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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “a vibrating sieve screen” is referring to upper sieve or lower sieve, or a separate sieve. Additionally, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claim depends on canceled claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “a vibrating sieve screen” is referring to upper sieve or lower sieve, or a separate sieve. Additionally, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claim depends on canceled claim 1. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claim depends on a canceled claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that claims 6, 7, and 8 depend on claim 5, however correction/clarifying is required. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoner (U.S. Publication 2003/0029699) in view of Brunone (U.S. Publication 2014/0291216) in further view of Goode (U.S. Publication 2022/0380266). Regarding claim 5, Stoner teaches A system for separating the components of a residual concrete mixture, comprising: a frame (frame extending up from item 22) holding a rail (item 22), at least one lifting device held by the rail (items 24 are considered reading on a lifting device) suspending at least an vibrating sieve and a second vibrating sieve (item 24 and vibration motor 26 are used to vibrate items 28a and 28b, which are considered reading on sieves), configured to move the vibrating sieves horizontally and vertically and to control an inclination angle of the vibrating sieves (the screens are considered having a vertical and horizontal component of movement since they are angled and vibrate). Regarding claim 5, Stoner is silent to the sieves of different mesh sizes, the screens being positioned above and below, a process tank containing water, placed under the vibrating sieves and comprising wherein a pump connected to a conduit of a water distribution system is set at a bottom of the process tank and configured to move a water-cement mixture obtained in the process tank and previously passed through the vibrating sieves, wherein the conduit of the water distribution system comprises a movable control nipple configured to direct the water-cement mixture based on a cement concentration according to a density of the water-cement mixture, either to a first tank if the density if the water-cement mixture is higher or equal to a predetermined value, or in a second tank, if the density of the water-cement mixture is below the predetermined value; and a control unit configured to control an operation of the system, an upper-level sensor and a lower level sensor for controlling the water level in the process tank. Regarding claim 5, Brunone teaches sieves orientate above one another (paragraph 3) with different mesh sizes (paragraph 3). Regarding claim 5, Goode teaches a process tank (figure 2 item 26) containing water (paragraph 25 teaches water is metered to mixing chamber 26) placed under a hopper (paragraph 32) and a sensor (item 71 and paragraph 30) comprising wherein a pump is connected to a conduit of a water distribution system (item 38 pump is connected to item 36 via conduit 70) is set a top of the processing tank (item 38 and item 70) and configured to move a water-cement mixture obtained configured to move a water-cement mixture obtained in the process tank and previously passed through the vibrating sieves (materials move via item 80 and chute item 24) wherein the conduit of the water distribution system comprises a movable control nipple configured to direct the water-cement mixture based on a cement concentration according to a density of the water-cement mixture (paragraph 25 teaches item 38 as a valve and pump, the valve being considered reading on the nipple capable of directing water, and therefore the mixture based on cement concentration, the density is considered a property of the material being worked upon), either to a first tank if the density if the water-cement mixture is higher or equal to a predetermined value, or in a second tank, if the density of the water-cement mixture is below the predetermined value (the two tanks are considered intended use and not positively claimed) and a control unit configured to control an operation of the system (paragraph 27 monitoring computer 66 and machine controller). Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify sieve system of Stoner with the stacked sieve configuration of Brunone in order to obtain the desired particle size. Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sieve system of Stoner in view of Brunone with the water distribution system and process tank configuration of Goode to obtain the desired mixed final concrete product. Regarding claim 5, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the pump location in order to provide delivery to a specific portion of the tank since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 5, absent any unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of sensors in order to obtain the desired data for the controller from the process tank since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Stoner is silent to the language of claim 6. Regarding claim 6, Brunone teaches a vibrating screen is made of polymer (paragraph 47). Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify sieve system of Stoner with sieve material configuration of Brunone in order to obtain the desired weight or durability of the sieves. Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sieve system of Stoner in view of Brunone with the water distribution system and process tank configuration of Goode to obtain the desired mixed final concrete product. Stoner is silent to the language of claim 7. Regarding claim 7, Brunone teaches a vibrating screen is made of polymer or metal (paragraph 47 teaches steel or polyurethane). Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify sieve system of Stoner with sieve material configuration of Brunone in order to obtain the desired weight or durability of the sieves. Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sieve system of Stoner in view of Brunone with the water distribution system and process tank configuration of Goode to obtain the desired mixed final concrete product. Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the sieve to obtain the desired durability and weight since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 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. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the system for separating the components of the residual concrete mixture with the combination of the frame holding a rail, vibrating sieves, lifting device, process tank with two level sensors, the water distribution system and a sand filter serving as a hopper for sand sifted on the lower sieve. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7628 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1051 . 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. /ANSHU BHATIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774