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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Specie A and Specie E, which reads on Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected. In Figs. 1 and 3, it appears that the term “course” should be “coarse”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The instant claims recite the limitation “finishof”, which appears it should be “finish of” (i.e. include a space). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 1-2, Claim 2: Line 2, Claim 3: Line 2, Claim 4: Line 2, Claim 5: Line 2, Claim 6: Lines 1-2, Claim 7: Line 2, and Claim 8: Line 2 respectively recite the limitation "the steps of" or “the step of” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s).
The terms “local” and “import” in Claims 1-8 are relative terms which renders the claims indefinite. The terms “local” and “import” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
According to Applicant’s Specification, local aggregate is aggregate that is easily readily available and sourced within the local geographical area where the concrete is being made. Whereas, import aggregate is aggregate that is sourced from outside the local region where the concrete is being made and is not readily available (Please see paragraph [0026] in Applicant’s Specification).
It appears that the determination of whether an aggregate is “local” or “import” is dependent on the location of the concrete production facility (i.e. where the concrete is being made). However, it is unclear to the Examiner how to ascertain what is easily readily available and local in relation to a concrete production facility. For example, if a concrete production facility is located in Ohio, and a representative artisan elects to source river sand/fine aggregate from an Ohio river located 30 miles from said concrete production facility, transportation would be required to deliver/import said river sand to the facility. Under such circumstances, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the river sand/fine aggregate would be considered “local” aggregate because it originates within the same state, or “import” aggregate because it must be transported to the facility and may not be considered “readily available”.
If a representative artisan elects to source river sand/fine aggregate from a Pennsylvania river that is also 30 miles from said concrete production facility located in Ohio, transportation would also be required to deliver/import said river sand/fine aggregate to the facility. Under such circumstances, it remains unclear to the Examiner whether this specific river sand/fine aggregate would be considered “local” aggregate because its proximity to the facility, or “import” aggregate because it originates outside the state in which the facility is located.
For the purpose of examining prior art, “local” and “import” aggregates are deemed to be relative and appears to require different materials in composition. Thus, prior art disclosing materially different materials for its fine and coarse aggregate reads on the limitation of “local” and “import” fine/coarse aggregate.
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, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 8226765 (“Buesing et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, as best understood under 112, Buesing et al. teaches a process for producing a variation of exposed aggregate finish, the process comprising the steps of:
selecting a fine aggregate (e.g. virgin sand – an aggregate that is readily available),
selecting another different fine aggregate (e.g. recycled sand – an aggregate that is a result from reprocessing of materials previously used in construction),
determining a first mix ratio between the two fine aggregates (a mix proportion of raw materials is programed in a controlling plant computer – Col. 1: Line 67 bridging over to Col. 2: Line 2; and Col. 7: Lines 15-19)
selecting a coarse aggregate (e.g. virgin rock – an aggregate that is readily available)
Selecting another coarse aggregate (e.g. recycled rock – an aggregate that is a result form reprocessing of materials previously used in construction)
determining a second mix ratio between the two coarse aggregates (a mix proportion of raw materials is programed in a controlling plant computer – Col. 1: Line 67 bridging over to Col. 2: Line 6)
producing an overall composite fine aggregate by mixing the two fine aggregates with in accordance with the first mix ratio,
producing an overall composite coarse aggregate by mixing the two coarse aggregates in accordance with the second mix ratio,
and producing a final concrete mixture by mixing the overall composite fine aggregate with the overall composite coarse aggregate (Fig. 1 and Col. 7: Line 33-67).
Buesing et al. does not specifically disclose its virgin fine aggregate and virgin coarse aggregate as a local aggregate.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that virgin aggregate are readily available in substantially all geographical locations regardless of where the concrete production facility is at. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Buesing et al.’s virgin aggregate is local in order to support the local economy, reducing environmental impact through lower transportation emissions, etc.
With regards to Claim 2, Buesing et al. teaches that each of its virgin and recycled fine and coarse aggregates are determined to produce a final concrete mixture (Col. 1: Line 61 bridging over to Col. 2: Line 9, Col. 3: Lines 20-31, all Mix Proportion tables in Columns 3-7, and Col. 7: Lines 15-19). As shown in the Mix Proportion tables, one of ordinary skill in the art can deduce the third mix ratio between the fine aggregates and the coarse aggregates. Therefore, the total amount of fine aggregate and coarse aggregate are intrinsically determined by a third mix ratio and mixed in order to produce a homogeneously mixed final concrete mixture with desirable density, strength, and workability.
With regards to Claim 6, please see Claims 1 and 2 above.
Claims 3-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 8226765 (“Buesing et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 or 6 respectfully above, and further in view of WO 0222519 (“McBride”).
Buesing et al. recognizes that additional chemicals may be added to concrete depending on various features, such as pigments (Col. 1: Lines 29-39).
Buesing et al. does not teach its method of make further comprising the step of adding at least two color of colored glasses as claimed.
However, McBride teaches a process for producing a variation of exposed aggregate finish by determining a third mix ratio between fine aggregate and coarse aggregate, adding quantities of one color and second color of colored glasses, curing the concrete, and producing an exposed aggregate finish from said cured concrete (Abstract, Page 1: Lines 6-22, Page 2: Lines 1-9 and 18-26, Page 3: Line 23 bridging over to Page 4: Line 2, Page 4: Lines 16-23, Page 5: Lines 7-12 and 18-31, and Page 6: Lines 1-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate first and second color of colored glasses into Buesing et al.’s concrete mixture in order to produce an exposed aggregate finish with a decorative effect (Page 1: Lines 6-16 and Page 5: Lines 18-24).
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