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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/06/2026:
claims 1-2 and 4-27 are currently pending;
claims 14-20 are withdrawn; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to independent claim 1 that incorporated claim 3; however, new grounds of rejection are presented based on the same references as set forth herein.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McLanahan (McLanahan Modular Wash Plant and Scrubbing System Help Stradacon Penna Recycle C&D Waste For Reuse, 05/30/2023) (“McLanahan” hereinafter); as evidenced by McLanahan (C&D Recycling, Stradacon Penna Case Study, 05/30/2023) (“Stradacon” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, McLanahan teaches a method for producing a construction aggregate (see McLanahan at page 1 at Title teaching McLanahan Modular Wash Plant and Scrubbing System Help Stradacon Penna Recycle C&D Waste For Reuse… Case Studies, see McLanahan at page 1 paragraph 1 teaching Stradacon Penna is a quarry operation… that specializes in the production of… aggregate… recycled concrete product… specialty sands for the civil construction industry, see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 5 teaching another part of Penna’s larger vision of sustainability involves recycling construction and demolition waste materials for reuse as construction aggregate), the method comprising:
mixing a first material and a second material, wherein the first material is a natural raw material, and the second material is a recycled material; and washing the first material together with the second material in at least one washer (see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 7 to page 3 paragraph 1 teaching the coarse material screw washer accepts the C&D waste after it has been crushed and removes the lightweight debris and organic material from the aggregate before it is processed in the UltraWASH… with the… modular scrubbing system, Stradacon Penna is reducing the amount of soft plastics, timbers and papers that come in the crushed C&D waste feed… the aggregate product is then dewatered with a… Dewatering Screen and presented to the… UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates). C&D waste is construction and demolition waste as evidenced by Stradacon (see Stradacon at page 1, paragraph 1 evidencing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling is the process of recovering valuable resources from an array of inert waste streams otherwise sent to a landfill). C&D waste is taken to meet the claimed “second material… wherein… the second material is a recycled material”. Naturally produced aggregates is taken to meet the claimed “first material… wherein the first material is a natural raw material”. UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant is taken to meet the claimed “at least one washer”. The aggregate product presented to the UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates is taken to meet the claimed mixing a first material and a second material washing the first material together with the second material in at least one washer as evidenced by Stradacon (see Stradacon at page 4 paragraph 1 evidencing the recycled aggregate is then combined with the naturally produced aggregate and cleaned in the UltraWASH before being returned to the industry) because the wash plant performed the washing (or cleaning) the mixed aggregate in the wash plant;
feeding the first material and the second material to a processing plant… as a mixed material, wherein the at least one washer is in the processing plant (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 1 teaching the aggregate (or C&D) product is… presented to the… UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates). UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant is taken to meet the claimed “processing plant, wherein the at least one washer is in the processing plant”.
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.
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 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLanahan; as evidenced by Stradacon with respect to claim 25 only.
Regarding claim 22, McLanahan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, and McLanahan teaches further comprising establishing a mass ratio of the mass of the first material to the mass of the second material before feeding the first material and the second material to the processing plant (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 2 teaching Penn said… “We’re now producing aggregates… that are 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste…”). 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste is taken to meet the claimed limitations. MPEP states that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C). In this instance, there is no evidence indicating that the claimed “establishing a mass ratio of the mass of the first material to the mass of the second material before feeding the first material and the second material to the processing plant” is critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of McLanahan to choose the appropriate selection of the order of establishing a mass ratio of 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste.
Regarding claim 25, McLanahan teaches a method for producing a construction aggregate (see McLanahan at page 1 at Title teaching McLanahan Modular Wash Plant and Scrubbing System Help Stradacon Penna Recycle C&D Waste For Reuse… Case Studies, see McLanahan at page 1 paragraph 1 teaching Stradacon Penna is a quarry operation… that specializes in the production of… aggregate… recycled concrete product… specialty sands for the civil construction industry, see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 5 teaching another part of Penna’s larger vision of sustainability involves recycling construction and demolition waste materials for reuse as construction aggregate), the method comprising:
mixing a first material and a second material, wherein the first material is a natural raw material, and the second material is a recycled material; and washing the first material together with the second material in at least one washer (see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 7 to page 3 paragraph 1 teaching the coarse material screw washer accepts the C&D waste after it has been crushed and removes the lightweight debris and organic material from the aggregate before it is processed in the UltraWASH… with the… modular scrubbing system, Stradacon Penna is reducing the amount of soft plastics, timbers and papers that come in the crushed C&D waste feed… the aggregate product is then dewatered with a… Dewatering Screen and presented to the… UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates). C&D waste is construction and demolition waste as evidenced by Stradacon (see Stradacon at page 1, paragraph 1 evidencing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling is the process of recovering valuable resources from an array of inert waste streams otherwise sent to a landfill). C&D waste is taken to meet the claimed “second material… wherein… the second material is a recycled material”. Naturally produced aggregates is taken to meet the claimed “first material… wherein the first material is a natural raw material”. UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant is taken to meet the claimed “at least one washer”. The aggregate product presented to the UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates is taken to meet the claimed mixing a first material and a second material washing the first material together with the second material in at least one washer as evidenced by Stradacon (see Stradacon at page 4 paragraph 1 evidencing the recycled aggregate is then combined with the naturally produced aggregate and cleaned in the UltraWASH before being returned to the industry) because the wash plant performed the washing (or cleaning) the mixed aggregate in the wash plant;
