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 .
Election/Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I - claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 10 DEC 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are thereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 DEC 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statement filed 19 AUG 2025.
Drawings
The sheets of drawings filed on 1 MAR 2023 are excellent and thus approved by the examiner.
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 of the Disclosure is objected to because:
note the 112(b) rejection below. If the suggestions are adopted, the abstract will require revision commensurate with the suggestions.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) requires a claim to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Under In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) and In re Moore, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971), claims must be analyzed to determine their metes and bounds so that it is clear from the claim language what subject matter the claims encompass. This analysis must be performed in light of the applicable prior art and the disclosure. The definiteness of the claims is important to allow others who wish to enter the market place to ascertain the boundaries of protection that are provided by the claims. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ 2d 1701, 1703 (BPAI 1989).
One of the purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) “is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.” In re Hammack, supra. As set forth in Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The statute requires that “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” A decision as to whether a claim is invalid under this provision requires a determination whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed. See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (claims must “reasonably apprise those skilled in the art” as to their scope and be “as precise as the subject matter permits.”).
The pending and elected claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention and are therefore of indeterminate scope for the following reasons:
Claim 1, line 8: for clarity and definiteness, after “material” insert --into a mixture-- and in line 9, replace “material” with --mixture--. If this is adopted, in lines 11 and 12, “material” should be replaced with --mixture--. ALTERNATIVELY, no changes to line 8, in line 9, insert --mixed-- before “material” and in lines 11 and 12, insert --mixed-- before “material”. Each of these proposals distinguish the formation of a mixture or a mixed material that exits the drum aperture and is fed to the collector and chute.
Claim 1, line 22: insert --the material-- to properly refer back to the previously recited material.
Claims 1-13: ALL occurrences of “mixture delivery system” in the claims appear technically inaccurate leading to indefiniteness and confusion. Accordingly, these occurrences of “mixture delivery system” throughout the claims and the ABSTRACT should be changed to --material delivery system-- since the material to be mixed into a mixture [or mixed material] is fed by the delivery system of the batch plant into the volume of the mixing drum. A concrete mixture is not fed into the drum volume for mixing purposes as the “mixture delivery system” infers since the raw components/materials that form the concrete (aggregate, sand, Portland cement, additives, ash, etc.) are fed into the drum volume for mixing within the drum volume. Thus, --a material delivery system-- certainly appears more appropriate and indeed more accurate.
Claim 4, line 3: depending on the choice made in claim 1, “the mixture” should remain or change to --the mixed material-- since “the mixture” currently lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 5: it appears “enveloped” should be --envelope-- - note claim 8.
Claim 10, line 2: it appears “mixer vehicle of” should be --mixer vehicle or--.
Claim 12, line 5: after “sensor” insert --detection-- for clarity and to better align with line 2.
Claim 13, line 9: after “target” insert --of the concrete mixer vehicle-- for clarity - note claim 2.
NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b).
The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted - MPEP 608.01(o).
Also see 37 CFR 1.121(e) Disclosure consistency. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the recited control protocol of the controller for feeding materials to the internal volume of a concrete drum of a concrete mixer vehicle as expressed in claim 1. The closet prior art is believed to be GB 2700132, however, the publication date renders this reference inapplicable to the elected claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure by disclosing concrete mixer vehicle material feeding systems.
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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. 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
DATED: 1 MAY 2026
Prosecution Insights