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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1, 2, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo et al. (WO2022/139301, hereinafter Heo). Regarding claim 1, Heo discloses a method and apparatus comprising providing a concrete sample including a main body made of a concrete material comprising an aggregate and a paste; isolating a portion of the aggregate from the main body; isolating a portion of the paste from the main body and the isolated portion of the aggregate; separately analyzing the isolated portion of the aggregate and the isolated portion of the paste; and determining, based on the analyses of the isolated portions, whether the concrete material includes one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 33, Paras. 2 – 7, Pg. 34, Para. 1, Pg. 36, Paras. 4 – 7, Pg. 37, Paras. 1 – 6 and Pg. 38, Paras. 1 – 5).
Regarding claim 2, the main body is separately analyzed after isolating the portion of the aggregate and the portion of the paste from the main body; and
based on the analyses of the isolated portions and the main body a determination is made of whether the concrete material includes the one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 33, Paras. 2 – 7, Pg. 34, Para. 1, Pg. 36, Paras. 4 – 7, Pg. 37, Paras. 1 – 6 and Pg. 38, Paras. 1 – 5).
Regarding claim 14, the concrete sample includes a main body made of a concrete material comprising an aggregate and a paste; a portion of the aggregate is isolated from the main body; the main body and the isolated portion are separately analyzed; and based on the analyses of the main body and the isolated portion of the aggregate a determination is made of whether the concrete material includes one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 33, Paras. 2 – 7, Pg. 34, Para. 1, Pg. 36, Paras. 4 – 7, Pg. 37, Paras. 1 – 6 and Pg. 38, Paras. 1 – 5).
Regarding claim 17, the concrete sample includes a main body made of a concrete material comprising an aggregate and a paste; a portion of the paste is isolated from the main body; the main body and the isolated portion are separately analyzed; and based on the analyses of the main body and the isolated portion of the paste a determination is made of whether the concrete material includes one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 33, Paras. 2 – 7, Pg. 34, Para. 1, Pg. 36, Paras. 4 – 7, Pg. 37, Paras. 1 – 6 and Pg. 38, Paras. 1 – 5).
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andersen (2011/0004332). Regarding claim 1, Andersen discloses a method comprising providing a concrete sample 18 (See Fig. 10) including a main body made of a concrete material comprising an aggregate and a paste, isolating a portion of the aggregate from the main body; isolating a portion of the paste from the main body and the isolated portion of the aggregate; separately analyzing the isolated portion of the aggregate and the isolated portion of the paste; and determining, based on the analyses of the isolated portions, whether the concrete material includes one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 5, Paras. 0043 and 0051, Pg. 6, Para. 0058 and Pg. 11, Paras. 0115 – 0116).
Regarding claim 2, separately analyzing the main body after isolating the portion of the aggregate and the portion of the paste from the main body; and determining, based on the analyses of the isolated portions and the main body, whether the concrete material includes the one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 1, Para. 0005).
Regarding claim 3, analyzing the main body comprises performing a water solubility analysis on the main body (See Pg. 8, Para. 0089, Pg. 9, Para. 0094 and Pg. 10, Para. 0102).
Regarding claim 6, analyzing the isolated portion of the aggregate comprises determining a concentration of aggregate analytes in the aggregate that are indicatorsfor alkali-aggregate reactivity (See Pg. 8, Para. 0089). Regarding claim 9, analyzing the isolated portion of the paste comprises determining a concentration of paste analytes in the paste that are indicators for alkali-
aggregate reactivity (See Pg. 10, Para. 0107).
Regarding claim 14, the concrete sample 18 includes a main body made of a concrete material comprising an aggregate and a paste; a portion of the aggregate is isolated from the main body; the main body and the isolated portion of the aggregate are separately analyzed; and based on the analyses of the main body and the isolated portion of the aggregate a determination is made of whether the concrete material includes one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 5, Paras. 0043 and 0051, Pg. 6, Para. 0058 and Pg. 11, Paras. 0115 – 0116).
Regarding claim 17, the concrete sample 18 includes a main body made of a concrete material comprising an aggregate and a paste; a portion of the paste is isolated from the main body; the main body and the isolated portion are separately analyzed; and based on the analyses of the main body and the isolated portion of the paste a determination is made of whether the concrete material includes one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 5, Paras. 0043 and 0051, Pg. 6, Para. 0058 and Pg. 11, Paras. 0115 – 0116).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen in view of Arnold et al. (2022/0317109, hereinafter Arnold – See IDS dated 2/6/24). Regarding claim 7, Andersen discloses a method comprising providing a concrete sample 18 (See Fig. 10) including a main body made of a concrete material comprising an aggregate and a paste, isolating a portion of the aggregate from the main body; isolating a portion of the paste from the main body and the isolated portion of the aggregate; separately analyzing the isolated portion of the aggregate and the isolated portion of the paste; and determining, based on the analyses of the isolated portions, whether the concrete material includes one or more sources of failure (See Pg. 5, Paras. 0043 and 0051, Pg. 6, Para. 0058 and Pg. 11, Paras. 0115 – 0116).
Andersen fails to disclose that the aggregate analytes include one or more of CaO, MgO, Al₂O₃, SiO₂, Na₂O, and K₂O.
However, Arnold discloses a method comprising a concrete mix having aggregate analytes that include CaO 14 (See Fig. 1, See Pg. 2, Para. 0015 and Pg. 4, Paras. 0033 - 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Andersen according to the teachings of Arnold for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device leaches and tests only individual aggregates while providing an inexpensive, rapid, flexible test (See Arnold, Pg. 4, Para. 0033). Regarding claim 16, in Andersen, analyzing the isolated portion of the aggregate comprises determining a concentration of aggregate analytes in the aggregate that are indicators for alkali-aggregate reactivity (See Pg. 10, Para. 0107).
