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 .
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner has cited particular pages, line numbers, and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1, 2, 9-14, 16, cancelled Claim 20, and new Claim 21 in the response filed on 4/7/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-19 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The amended claims now positively reciting manufacturing concrete and cement necessitates new grounds of rejection.
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).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR2860785 (“Guillaume”), in view of EP 0519567 (“Bosch”), and in view of evidence provided by https://www.getchemready.com/water-facts/what-is-a-deep-cone-clarifier/ (“ChemReady”).
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 clarification and dewatering step being carried out using a vertical decantation silo ((decantation and thickening in tank (8)) including a decantation chamber configured to be supplied with water loaded with laitance (i.e. upper portion of the tank (8))(Fig. 1 and Page 2: Lines 39-40). Due to the conical shape of the decantation silo of Guillaume and the physics/evidence provided by ChemReady, the decantation silo of Guillaume includes a pressing chamber located below the decantation chamber (collection at the thickening cone/bottom of the silo) 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 (please see Fig. 1 and Page 2: Lines 39-40 in Guillaume and Page 1 and figures of ChemReady).
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.
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.
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 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