it being carried out using pressure exerted by a water column from using a decanter apparatus as claimed.
Bosch teaches a method for recycling and recovering concrete sludge (concrete mix), wherein aggregates (sand), laitance (cement), and water are separated and be used again for the manufacturing of concrete/cement (Col. 2: Lines 43-57 and Col. 3: Lines 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recycle and reuse all parts of the separated components in Guilaume’s concrete sludge in cement/concrete manufacturing in order to reduce waste and conserve natural resources.
Iida et al. teaches a clarification and dewatering step being carried out using a vertical decantation silo (pressure decanter) including a decantation chamber configured to be supplied with water loaded with laitance, and a pressing chamber located below the decantation chamber and configured to receive decanted laitance, the laitance being dewatered in the pressing chamber by pressure exerted by a water column contained in the decantation chamber, wherein the vertical decantation silo includes an upper closing device (gauges, valves, and diaphragms) comprising an upper closing element which is movable between a closed position in which the upper closing element isolates the decantation chamber from the pressing chamber and an open position in which the upper closing element fluidly communicates the decantation chamber and the pressing chamber, and a lower closing device comprising a lower closing element which is movable between a closed position in which the lower closing element isolates a lower portion of the pressing chamber form outside of the vertical decantation silo and an open position in which the lower closing element allows an evacuation by gravity of the dewatered laitance out of the pressing chamber and the vertical decantation silo (Title, Abstract, Figs. 1 and 4, Col. 1: Lines 45 bridging over to Col. 2: Line 25, Col. 2: Lines 53-65, Col. 3: Lines 19-42, and Col. 4: Lines 49 bridging over to Col. 5: Lines 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the claimed invention for Guillaume to use a pressure decanter, as demonstrated by Iida et al., to allow laitance to separate efficiently from water/liquid all in one apparatus (i.e. streamlining the decanting process) (Col. 2: Lines 17-25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights