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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the nature of the substance” is not previously referred to in the claim, or any claims from which claim 23 depends. For purposes of compact prosecution, it is suggested that claim 23 depend on claim 22, however correction/clarification is required.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the nature of the substance” is not previously referred to in the claim, or any claims from which claim 24 depends. For purposes of compact prosecution, it is suggested that claim 24 depend on claim 22, however correction/clarification is required.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts (U.S. Publication 2014/0104972).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts teaches a method of operating a concrete mixer truck having a rotary drum (paragraph 8 teaches a method of operating a concrete truck having a rotating drum) configured to receive fresh concrete (paragraph 11 teaches concrete in the mixing drum which is would inherently have to have received fresh concrete, paragraph 75 teaches loading at the concrete plant) and an on-board computer (paragraph 11 CPU), the method comprising: performing an unloading operation including unloading a first portion of the fresh concrete from the drum at a job site (paragraph 11 teaches a partial discharge of concrete, the location of the discharge is considered reading on a job site), a second portion of the fresh concrete remaining in the drum as return concrete subsequently to the unloading operation (see paragraph 11 which teaches a load size of concrete remaining in the drum); the computer acquiring a first signal indicative of a presence of fresh concrete in the drum (paragraph 11 teaches using sensors for measuring the load size, the sensors inherently sending a signal to the CPU for measuring load size); the computer acquiring a second signal indicative of termination of the unload operation (paragraph 75 part (a) teaches the CPU teaches calculating the discharged amount, which would inherently require a signal to stop the discharge); the computer activating an indicator perceivable by a driver of the concrete mixer truck contingent upon receiving both the first signal and the second signal (paragraph 75 part (d) teaches alerting a driver that concrete is available which would inherently require a signals indicating both the discharge amount and remaining concrete), the indicator signaling a presence of return concrete in the rotary drum to the driver (paragraph 75 part (d) teaches an alert or indication to a driver that there is available or remaining concrete).
Regarding claim 2, Roberts teaches wherein the concrete mixer truck further has a probe mounted internally to the drum and configured for communicating, to the computer, a signal indicative of a force stemming from the relative movement between the probe and fresh concrete during rotation of the drum (paragraph 11 teaches a rheology sensor, paragraph 13 teaches measuring the peak pressure), said acquiring a first signal includes the computer processing said signal indicative of the force and determining a presence of fresh concrete from said processing (paragraph 15 teaches measuring the discharge pressure which correspond to rheology values which would inherently require a force).
Regarding claim 3, Roberts wherein the concrete mixer truck further has a sensor configured for communicating, to the computer, a signal indicative of a rotation state of the drum (paragraph 11 sensor which would inherently provide as signal, the sensor determines the number of mixing drum rotations), said acquiring a first signal includes the computer processing said signal indicative of the rotation state and determining a presence of fresh concrete from said processing (the mixing drum rotations which is provided to the CPU from the rotation sensor is used to calculate the amount of concrete discharged and the remaining concrete).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts teaches wherein said processing includes counting a number of rotations occurring in an unload direction of rotation (paragraph 11 teaches measuring the number of rotations in the discharge direction), determining a quantity of the first portion of fresh concrete based on said number of rotations (paragraph 11 teaches calculating the load size based on the number of mixing drum rotations), comparing the quantity of the first portion of fresh concrete to an initial quantity of fresh concrete, and determining a presence of fresh concrete based on a discrepancy between the quantity of the first portion and the initial quantity (paragraph 11 teaches the volume per revolution upon discharge value to measure the amount discharged and the CPU is used to calculate the concrete remaining in the drum).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts teaches wherein the concrete mixer truck further has a sensor configured for communicating, to the computer, a signal indicative of a direction of rotation of the drum, said acquiring the second signal includes the computer processing said signal indicative of the direction of rotation and determining a termination of the unload operation based on a change in direction of rotation from an unloading direction to a mixing direction (paragraph 11 teaches a sensor which would inherently provide a signal to the CPU for measuring the rotation, and teaches a discharge direction)
Regarding claim 6, wherein the concrete mixer truck further has a sensor configured for communicating, to the computer, a signal indicative of the unloading operation, wherein the concrete mixer truck further has a sensor configured for communicating, to the computer, a signal indicative of movement of the truck (paragraph 11 teaches a sensor measuring the rotation of the truck which is considered a movement of the truck), said acquiring the second signal includes the computer processing said signal indicative of the unloading operation and processing said signal indicative of movement of the truck, and determining a termination of the unload operation based on detecting a movement of the truck subsequently to the unloading operation (paragraph 11 teaches the volume per revolution upon discharge value to measure the amount discharged and the CPU is used to calculate the concrete remaining in the drum).
Regarding claim 7, Roberts teaches wherein said acquiring the second signal includes the computer receiving a confirmation from a batch plant that the truck has arrived to the batch plant (paragraph 48 teaches a person working at a dispatch center could know if the concrete is suitable on a different concrete site which would inherently require knowing the location of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Roberts teaches a visual indicator (paragraph 75, part (d) screen symbols).
Regarding claim 9, Roberts teaches an audible indicator (see paragraph 75, part (d) alarms).
