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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “while Viktor appears to teach pressures between 5 and 75 Bar, such teachings appear to be in the context of crushing rock itself rather than cured concrete in a way that does not crush the aggregate material of the concrete itself, as in the present application. Forat least this reason, the cited portions of Viktor are insufficient to show that it would have been obvious to grind old concrete at a grinding pressure which is less than a fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete. That is, because Viktor's description appears to relate to crushing rock/aggregate itself, it does not teach the features recited in independent claim 1, and in fact teaches away from such features by specifically describing that the rock/aggregate materials themselves are crushed”.
In response to this argument, the Applicant’s specification page 2 discloses “A grinding pressure of less than 50 MPa ensures an operation of comminuting the old concrete in which only the cement rock connecting the grains of the aggregate is comminuted, and not the grains of the aggregate”; and
The prior art of Viktor discloses “The process according to the invention is advantageously suitable for the production of aggregates in fractions with different grain sizes from natural mineral rocks, for example limestone, dolomite, basalt, quartzite, gabbro, granite, porphyry, and/or gravel, from slags from iron or steel production and/or from old concrete”; i.e. it is a process for processing old concrete,
Further; The prior art of Viktor discloses controlling the pressure to achieve the desired fracturing of the rocks, but at the same time not too high, thus avoiding further damage to the rock particles, especially cracks in the grains (paragraph 0027);
Furthermore, concrete is basically artificial rock, concrete is a mix of cement, sand, water, and rocks;
So, the prior art of Viktor teaches crushing brittle materials including rocks and old concrete; and further teaches operating the crushing apparatus at an operating pressure less than 50 MPa for at least one disclosed material “rocks”; thus, one having ordinary skill in art would have recognized that both of rocks and old concrete are brittle material proceed by the same crushing apparatus, and that operating pressures a result effective variable that is optimized depending on the type of the proceed material;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art to grind old concrete at a grinding pressure which is less than a fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete in order to achieve the desired fracturing so as to produce high-quality aggregates with as isometric grain shapes as possible (Viktor: paragraphs 0016 and 0027).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JOO (KR20060027923A attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Viktor (WO2016071197A1 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 wherein the grinding is effected at a grinding pressure which is less than the fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete and less than 50 MPa.
Viktor teaches a method for processing old concrete, wherein the old concrete comprises cement rock and an aggregate, including at least one of sand and gravel (paragraphs 0001-0004), the method comprising a grinding pressure of less than 50 MPa; and wherein the grinding is effected at a grinding pressure which is lower than the fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete (paragraph 0027).
Both of the prior arts of JOO and Viktor are related to a method 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 method of JOO to have a grinding pressure of less than 50 MPa as taught by Viktor, 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 grinding is effected at a grinding pressure which is less than the fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete and less than 50 MPa.
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 wherein the grinding is effected at a grinding pressure which is less than the fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete and less than 50 MPa.;
Viktor a method for processing old concrete, wherein the old concrete comprises cement rock and an aggregate, including at least one of sand and gravel (paragraphs 0001-0004), the method comprising a grinding pressure of less than 50 MPa (paragraph 0027).
Both of the prior arts of JOO and Viktor are related to a method 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 method of JOO to have a grinding pressure of less than 50 MPa as taught by Viktor, 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 grinding is effected at a grinding pressure which is less than the fracture limit of the aggregate of the old concrete and less than 50 MPa.
Claim 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 Viktor (WO2016071197A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) “as applied to claim 1 above with respect claims 3-10, and as applied to claim 11 above with respect claims 12-14” and further in view of Toshihiko (CA2056017C).
Regarding claims 3-4, JOO in view of Viktor does not disclose wherein a 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 manner 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 in view of Viktor 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 Viktor and 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 screening of the ground old concrete in a screening device (fig.1: (50)) and/or 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 Viktor and 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 Viktor and Toshihiko teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, JOO in view of Viktor does not disclose wherein the apparatus comprises a measuring device for ascertaining a 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 manner 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 in view of Viktor 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 Viktor and 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 Viktor and Toshihiko teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Claim 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 Viktor (WO2016071197A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) and Toshihiko (CA2056017C) “as applied to claim 6 above with respect claims 8-10, and as applied to claim 14 above with respect claims 15-16” and further in view of YU (CN207793088U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, JOO in view of Viktor and 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 a density of the old concrete; and wherein 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 Viktor and Toshihiko does not disclose is fed to a jig machine and the old concrete is classified in dependence on a density of the old concrete; and wherein 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 Viktor and 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 Viktor, 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 Viktor and 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 Viktor and 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 Viktor and Toshihiko to have 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights