OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.83(a) since the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The recited “pressure gauge” is described as being not shown in the instant drawing Figures.
The recited “ambient sensor” (e.g., see claim 9) is not present in the drawing Figures.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract is acceptable.
The substitute abstract is acceptable.
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
The title is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claims 1-20 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 joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 13: “the pressure gauge signal” lacks antecedent basis. Moreover, it is unclear how the input/output system can respond to a pressure gauge signal from a nonexistent pressure gauge and not respond to the recited ammeter signal generated by the ammeter. Moreover, claim 1 defines a method for measuring slump of concrete as the concrete pools in a hopper feeding a concrete pump, the method comprises an
ammeter configured to measure electrical current passing between a power
source and an electric motor, which is configured to rotate an agitator shaft and
providing a controlling computer having a central processing unit and an input/
output system, which allows the CPU to respond to the pressure gauge signal.
The method does however not define how the pressure gauge signal is
generated. As the input/output system only allows the CPU to respond to the
pressure signal, which is not generated, a response of the CPU will not be
performed at all.
Claim 6 is grossly incomplete.
Claim 13 is contradictory and technically inaccurate since this claim recites that both an electric motor and a hydraulic motor are configured to rotate the agitator shaft. A
technical effect of having both an electric motor and a hydraulic motor being
configured to rotate the agitator shaft is not provided in the instant specification. To the contrary note that paragraph [0022] of the specification reproduced below teaches that an electric motor and a hydraulic motor are equivalent alternatives:
[0022] A device and method for measuring slump of concrete in a hopper feeding a concrete pump. A slump sensor generates a signal from either an ammeter to measure current from a power source feeding an electric motor being configured to rotate an agitator shaft or a pressure gauge configured to measure hydraulic pressure in a hydraulic drive hose passing between a hydraulic pump and a hydraulic motor configured to rotate the agitator shaft. A controlling computer includes a memory in which an operating range may reside. The operating range is defined as a range from a lower slump signal value corresponding to a lower limit of slump value to an upper slump signal value. The controlling computer generates an alert signal when the slump sensor signal falls outside of the operating range. In one embodiment, the controlling computer stops the concrete pump when the alert signal is detected. (emphasis added)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2013-174619 A that discloses (the references in parentheses applying to this document) a method for measuring slump of concrete (C) as the concrete pools in a hopper (13) feeding a concrete pump (1; see figure 1 ), the method
comprising: providing a pressure gauge (P3; see figure 2) configured to measure hydraulic pressure in a hydraulic drive hose passing between a hydraulic pump (45) and a hydraulic motor (35; see paragraphs [0022]-[0023]) the concrete pump (1)
comprises, the hydraulic motor (35) being configured to rotate an agitator shaft
(see paragraphs [0021 ]-[0022]) the concrete pump further comprises, the
agitator shaft (see paragraphs [0021 ]-[0022]) including agitator paddles (15)
extending radially from the agitator shaft, the pressure gauge (P3) generating a
pressure gauge signal corresponding to the slump of the concrete in the hopper
(13) in response to the pressure gauge (P3) as measured at the hydraulic drive
hose (see paragraphs [0028]-[0038]); providing a controlling computer (61; see figure 2), the controlling computer (61) including: a central processing unit (see paragraph [0030]); an input/output system, the input/output system allowing the CPU:
to respond to the pressure gauge signal; and to generate an alert signal in response to instructions from the CPU a memory in which an operating range may reside to be retrieved by the CPU (see paragraphs [0023]-[0031]); defining the operating range (see figure 3) extending from a pressure gauge signal value corresponding to a lower limit of slump value (L1) to a pressure gauge signal value corresponding to an upper limit of slump value (L2; see paragraph [0031 ]); and as the concrete pump draws concrete from the hopper, comparing, by means of the controlling computer, the pressure gauge signal to the defined operating range to determine whether the pressure gauge signal falls outside of the operating range and when the signal falls outside of operating range, to generate the alert signal (paragraph [0020] - paragraph [0045]; figures). A look-up table is disclosed at paragraphs [0029] - [0031]. The generation of a warning for stopping operation is disclosed at paragraph [0031 ]. The particular type of is
considered either implicitly disclosed by JP ‘619. The graphic representation is shown
in Figure 3 and described in paragraphs [0031] and [0041].
REFERENCE-SIGNS-LIST: 1, 201=Concrete pump; 13, 213=Hopper; 15, 215= Stirring blade; 31=Sliding valve hydraulic cylinder; 33=Main hydraulic cylinder; 35= Stirring hydraulic motor; 63=Level sensor; C=Fresh concrete; P1 , P2, P3=pressure gauge; R3=tachometer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
While the examiner might speculate as to what is meant by the language of indefinite/inaccurate claims 1-6 and 13-20, the uncertainty provides the examiner with no proper basis for making the comparison between that which is claimed and the prior art (MPEP 2173.06). Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based upon "considerable speculation as to the meaning of terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims." In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). When no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in a claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, but rather the claim becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). As it has been held that it is improper to rely on what are at best speculative assumptions as to the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 thereon, no such rejections have been made concerning these claims. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1654. However, the lack of such rejections should not be construed as meaning that the claims as presently drawn would be patentable if corrected. Any response should carefully consider the prior art of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.111.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 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, CLAIRE WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
23 MAY 2025
Prosecution Insights