Regarding claim 11, Roberts teaches a method of operating a concrete mixer truck having a rotary drum (paragraph 8 teaches a method of operating a concrete truck having a rotating drum) configured to receive fresh concrete (paragraph 11 teaches concrete in the mixing drum which is would inherently have to have received fresh concrete, paragraph 75 teaches loading at the concrete plant) and an on-board computer (paragraph 11 CPU), the method comprising: performing an unloading operation including unloading a first portion of the fresh concrete from the drum at a job site (paragraph 11 teaches a partial discharge of concrete, the location of the discharge is considered reading on a job site), a second portion of the fresh concrete remaining in the drum as return concrete subsequently to the unloading operation (see paragraph 11 which teaches a load size of concrete remaining in the drum); subsequently to said unloading operation, performing a return concrete assessment routine (paragraph 75 part c teaches calculating the remaining load size), the return concrete assessment routine including driving the concrete mixer truck to a measurement area having a level ground (paragraph 32 teaches the rotational axis is slanted with respect to a level ground, which would inherently require a level ground, which is considered the measurement area), measuring a quantity of concrete in the concrete mixer truck while the concrete mixer truck remains still at the measurement area (paragraph 75 teaches measuring the remaining load size, the level ground is considered the measurement area), and the computer communicating return concrete data, the return concrete data including the measured quantity of concrete, to a remote computer via a telecommunications network (paragraph 75 part d teaches wireless communication from the CPU to the construction site which would inherently require a remote computer in order to receive the communication).
Regarding claim 12, Roberts teaches wherein the concrete mixer truck further has a probe mounted internally to the drum and configured for communicating, to the computer, a signal indicative of a force stemming from the relative movement between the probe and fresh concrete during rotation of the drum (paragraph 11 teaches a rheology sensor, paragraph 13 teaches measuring the peak pressure), said measuring the quantity of concrete includes the computer processing said signal indicative the force to identify an entry point and an exit point of the probe in the concrete along a rotary path of the probe during rotation of the drum and determining the quantity based on the identified entry point and exit point (paragraph 15 teaches measuring the discharge pressure which correspond to rheology values which would inherently require a force, which would inherently require an entry and exit point).
Regarding claim 13, Roberts teaches wherein said measuring the quantity of concrete is further performed while rotating the drum at a constant angular rotation speed (paragraph 58 teaches a constant drum speed of 17 RPM which would inherently have a constant angularly rotation speed).
Regarding claim 14, Roberts teaches wherein said return concrete assessment routine further comprises the computer acquiring a temperature measurement of the return concrete, said return concrete data including a measured value of the temperature of the return concrete (paragraph 75, part g teaches measuring the temperature of the concrete).
Regarding claim 15, Roberts teaches wherein said return concrete assessment routine further comprises the computer obtaining a water content value of the return concrete, the return concrete data including the water content value (paragraph 75 g teaches measuring the quantity of water added to the concrete).
Regarding claim 17, Roberts teaches wherein said obtaining the water content value includes adding a quantity of water to the concrete following loading of the fresh concrete in the drum to a quantity of water initially forming part of the fresh concrete loaded in the drum (paragraph 75, part g teaches water added to the concrete which is considered forming part of the fresh loaded concrete in the drum).
Regarding claim 20, Roberts teaches further comprising, subsequently to said communicating performing a subsequent measurement of at least one measurand of the return concrete and communicating the measured value of the at least one measurand to the remote computer (paragraph 75, part d teaches the CPU providing alerts regarding the concrete available by wireless communication which would inherently require a remote computer to receive the wireless communication).
Regarding claim 21, Roberts teaches wherein said at least one measurand includes temperature of the return concrete (paragraph 75, part g teaches the temperature of the concrete).
Regarding claim 22, Roberts teaches further comprising acquiring a nature and a value of a quantity of a substance added to the return concrete subsequently to said communicating, and communicating the nature and value of the quantity of the substance added to the return concrete to the remote computer (paragraph 75, part g teaches water and chemical admixture, each of which are considered a nature of the substance, paragraph 75, part d additionally teaches the amount of concrete).
Regarding claim 23, Roberts teaches wherein the nature of the substance added is water (paragraph 75, part g).
Regarding claim 24, Roberts teaches wherein the nature of the substance added is an additive (paragraph 75, part g chemical admixture).
Regarding claim 25, Roberts teaches further comprising, subsequently to said communicating, the on-board computer receiving from the remote computer over the telecommunications network an instruction of how to dispose of the return concrete, and disposing of the return concrete in accordance with the instruction (paragraph 48 teaches the CPU receiving instructions for a dispatch center to use the remaining concrete at a different construction site).
Regarding claim 26, Roberts teaches wherein the instruction includes adding an additive to the return concrete and driving to a batch plant (paragraph 75, part c teaches calculating the chemical admixture to be added to the concrete in the mixing drum).
Regarding claim 27, Roberts teaches wherein the instruction includes driving to another job site (paragraph 48 teaches a different construction site).
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.
Claims 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts (U.S. Publication 2014/0104972).
Regarding claim 10, Roberts teaches a range of rotations per minute during discharge (paragraph 60) and the number of rotations needed to discharge concrete (paragraph 59 and 61). Regarding claim 10, Roberts is silent to the elapsed time being under 5 minutes. Regarding claim 10, 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 choose the desired time to discharge concrete based on the desired volume needed at a construction site since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Roberts teaches a range of rotations per minute during discharge (paragraph 60) and the number of rotations needed to discharge concrete (paragraph 59 and 61). Regarding claim 18, Roberts is silent to the elapsed time being under 30 minutes. Regarding claim 18, 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 choose the desired time to discharge concrete based on the desired volume needed at a construction site since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 19, Roberts teaches a range of rotations per minute during discharge (paragraph 60) and the number of rotations needed to discharge concrete (paragraph 59 and 61). Regarding claim 19, Roberts is silent to the elapsed time being under 5 minutes. Regarding claim 19, 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 choose the desired time to discharge concrete based on the desired volume needed at a construction site since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Claire Wang can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights