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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Line 14 recites the limitation “other mechanical means of release”. There is no support for other mechanical means of release other than jaw crusher or cone crushers.
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.
Claims 4 and 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, line 1 recites,” the preceding claim” it is unclear which claim or claims this refers to.
Regarding claim 6, line 3 recites,” a high intensity magnetic separator,” it is unclear if this is the same high intensity magnetic separator as claim 1 or a different one.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1, step e) already recites high intensity magnetic separation of material using a magnetic separator. Claim 6 recites the material from step d) is magnetically separated by means of a high intensity magnetic separator. Claim 6 fails to further limit the limitations of claim 1 as the limitations relating to the magnetic separation are already recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (USP 7,258,737 B2) in view of Wei et al. (US Pub 2018/0056344 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a process of separating the components of hardened concrete waste to obtain a recycled cement with the said concrete resulting from construction and demolition waste (see Abstract) characterised by comprising the following steps: a) carrying out at least one stage of crushing the hardened concrete waste until a material is obtained whose size is (col. 2, lines 10-12),; c) fragmenting the material is obtained (col. 2, lines 13-42); d) screening the material resulting from step c) less than 1 mm in size in granulometric fractions (col. 2, lines 45-48); e) high intensity magnetic separation resulting from step d) of material larger than by at least one pass through the magnetic separator (col. 2, lines 55-59) having a magnetic field of at least 1 T to obtain a cementitious fraction; f) grinding the cementitious fraction resulting from the magnetic separation of step e) to a size less than 125 µm (col. 2, lines 60+ and col. 3, lines 1-3); g) thermoactivation of the material obtained in the previous steps to obtain recycled cement (col. 3, lines 4-10), but Chang does not disclose a step screening the crushed material resulting from step a) with separation of material smaller than 1 mm. Wei teaches a screening step subsequent to a crushing step (paragraph 0038) for the purpose of separating a desired specific sized material from the material stream. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Wei, for the purpose of separating a desired specific sized material from the material stream.
Chang does not explicitly disclose crushing and screening material to specific size of 20-32 mm, 1 mm, 125 µm, 150 µm and magnetic separation having a magnetic field of at least 1 T. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to crush and screen material to a specific size and separated to a specific magnetic field because Applicant has not disclosed that the crushed and screened material of a specific size or specific magnetic field for magnetic separation provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Chang in view of Wei, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either crushing and screening structure and magnetic field because both crushing and screening structures and magnetic separator would perform the same function of crushing, screening, and magnetically separating material for the purpose of providing a desired sized and magnetic composition material from the material stream.
Regarding claim 2, Chang discloses the material in step c) is fragmented by mechanical treatment through at least one cycle of grinding until a yield of more than 90% of the material smaller than 1 mm is achieved (col. 2, lines 44-45).
Chang does not explicitly disclose the material in step c) is fragmented by mechanical treatment through at least one cycle of grinding until a yield of more than 90% of the material smaller than 1 mm is achieved. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to fragment material to a specific size because Applicant has not disclosed that the fragmented material of a specific size provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Chang in view of Wei, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either fragmenting structure because both fragmenting structures would perform the same function of fragmenting material for the purpose of providing a desired sized material from the material stream.
Regarding claim 3, Chang discloses the material in step c) is fragmented by means of a heat treatment, such that after cooling, the material subjected to the heat treatment is subjected to at least one grinding cycle (col. 2, lines 13-45).
Regarding claim 6, Chang discloses the material resulting from the screening of step d) is magnetically separated by means of a high intensity magnetic separator (col. 2, lines 55-59).
Regarding claim 14, Chang discloses the crushing of the concrete is performed in a jaw crusher, in cone crushers or by other mechanical means of release (col. 2, lines 11-12).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang/Wei in view of Vandemierden (US Pub 2013/0313167 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Chang does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Yamamoto teaches the material screened in step d) is subjected to a further wet screening cycle followed by drying (paragraph 0017) for the purpose of providing a slurry for wet screening to aid in the separate of metals from the material stream. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Vandemierden, for the purpose of a slurry for wet screening to aid in the separate of metals from the material stream.
