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.
Claims 1-4 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.
The phrase “and between 2 mm and of optionally between 2 mm and 50 mm in length” renders claim 1 indefinite because it is unclear what the pellet length range is required to be - between 2 mm and a non-recited value that could be either greater or less than 2 mm, prior to the optional language.
The term “mixing well” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much mixing is considered to be “well” mixed.
The forming step in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the forming is by every method recited (extrusion, roll forming, pellet mill, pelletizing), or by selecting one of the members of the group. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring any of the methods recited in the list.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the purpose." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases "such as" and “etc.” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, or what limitations are included in etc. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the method requires the feed composition to include all of the compounds recited in the list, or a compound selected form the group. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring any of the compounds listed.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the group of inorganic binders." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the group of organic binders." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the group of additives." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the group of reinforcement fibers and particles." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loggers (US 2007/0289503).
Claim 1: Loggers discloses a method for feeding fly ash into an unburnt brick mold (abstract). The method includes preparing main ingredients including 92% fly ash by weight, and 8% cement (¶ 11), and 13% water (¶ 12); mixing well the fly ash with the cement to form a feed composition (¶¶ 12-13); then adding water into the feed composition and mixing again, so that the moisture content of the feed composition is about 22-24% (¶ 12; “the moisture content of . . . a mixture having 8% moisture has to be raised to at least 22% to form pellets”); forming the feed composition by pelletizing in order to create pellets (“to be able to fill the moulds. . . correctly the raw material mixture is granulated [pelletized] before filling the moulds” by extrusion; ¶¶ 6, 11); and feeding the pellets into an unburnt brick mold by a feeding system of an unburnt brick manufacturing machine (¶ 11).
Loggers discloses that pre-compaction by granulation allows for great filling height molds can be filled properly (¶ 14), but is silent as to the claimed cross-sectional size of the pellets. However, absent evidence of unexpected results obtained from the cross-sectional size of the pellets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to have selected a suitable cross-sectional size for the pellets to effectively fill confined mold spaces. The optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known” is prima facie obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). The discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Claim 2: Loggers discloses including lime as an inorganic binder (¶ 13).
Claim 3: Loggers discloses the pellets being used as construction aggregate (¶ 11).
Claim 4: Loggers discloses the pellets include the feed composition of claim 2 (¶ 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights