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 Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1,
It is recommended to amend lines 7-8 to read “… within [[a]] the construction material to generate data relating to [[a]] the characteristic of the construction material …”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended to amend line 17 to read “… were embedded into [[the]] previous deployment of the …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 21,
It is recommended to amend lines 4-5 to read “… within [[a]] the construction material to …”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended to amend line 7 to read “… one of [[a]] the characteristic of the construction material …”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended to amend line 17 to read “… were embedded into [[the]] previous deployment of the …”. Appropriate correction is required.
It is recommended to amend line 27 to read “… subsequent retrieval in [[the]] a manufacture of one or more subsequent batches …”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 21 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 a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the characteristic" in line 37. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the characteristic of the construction material or another characteristic. If it is referring to the characteristic of the construction material, then it is recommended to recite “… wherein the characteristic of the construction material is one of long term strength…”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the characteristic" in line 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the characteristic of the construction material or another characteristic. If it is referring to the characteristic of the construction material, then it is recommended to recite “… wherein the characteristic of the construction material is one of long term strength…”.
Claims 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 22 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 21.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 20-22 are pending
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended
Claims 2-19 were cancelled
Claims 21 and 22 were added
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Regarding the rejection of claims 1-18 under U.S.C. 101, applicant incorporates claim 19 in claim 1 (Remarks page 11). However, upon further consideration, the claimed features of cancelled claim 19, which are incorporated into amended claim 1, still have 101 issues because they are steps that can be performed by a generic computer. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), the steps use a computer as a tool to perform mental processes pertaining to assessing construction material. Additionally, it is for this reason, according to MPEP 2106.04(d), that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the claim is still rejected under U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 the claim recites a method comprising: establishing upon a computer system a set of data relating to a construction material; processing upon another computer system the established set of data to establish one of a characteristic of the construction material and a variation in a specification for the construction material, embedding a device within a construction material to generate data relating to a characteristic of the construction material: and performing an assessment of the characteristic of the construction material in dependence upon the generated data, wherein performing the assessment comprises: retrieving first data relating to batches of the construction material with a common specification, retrieving second data relating to the batches of the construction material where the second data was established in dependence upon the generated data acquired from the device and a plurality of other devices where each of the device and the plurality of other devices were embedded into the previous deployments of the concrete mixture, extracting performance data from the second data which relates to the characteristic of the construction material for the batches of the construction material, processing the first data and the extracted performance data within one or more machine learning algorithms, establishing one or more influences of the first data upon the second data, and establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material; wherein the adjustment to the common specification for the construction material is established to one of: increase compliance of subsequent batches of the construction material with the adjusted common specification for the construction material of the characteristic of the construction material to a threshold value, and adjust a quantity of a material forming part of the common specification for the construction material to reduce a cost of manufacture of the construction material with the adjusted common specification to another cost of manufacture of the construction material with the common specification whilst maintaining a projected assessment of the characteristic of the construction material as compliant to a performance threshold value; wherein the characteristic is one of long term strength, reduced chloride ion content and reduced ambient environmental sensitivity; and wherein a cost of manufacture of the construction material comprises at least one of: raw material costs of raw materials forming part of the common specification, admixture costs of admixtures forming part of the common specification, a rejection cost of a batch of the construction material being rejected at a deployment site for failure of the characteristic of the construction material to comply with the performance threshold value, and a delay cost associated with a time between deployment of the construction material and removal of formwork associated with the deployment.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of performing an assessment of the characteristic of the construction material in dependence upon the generated data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, performing an assessment of the characteristic of the construction material in dependence upon the generated data can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of retrieving first data relating to batches of the construction material with a common specification. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, retrieving first data relating to batches of the construction material with a common specification can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of storing information associated with the first customer meters. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, storing information can performed mentally.
The claim recites the limitation of retrieving second data relating to the batches of the construction material. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; retrieving second data relating to the batches of the construction material can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of extracting performance data from the second data which relates to the characteristic of the construction material for the batches of the construction material. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; extracting performance data from the second data which relates to the characteristic of the construction material for the batches of the construction material can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: establishing upon a computer system a set of data relating to a construction material, processing upon another computer system the established set of data to establish one of a characteristic of the construction material and a variation in a specification for the construction material, processing the first data and the extracted performance data within one or more machine learning algorithms, wherein the adjustment to the common specification for the construction material is established to one of: increase compliance of subsequent batches of the construction material with the adjusted common specification for the construction material of the characteristic of the construction material to a threshold value, and adjust a quantity of a material forming part of the common specification for the construction material to reduce a cost of manufacture of the construction material with the adjusted common specification to another cost of manufacture of the construction material with the common specification whilst maintaining a projected assessment of the characteristic of the construction material as compliant to a performance threshold value;