Andersen fails to disclose that the aggregate analytes include one or more of CaO, MgO, Al₂O₃, SiO₂, Na₂O, and K₂O. However, Arnold discloses a method comprising a concrete mix having aggregate analytes that include CaO 14 (See Fig. 1, See Pg. 2, Para. 0015 and Pg. 4, Paras. 0033 - 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Andersen according to the teachings of Arnold for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device leaches and tests only individual aggregates while providing an inexpensive, rapid, flexible test (See Arnold, Pg. 4, Para. 0033).9. Claims 10, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen and Arnold, as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN112710650, hereinafter Wu – See IDS dated 2/6/24). Regarding claim 10, Andersen and Arnold fail to disclose that the paste analytes include one or more of CO₂, Na₂O, and K₂O. However, Wu discloses a method comprising a cement sample having a chemical component including Na₂O, and K₂O (See Pg. 3, Para. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Andersen and Arnold according to the teachings of Wu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device quickly and accurately measures a main chemical component content of cement (See Wu, Pg. 2, Para. 2). Regarding claim 11, Andersen fails to disclose determining a total alkali of the paste based on the determined concentration of the paste analytes. However, in Arnold, a total alkali of the paste is determined based on the determined concentration of the paste analytes (See Pg. 3, Paras. 0020 and 0021 and Pg. 5, Para. 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Andersen according to the teachings of Arnold for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device leaches and tests only individual aggregates while providing an inexpensive, rapid, flexible test (See Arnold, Pg. 4, Para. 0033). Regarding claim 19, in Andersen, analyzing the isolated portion of the paste comprises determining a concentration of paste analytes in the paste that are indicators for alkali- aggregate reactivity (See Pg. 10, Para. 0107). Andersen fails to disclose determining a total alkali of the paste based on the determined concentration of the paste analytes.
However, in Arnold, a total alkali of the paste is determined based on the determined concentration of the paste analytes (See Pg. 3, Paras. 0020 and 0021 and Pg. 5, Para. 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Andersen according to the teachings of Arnold for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device leaches and tests only individual aggregates while providing an inexpensive, rapid, flexible test (See Arnold, Pg. 4, Para. 0033). Andersen and Arnold fail to disclose that the paste analytes include one or more of CO₂, Na₂O, and K₂O. However, Wu discloses a method comprising a cement sample having a chemical component including Na₂O, and K₂O (See Pg. 3, Para. 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Andersen and Arnold according to the teachings of Wu for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device quickly and accurately measures a main chemical component content of cement (See Wu, Pg. 2, Para. 2). Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not anticipate or make obvious the provisions of “performing the water solubility analysis on the main body comprises submersing the main body in water; heating the submersed main body and water for a duration sufficient to solubilize analytes in the main body to dissolve in the water; separating the water from the main body after heating; and analyzing the separated water to determine a concentration of the solubilized analytes in the water (referring to claim 4), “the solubilized analytes include one or more of SiO₂, MgO, Na₂O, and K2O” (referring to claim 5), “analyzing the isolated portion of the aggregate comprises determining loss on ignition of the aggregate” (referring to claim 8), “analyzing the isolated portion of the paste comprises determining loss on ignition of the paste” (referring to claim 12), and “determining a concentration of CO₂ in the paste and, based on the determined loss on ignition of the paste and the determined concentration of CO₂ in the paste, determine a total moisture content in the paste” (referring to claim 13) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 1, “analyzing the main body comprises performing a water solubility analysis on the main body, the water solubility analysis comprising submersing the main body in water; heating the submersed main body and water for a duration sufficient to solubilize analytes in the main body to dissolve in the water; separating the water from the main body after heating; and analyzing the separated water to determine a concentration of the solubilized analytes in the water, wherein the solubilized analytes include one or more of SiO₂, MgO, Na₂O, and K2O” (referring to claim 15) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 14, and “analyzing the main body comprises performing a water solubility analysis on the main body, the water solubility analysis comprising submersing the main body in water; heating the submersed main body and water for a duration sufficient to solubilize analytes in the main body to dissolve in the water; separating the water from the main body after heating; and analyzing the separated water to determine a concentration of the solubilized analytes in the water, wherein the solubilized analytes include one or more of SiO₂, MgO, Na₂O, and K2O” (referring to claim 18) and “analyzing the isolated portion of the paste comprises determining loss on ignition of the paste; wherein the method further comprises determining a concentration of CO₂ in the paste and, based on the determined loss on ignition of the paste and the determined concentration of CO₂ in the paste, determine a total moisture content in the paste” (referring to claim 20) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Arnold et al. (12,247,970) disclose a method for the assessment of alkali-silica
reactivity of aggregates and concrete mixtures. Dongre (11,142,667) discloses asphalt additive compositions and methods of making and using thereof. Bogas et al. (EP4112577) disclose a process for separating the components of hardened concrete waste for producing recycled cement. Dittrich et al. (2021/0319377) disclose a test method for determining the risk potential for an alkali-silica reaction in mineral construction materials. Jordan et al. (10,647,026) disclose dynamic segregation monitoring of concrete. Tanaka et al. (JP2004224649) disclose a system for diagnosing concrete degradation. Berntsson et al. (4,157,998) disclose a method of producing a cement mortar with good stability in a fresh condition and a method using this mortar as a binding agent of producing a lightweight aggregate concrete with a high aggregate content.14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 2/6/26