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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the Specification, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “Percentage finer (%)”. However, this is not the standard for objections to the drawings or specification. For example, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include reference character(s) not mentioned in the description. That is, the standard is for antecedent basis of terms in the drawings and specification. Since the term “finer” in Figure 2 lacks any antecedent basis in the specification, the specification is objected to. Examiner suggests amending the specification to include the information in the remarks (pg. 1) “ASTM standard discusses grading requirements based on amounts (in mass %) finer than specified laboratory sieve openings.”
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that “Lee (as taught in paragraph [0064]) expressly teaches away from high levels of compaction as part of casting because this would not teach a concrete block that is light weight and has high porosity” but this is not found persuasive. Although Lee teaches a preferred embodiment of 1000 kPa compression, this does not make a more compacted product inoperable. “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Leroy-Delage teaches [0010] in the building industry, including rubber particles in concrete is known to improve toughness, durability, and resilience. teaches cement samples were generated under pressure (3000 psi, 20.68 MPa) [0062]. Thus, the combination meets the claims.
Applicant argues that “Leroy-Delage et al. does not relate to a process for producing a cast concrete product as a building material or the like, as in Lee, but instead relates to pumping a concrete slurry into oil wells for cementing oil wells” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that the claims are not directed to building materials. In fact, Lee states the product to be used for a variety of applications including “retaining structures” and “sub-base layer”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art looking for a material for cementing oil wells would look to Lee for teaching various cement materials.
Lee para. [0074] states:
The rubberized construction material according to the present invention may be employed for any number of construction projects, such as retaining structures, fill slopes, road fills, reclamation works, and so on, but is especially advantageous when used as fill or backfill for earthworks. Further possible earthwork applications for the rubberized construction material, and blocks formed therefrom, include embankments, retaining structures, fill slopes, backfilling works, road fills, highway pavement road-base or sub-base layer, road widening and raising, underground utilities channels, back-filling behind retaining structures and land reclamation.
Applicant argues that “Lee does not use static compression during the initial stages of casting (i.e. immediately following pouring into the mold)” but this is not found persuasive. Lee teaches the material is cured in situ or molded in blocks [0048]-[0049], and in para. [0050] “[i]rrespective of the method employed for producing the rubberized construction material, the placement density is preferably controlled during casting by vibration or static compression means i.e., weight placed on the slurry.”
Applicant argues that Leroy-Delage “Example 6 only test cement samples in high pressure and temperature chambers to approximate the conditions present in an oil well and not to produce any form of new or improved construction product” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes the present claims are not limited a specific application of using the product, and even a test to approximate conditions meets the claimed method of forming a product. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 8-10, 12, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are listed as (Previously Presented) and should be listed as (Withdrawn).
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner notes that Figure 2 includes a Y-axis label “Percentage finer (%)”. However the term “finer” is not found in the specification. Examiner suggests a clearer description of Figure 2 to be added to the specification for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2003/0125425 A1) in view of Leroy-Delage et al. (US 2004/0007360 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method of producing a cast concrete product, the method comprising: forming a concrete slurry incorporating rubber aggregate; (Lee teaches a method comprising mixing a cementitious material, rubber bits and water and curing the mixture [0034]) and casting the concrete slurry for between 3-48 hours. (Lee teaches [0081] 24 hours of curing in a mold).
Lee teaches irrespective of the method employed for producing the rubberized construction material, the placement density is preferably controlled during casting by vibration or static compression means i.e., weight placed on the slurry, see [0050].
Lee does not teach under sustained pressure of between 2-50 MPa.
Leroy-Delage teaches under sustained pressure of between 2-50 MPa. (Leroy-Delage teaches [0010] In the building industry, including rubber particles in concrete is known to improve toughness, durability, and resilience. teaches cement samples were generated under pressure (3000 psi, 20.68 MPa) [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to cure the rubber-concrete product of Lee at the pressure of 20.68 MPa as taught by Leroy-Delage to achieve the high pressure to simulate the conditions encountered in an oilwell, [0050].
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the rubber aggregate comprises coarse rubber aggregate. (Lee teaches it is further preferred that rubber bits or aggregates of nearly uniform graded or gap-graded particle sizes are used. [0054])
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 5, wherein the coarse rubber aggregate substantially complies with the grading requirements for coarse aggregate set out in ASTM C33 / C33M-16. (Lee teaches rubber bits, gravely aggregates or lightweight aggregates are said to be well-graded when it has a good representation of particle sizes over a wide rage, and its particle size distribution curve is smooth and generally concave upward, see [0065]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 5, wherein the coarse rubber aggregate forms between 1-100% by volume of all coarse aggregate within the concrete slurry prior to casting under pressure. (Lee teaches that if higher strength and stiffness of the rubberized construction material is required, up to 90% by weight of the rubber bits can be substituted by the aggregate [0045]. Thus, Lee teaches 10-100% rubber to be the volume of all coarse aggregate).
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the concrete slurry is cast under pressure for between 6-36 hours. (Lee teaches [0081] 24 hours of curing in a mold, Leroy-Delage teaches 20.68 MPa [0062]. Thus the combination meets the claim).
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach wherein following casting the cast concrete product is further cured at atmospheric pressure, at between 15-30°C and at 50-100% humidity for between 10-30 days.
Lee teaches after about 24 hours of curing, the forming molds can be disassembled as "green" blocks (step 8) which in turn are cured under partially humid conditions for approximately 7 days (step 9), see [0081].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to optimize the second curing step of Lee to be at between 15-30°C and at 50-100% humidity for between 10-30 days as claimed in order to achieve the matured design strength of the block will be reached at about 28 days after initial casting, see [0081].
Regarding claim 14, Lee as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the concrete slurry comprises Portland cement. (Lee teaches [0047] Preferred cementitious materials are Portland cement).
Regarding claim 15, Lee as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the rubber aggregate has not previously undergone chemical treatment to alter its surface properties. (Lee teaches rubber powder is to be used it may be obtained by grinding rubber granules to the appropriate size, [0039]. That is, Lee does not teach a chemical treatment step)
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein the rubber aggregate is produced from waste materials. (rubber bits are typically derived from scrap rubber tires [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified meets the claimed method according to claim 1, further comprising including reinforcement mesh or fibers in a mold or the slurry prior to casting. (Lee teaches adding cellulose fiber to the composition [0044]).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (WO 2006/042461 Al) teaches Portland cement: PFA: tyre rubber bits: sand: gravel: tyre derived 10 polymer fibre: water (by weight) 1.0: 0.5: 1.0: l.5: 3.5: 0.002: 0.62 see para. [0043].
Darguard (US 2004/0251026 A1). Darguard teaches a given time (72 hours) at a pressure of 3000 psi (20.7 MPa), see [0030].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights