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
Claims 3-4, 8-10, 12, 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/25/2025. Applicant elects Group I, Species 1 Pressure (a), Species 2 Size (a), Species 3 Pressure (a), Species 4 Additional Steps (a).
Examiner notes the requirement to elect between Species 4 “Additional Step” is withdrawn and both claims 13 and 17 examined.
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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “substantially complies with the grading requirements for coarse aggregate set out in ASTM C33 / C33M-16” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. For purposes of examination, the claim will be understood to recite any coarse rubber 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.
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 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. (Examiner notes that this claim was found to be indefinite, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above. 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
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