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 3 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “open-loop/closed-loop fashion” should be changed “open-loop/closed-loop manner”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “open-loop/closed-loop fashion” should be changed “open-loop/closed-loop manner”.
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 3-10 and 12-16 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 3 recites the limitation "the grain size distribution" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-7 and 9-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the screening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the sifting" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regrading claim 8, the phrase “The method as claimed in claim 8” render the claim indefinite because claim 8 depends from itself.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “The method as claimed in claim 8” as “The method as claimed in claim 6”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the density" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected because it depends from claim 8.
Regrading claim 10, the phrase “the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the exhaust air from at least one of the screening device, the grinding device, the jig machine and/or the sifting device is fed to a dust removal device for removal of dust” render the claim indefinite because claim 10 depends from claim 3, and claim 3 does nt recite “at least one of the screening device, the grinding device, the jig machine and/or the sifting device”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted claim 10 is depended from claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the exhaust air" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the grain size distribution" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-16 are rejected because they depend from claim 12.
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 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOO (KR20060027923A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, JOO disclose a method for processing old concrete, wherein the old concrete comprises cement rock and an aggregate, including at least one of sand and gravel (page 3), the method comprising:
grinding the old concrete in a grinding device (fig.1: (30)), and
classifying (fig.1: (50)) the ground old concrete in a classifying device into at least two products of different grain fractions (page 4),
wherein the grinding is effected at a grinding pressure (the grinding pressure between the rollers (31) and (32)), and
wherein the grinding device comprises a roller mill having two grinding rollers (fig.1: (31) and (32)) which form, between one another, a grinding gap (page 6: a certain gap), and wherein the grinding of the old concrete is effected with different rotational speeds of the grinding rollers in relation to one another (page 7).
JOO does not disclose of less than 50 MPa;
However, choosing a specific amount the grinding pressure would have resulted from routine engineering practices and is very known in art as a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on requirement of the process of the grinding as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the grinding pressure of less than 50 MPa in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the grinding as desired.
Regarding claim 2, JOO does not disclose wherein the grinding is effected at a grinding pressure which is lower than the fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete;
However, choosing a specific amount the grinding pressure would have resulted from routine engineering practices and is very known in art as a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on requirement of the process of the grinding as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the grinding is effected at a grinding pressure which is lower than the fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the grinding as desired.
Regarding claim 11, JOO disclose an apparatus for processing old concrete (page 3), comprising:
a grinding device (fig.1: (30)) for grinding the old concrete, and
a classifying device (fig.1: (50)) for classifying the ground old concrete into at least two products of different grain fractions (page 4),
wherein the grinding device is designed, and configured, in such a way that the grinding of the old concrete is effected at a grinding pressure (the grinding pressure between the rollers (31) and (32)), and
wherein the grinding device comprises a roller mill having two grinding rollers (fig.1: (31) and (32)) which form, between one another, a grinding gap (page 6: a certain gap), and
wherein the grinding device is designed, and configured, in such a way that the grinding of the old concrete is effected with different rotational speeds of the grinding rollers in relation to one another (page 7).
JOO does not disclose of less than 50 MPa;
However, choosing a specific amount the grinding pressure would have resulted from routine engineering practices and is very known in art as a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on requirement of the process of the grinding as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the grinding pressure of less than 50 MPa in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the grinding as desired.
Claims 3-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOO (KR20060027923A attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Toshihiko (CA2056017C).
Regarding claims 3-4, JOO does not disclose wherein the grain size distribution of the ground old concrete is ascertained and the grinding pressure of the grinding device is controlled in open-loop/closed-loop fashion in dependence on the ascertained grain size distribution; and wherein the grain size distribution is ascertained by means of an optical measuring device.
Toshihiko teaches a grinding method, comprising:
a grain size distribution of a ground material is ascertained and a grinding pressure of a grinding device is controlled in open-loop/closed-loop fashion in dependence on the ascertained grain size distribution (fig.2, abstract and page 11: adjust the roll space “corresponding to control the grinding pressure”); and wherein the grain size distribution is ascertained by means of an optical measuring device (page 7).