Claims 7-9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang/Wei in view of Yamamoto (US Pub 2018/0036803 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chang does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Yamamoto teaches after at least one step of crushing the concrete waste according to step a), magnetic separation of ceramic waste with paramagnetic characteristics occurs (see Fig. 10; element 50 after element 7) for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate (paragraph 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Yamamoto, for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate.
Regarding claim 8, Chang does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Yamamoto teaches the screened material resulting from the fragmentation in step c) is subjected to magnetic separation of ceramic residues by at least one pass through the magnetic separator (see Fig. 10; elements 10 and 15) for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate (paragraph 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Yamamoto, for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate.
Regarding claim 9, Chang does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Yamamoto teaches the magnetic separation is performed dry using permanent rolls made from rare-earth magnets (paragraph 0114) for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate (paragraph 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Yamamoto, for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate.
Regarding claim 11, Chang does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Yamamoto teaches the permanent rolls is greater than 76 mm, preferably 300 mm (paragraph 0103 and element 50) for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate (paragraph 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Yamamoto, for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate.
Regarding claim 13, Chang does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Yamamoto teaches the rare-earth magnets are made of Neodymium-iron-boron (paragraph 0114) for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate (paragraph 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Yamamoto, for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate.
Regarding claim 15, Chang does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Yamamoto teaches the magnetic separation in step e) is performed by induced rollers, by high intensity and gradient wet magnetic separators or by other means of magnetic separation (paragraph 0114) for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate (paragraph 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang, as taught by Yamamoto, for the purpose of obtaining a non-magnetic fraction for use in manufacturing cement aggregate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art discloses a process for separating the components of hardened concrete waste. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious the heat treatment takes place at 400 C for 2 hours and the grinding is autogenous and carried out in a horizontal axis mill for 30 minutes in claim 4.
The closest prior art discloses a process for separating the components of hardened concrete waste. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious the permanent roll are sequentially arranged and comprise discs or rings of permanent magnets interrupted at intervals with steel discs, the rings being positioned with faces of the same polarity side by side in claim 10.
The closest prior art discloses a process for separating the components of hardened concrete waste. The closest prior art does not disclose or make obvious the magnetic separation is performed through a conveyor screen with a thickness of less than 2 mm and with a minimum thickness of 0.12 mm in claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Regarding the claim objections, the objections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Rejection under USC 112
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” The description supports the subject matter of claim 14, as it clearly states that the crushing stage "can be carried out in a jaw crusher or in conventional cone crushers, and can also be carried out by other mechanical means that aim at better optimization of the process of releasing the different constituents of the concrete." A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this language to encompass conventional mechanical crushing equipment beyond jaw and cone crushers, such as impact crushers, hammer mills, or other known crushing technologies aimed at similar results,” the Examiner disagrees. USC 112(a) states “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention” and as such the Examiner asserts that the “other mechanical means of release” are not disclosed within the specification. Furthermore, “other mechanical means of release” would cover any and every mechanical means of release, including ones not yet invented, therefore, the applicant does not have support for the claim limitation under USC 112(a).
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Claim 1, as presently amended, specifies that, in step c) of the process, the magnetic field intensity of the magnetic separator to be of at least 1 Tesla to obtain a cementitious fraction. This high magnetic field intensity is necessary to exert sufficient magnetic force on the very weak paramagnetic or diamagnetic components present in the granulometric fractions of crushed concrete waste, thereby separating them into a cementitious fraction and a cleaner aggregate fraction. The compounds separated by this step have paramagnetic (cement) or diamagnetic (aggregates) characteristics, which are not separated by conventional low intensity magnetic separation procedures that separates ferrous metals from concrete waste. This technical effect is thoroughly described in the description, being clear that it corresponds to a distinct type of magnetic separation step, one that is targeting the separation of non-metallic compounds that have weak paramagnetic or diamagnetic characteristics,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that claim limitation ‘e)’ does not disclose applying high-intensity magnetic separation step to separate weak paramagnetic or diamagnetic components, such as aggregates in crushed concrete waste. The limitation recites high-magnetic separation of material of material from the previous step with a magnetic field of at least 1 T. As stated in the rejection above, Chang in view of Design Choice discloses as obvious a magnetic separation as claimed.
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 Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653