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the method are performed: embedding a device within a construction material to generate data relating to a characteristic of the construction material, wherein the characteristic is one of long term strength, reduced chloride ion content and reduced ambient environmental sensitivity; and wherein a cost of manufacture of the construction material comprises at least one of: raw material costs of raw materials forming part of the common specification, admixture costs of admixtures forming part of the common specification, a rejection cost of a batch of the construction material being rejected at a deployment site for failure of the characteristic of the construction material to comply with the performance threshold value, and a delay cost associated with a time between deployment of the construction material and removal of formwork associated with the deployment.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of construction material characterization in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a construction material characterization. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of characterizing and assessing construction materials in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 20 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein at least one of: the second data is performance data and history for the construction material; the first data comprises a component of the construction material and a value associated with the component of the construction material and the component of the construction material is one of cement, water, an admixture, a fine aggregate, and a coarse aggregate; the retrieved second data relating to the construction material further comprises data acquired from one or more sources, each source being one of a plurality of other embedded devices, a plurality of partially embedded sensors, a third party source, and environmental data; the retrieved second data relating to the construction material was acquired at least one of at the time of production of the construction material, during transportation of the construction material, at deployment of the construction material and within a defined time period post deployment of the construction material; and the extracted performance data relates to at least one of strength, resistivity, slump, temperature, ion content, and cracking..”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites a method comprising: establishing upon a computer system a set of data relating to a construction material where a portion of the set of data was established by embedding one or more devices within a construction material to generate data relating to a characteristic of the construction material; processing upon another computer system the established set of data to establish one of a characteristic of the construction material and a variation in a specification for the construction material; and performing upon the another computer system an assessment of the characteristic of the construction material in dependence upon the generated data, wherein performing the assessment comprises: retrieving first data relating to batches of the construction material with a common specification, retrieving second data relating to the batches of the construction material where the second data was established in dependence upon the generated data acquired from the device and a plurality of other devices where each of the device and the plurality of other devices were embedded into the previous deployments of the concrete mixture, extracting performance data from the second data which relates to the characteristic of the construction material for the batches of the construction material, processing the first data and the extracted performance data within one or more machine learning algorithms, establishing one or more influences of the first data upon the second data, and establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material which is then stored within a database of a computer server for subsequent retrieval in the manufacture of one or more subsequent batches of the construction material; wherein the adjustment to the common specification for the construction material is established to one of. Increase compliance of subsequent batches of the construction material with the adjusted common specification for the construction material of the characteristic of the construction material to a threshold value, and adjust a quantity of a material forming part of the common specification for the construction material to reduce a cost of manufacture of the construction material with the adjusted common specification to another cost of manufacture of the construction material with the common specification whilst maintaining a projected assessment of the characteristic of the construction material as compliant to a performance threshold value; wherein the characteristic is one of long term strength, reduced chloride ion content and reduced ambient environmental sensitivity; and wherein a cost of manufacture of the construction material comprises at least one of: raw material costs of raw materials forming part of the common specification, admixture costs of admixtures forming part of the common specification, a rejection cost of a batch of the construction material being rejected at a deployment site for failure of the characteristic of the construction material to comply with the performance threshold value, and a delay cost associated with a time between deployment of the construction material and removal of formwork associated with the deployment.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of performing an assessment of the characteristic of the construction material in dependence upon the generated data. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, performing an assessment of the characteristic of the construction material in dependence upon the generated data can be done by a human or pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of retrieving first data relating to batches of the construction material with a common specification. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, retrieving first data relating to batches of the construction material with a common specification can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of storing information associated with the first customer meters. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, storing information can performed mentally.
The claim recites the limitation of retrieving second data relating to the batches of the construction material. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; retrieving second data relating to the batches of the construction material can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of extracting performance data from the second data which relates to the characteristic of the construction material for the batches of the construction material. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; extracting performance data from the second data which relates to the characteristic of the construction material for the batches of the construction material can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
The claim recites the limitation of establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; establishing an adjustment to the common specification for the construction material can be done by a human or with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: establishing upon a computer system a set of data relating to a construction material, processing upon another computer system the established set of data to establish one of a characteristic of the construction material and a variation in a specification for the construction material, which is then stored within a database of a computer server for subsequent retrieval in the manufacture of one or more subsequent batches of the construction material, processing the first data and the extracted performance data within one or more machine learning algorithms, wherein the adjustment to the common specification for the construction material is established to one of: increase compliance of subsequent batches of the construction material with the adjusted common specification for the construction material of the characteristic of the construction material to a threshold value, and adjust a quantity of a material forming part of the common specification for the construction material to reduce a cost of manufacture of the construction material with the adjusted common specification to another cost of manufacture of the construction material with the common specification whilst maintaining a projected assessment of the characteristic of the construction material as compliant to a performance threshold value;
the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the method are performed: wherein the characteristic is one of long term strength, reduced chloride ion content and reduced ambient environmental sensitivity; and wherein a cost of manufacture of the construction material comprises at least one of: raw material costs of raw materials forming part of the common specification, admixture costs of admixtures forming part of the common specification, a rejection cost of a batch of the construction material being rejected at a deployment site for failure of the characteristic of the construction material to comply with the performance threshold value, and a delay cost associated with a time between deployment of the construction material and removal of formwork associated with the deployment.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of construction material characterization in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a construction material characterization. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of characterizing and assessing construction materials in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 22 depends on claim 21, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 22 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein at least one of: the second data is performance data and history for the construction material; the first data comprises a component of the construction material and a value associated with the component of the construction material and the component of the construction material is one of cement, water, an admixture, a fine aggregate, and a coarse aggregate; the retrieved second data relating to the construction material further comprises data acquired from one or more sources, each source being one of a plurality of other embedded devices, a plurality of partially embedded sensors, a third party source, and environmental data; the retrieved second data relating to the construction material was acquired at least one of at the time of production of the construction material, during transportation of the construction material, at deployment of the construction material and within a defined time period post deployment of the construction material; and the extracted performance data relates to at least one of strength, resistivity, slump, temperature, ion content, and cracking.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 7551058 B1; Johnson; Eric Arthur et al. is a Sensor for monitoring environmental parameters in concrete.
US 20170254782 A1; Sjoblom; Kurt et al.is an inventions for Identification of Water Pipe Material Based on Stress Wave Propagation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858