Both of the prior arts of JOO and Toshihiko are related to a method having grinding rollers;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of JOO to have the configuration of a grain size distribution of a ground material is ascertained and a grinding pressure of a grinding device is controlled in open-loop/closed-loop fashion in dependence on the ascertained grain size distribution, and wherein the grain size distribution is ascertained by means of an optical measuring device as taught by Toshihiko, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having wherein the grain size distribution of the ground old concrete is ascertained and the grinding pressure of the grinding device is controlled in open-loop/closed-loop fashion in dependence on the ascertained grain size distribution; and wherein the grain size distribution is ascertained by means of an optical measuring device.
Regarding claim 5, JOO disclose wherein the ground old concrete is classified in the classifying device into at least two products of different grain fractions (figs.1 and 5),
JOO in view of Toshihiko does not disclose wherein the first product has a grain fraction with a grain size of 4 mm to 16 mm, and the second product has a grain fraction with a grain size of 0.15 mm to 4 mm.
However, choosing the size of the grain fractions would have resulted from routine engineering practices and is very known in art as a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on requirement of the process of the grinding as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the first product has a grain fraction with a grain size of 4 mm to 16 mm, and the second product has a grain fraction with a grain size of 0.15 mm to 4 mm in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the grinding as desired.
Regarding claim 6, JOO disclose wherein the classifying of the ground old concrete comprises at least one of the screening of the ground old concrete in a screening device (fig.1: (50)) and/or the sifting of at least a portion of one of the ground and screened old concrete in a sifting device.
Therefore, the modification of JOO in view of Toshihiko teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, JOO disclose wherein the screening device (fig.1: (50)) comprises at least two screens and the ground old concrete is classified into at least three different grain fractions (figs.1 and 5).
Therefore, the modification of JOO in view of Toshihiko teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, JOO does not disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a measuring device for ascertaining the grain size distribution of the ground old concrete and an open-loop/closed-loop control device which is connected to the grinding device and to the measuring device and is designed in such a way that it controls the grinding pressure of the grinding device in open-loop/closed-loop fashion in dependence on the ascertained grain size distribution.
Toshihiko teaches a grinding apparatus, comprising:
a measuring device for ascertaining a grain size distribution of ground material and an open-loop/closed-loop control device which is connected to a grinding device and to the measuring device and is designed in such a way that it controls the grinding pressure of the grinding device in open-loop/closed-loop fashion in dependence on the ascertained grain size distribution (fig.2, abstract and pages 7 and 11: adjust the roll space “corresponding to control the grinding pressure”).
Both of the prior arts of JOO and Toshihiko are related to an apparatus having grinding rollers;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of JOO to have a measuring device for ascertaining a grain size distribution of ground material and an open-loop/closed-loop control device which is connected to a grinding device and to the measuring device and is designed in such a way that it controls the grinding pressure of the grinding device in open-loop/closed-loop fashion in dependence on the ascertained grain size distribution as taught by Toshihiko, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby wherein the apparatus comprises a measuring device for ascertaining the grain size distribution of the ground old concrete and an open-loop/closed-loop control device which is connected to the grinding device and to the measuring device and is designed in such a way that it controls the grinding pressure of the grinding device in open-loop/closed-loop fashion in dependence on the ascertained grain size distribution.
Regarding claim 13, JOO disclose wherein the classifying device comprises at least one of a screening device (fig.1: (50)) for screening the ground old concrete into at least two grain fractions and/or a sifting device for sifting the old concrete into at least two grain fractions.
Therefore, the modification of JOO in view of Toshihiko teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, JOO disclose wherein the screening device (fig.1: (50)) comprises at least two screens and is designed in such a way that it classifies the ground old concrete into at least three different grain fractions (figs.1 and 5).
Therefore, the modification of JOO in view of Toshihiko teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Claims 8-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOO (KR20060027923A attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Toshihiko (CA2056017C) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of YU (CN207793088U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, JOO in view of Toshihiko does not disclose wherein the classified old concrete of a grain fraction with a grain size of 0.15 mm to 4 mm and 2 mm to 16 mm and 4 mm to 16 mm, is fed to a jig machine and the old concrete is classified in dependence on the density of the old concrete; and wherein the exhaust air from at least one of the screening device, the grinding device, the jig machine and/or the sifting device is fed to a dust removal device for removal of dust.
However, choosing the size of the grain fractions would have resulted from routine engineering practices and is very known in art as a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on requirement of the process of the grinding as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the classified old concrete of a grain fraction with a grain size of 0.15 mm to 4 mm and 2 mm to 16 mm and 4 mm to 16 mm in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the grinding as desired.
JOO in view of Toshihiko does not disclose is fed to a jig machine and the old concrete is classified in dependence on the density of the old concrete; and wherein the exhaust air from at least one of the screening device, the grinding device, the jig machine and/or the sifting device is fed to a dust removal device for removal of dust.
YU teaches method, comprising:
classified old concrete of a grain fraction is fed to a jig machine and the old concrete is classified in dependence on the density of the old concrete (paragraph 0021: air classifier); and wherein the exhaust air from the jig machine is fed to a dust removal device for removal of dust (paragraph 0021: dust collection device).
Both of the prior arts of JOO and YU are related to a method of processing old concrete;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of JOO in view of Toshihiko to have classified old concrete of a grain fraction is fed to a jig machine and the old concrete is classified in dependence on the density of the old concrete, and wherein the exhaust air from the jig machine is fed to a dust removal device for removal of dust as taught by YU, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Regarding claim 9, JOO in view of Toshihiko and YU does not disclose wherein the screened old concrete is classified in the sifting device into a first grain fraction with a grain size of 0.15 mm to 4 mm, and into a second grain fraction with a grain size smaller than 0.15 mm.
However, choosing the size of the grain fractions would have resulted from routine engineering practices and is very known in art as a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on requirement of the process of the grinding as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the screened old concrete is classified in the sifting device into a first grain fraction with a grain size of 0.15 mm to 4 mm, and into a second grain fraction with a grain size smaller than 0.15 mm in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the grinding as desired.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, JOO in view of Toshihiko does not disclose
wherein the apparatus comprises at least one jig machine which is connected to at least one of the screening device and/or to the sifting device in such a way that the old concrete with a grain size of one of 0.15 mm to 4 mm, or with a grain size of 4 mm to 16 mm, is fed to the jig machine; and a dust removal device which is connected to at least one of the classifying device, to the grinding device and/or to the jig machine, such that the exhaust air from one of the classifying device, the grinding device and/or the jig machine is fed to the dust removal device.
However, choosing the size of the grain size would have resulted from routine engineering practices and is very known in art as a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on requirement of the process of the grinding as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to a grain size of one of 0.15 mm to 4 mm, or with a grain size of 4 mm to 16 mm in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the grinding as desired.
JOO in view of Toshihiko does not disclose at least one jig machine which is connected to at least one of the screening device and/or to the sifting device , at least one jig machine which is connected to at least one of the screening device and/or to the sifting device and a dust removal device which is connected to at least one of the classifying device, to the grinding device and/or to the jig machine, such that the exhaust air from one of the classifying device, the grinding device and/or the jig machine is fed to the dust removal device.
YU teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a jig machine (paragraph 0021: air classifier) which is connected to a screening device (paragraph 0021) and a dust removal device (paragraph 0021: dust collection device) which is connected to the classifying device, such that the exhaust air from one of the classifying device, is fed to the dust removal device (paragraph 0021).
Both of the prior arts of JOO and YU are related to an apparatus for processing old concrete;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of JOO in view of Toshihiko to a jig machine which is connected to a screening device and a dust removal device which is connected to the classifying device, such that the exhaust air from one of the classifying device, is fed to the dust removal device as taught by YU, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725