establishing a mass ratio of the mass of the first material to the mass of the second material before feeding the first material and the second material to the processing plant (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 2 teaching Penn said… “We’re now producing aggregates… that are 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste…”). 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste is taken to meet the claimed limitations. MPEP states that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C). In this instance, there is no evidence indicating that the claimed “establishing a mass ratio of the mass of the first material to the mass of the second material before feeding the first material and the second material to the processing plant” is critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of McLanahan to choose the appropriate selection of the order of establishing a mass ratio of 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste;
feeding the first material and the second material to a processing plant; and wherein the at least one washer is in the processing plant (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 1 teaching the aggregate (or C&D) product is… presented to the… UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates). UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant is taken to meet the claimed “processing plant, wherein the at least one washer is in the processing plant”.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLanahan in view of Jang (KR 101429463 B1, with reference to the machine translation) (“Jang” hereinafter); as evidenced by Stradacon with respect to claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 1, McLanahan teaches a method for producing a construction aggregate (see McLanahan at page 1 at Title teaching McLanahan Modular Wash Plant and Scrubbing System Help Stradacon Penna Recycle C&D Waste For Reuse… Case Studies, see McLanahan at page 1 paragraph 1 teaching Stradacon Penna is a quarry operation… that specializes in the production of… aggregate… recycled concrete product… specialty sands for the civil construction industry, see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 5 teaching another part of Penna’s larger vision of sustainability involves recycling construction and demolition waste materials for reuse as construction aggregate), the method comprising:
mixing a first material and a second material, wherein the first material is a natural raw material, and the second material is a recycled material; and washing the first material together with the second material in at least one washer (see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 7 to page 3 paragraph 1 teaching the coarse material screw washer accepts the C&D waste after it has been crushed and removes the lightweight debris and organic material from the aggregate before it is processed in the UltraWASH… with the… modular scrubbing system, Stradacon Penna is reducing the amount of soft plastics, timbers and papers that come in the crushed C&D waste feed… the aggregate product is then dewatered with a… Dewatering Screen and presented to the… UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates). C&D waste is construction and demolition waste as evidenced by Stradacon (see Stradacon at page 1, paragraph 1 evidencing construction and demolition (C&D) recycling is the process of recovering valuable resources from an array of inert waste streams otherwise sent to a landfill). C&D waste is taken to meet the claimed “second material… wherein… the second material is a recycled material”. Naturally produced aggregates is taken to meet the claimed “first material… wherein the first material is a natural raw material”. UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant is taken to meet the claimed “at least one washer”. The aggregate product presented to the UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates is taken to meet the claimed mixing a first material and a second material washing the first material together with the second material in at least one washer as evidenced by Stradacon (see Stradacon at page 4 paragraph 1 evidencing the recycled aggregate is then combined with the naturally produced aggregate and cleaned in the UltraWASH before being returned to the industry) because the wash plant performed the washing (or cleaning) the mixed aggregate in the wash plant.
McLanahan does not explicitly teach wherein the second material comprises grain sizes less than 4mm. However, McLanahan teaches another part of Penna’s larger vision of sustainability involves recycling construction and demolition waste materials for reuse as construction aggregate (see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 5)… the coarse material screw washer accepts the C&D waste after it has been crushed and removes the lightweight debris and organic material from the aggregate (see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 7 to page 3 paragraph 1).
Like McLanahan, Jang teaches C&D waste aggregates (see Jang at [0006], paragraph 9 teaching the composition for manufacturing a concrete block… comprises crushed stone or coarse aggregate recycled from waste concrete having a particle size of 5 mm or more, sand or fine aggregate recycled from waste concrete having a particle size 5 mm or less). Fine aggregate recycled from waste concrete having a particle size 5 mm or less is taken to meet the claimed wherein the second material (or recycled aggregate, see claim 1 rejection) comprises grain sizes less than 4mm (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Jang also teaches it is desirable to include circular fine aggregate and circular coarse aggregate having the above particle size ranges in order to improve the void ratio, strength, hardness and flexibility when manufacturing a composition for manufacturing concrete blocks (see Jang at [0006], paragraph 11).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Jang teaches that fine aggregate recycled from waste concrete having a particle size 5 mm or less improves the void ratio, strength, hardness and flexibility when the aggregate is used for manufacturing concrete blocks, and seek those advantages by using fine aggregate recycled from waste concrete having a particle size 5 mm or less in the Stradacon Penna case study as taught by McLanahan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use fine aggregate recycled from waste concrete having a particle size 5 mm or less as taught by Jang in the Stradacon Penna case study as taught by McLanahan so as to improve the void ratio, strength, hardness and flexibility when the aggregate is used for manufacturing concrete blocks, there is a reasonable expectation of success that the selected particle size as taught by Jang is suitable, and normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding claim 2, McLanahan in view of Jang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and McLanahan teaches further comprising feeding the first material and the second material to a processing plant, wherein the at least one washer is in the processing plant (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 1 teaching the aggregate (or C&D) product is… presented to the… UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates). UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant is taken to meet the claimed “processing plant, wherein the at least one washer is in the processing plant”.
Regarding claim 5, McLanahan in view of Jang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and McLanahan further teaches wherein the first material and the second material are mixed… before… the washing of the first material together with the second material (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 1 teaching the aggregate (or C&D) product is… presented to the… UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates), which is taken to meet the claimed limitations as evidenced by Stradacon (see Stradacon at page 4 paragraph 1 evidencing the recycled aggregate is then combined with the naturally produced aggregate and cleaned in the UltraWASH before being returned to the industry). The recycled aggregate and natural aggregate are combined or mixed before washing or cleaning.
Regarding claim 7, McLanahan in view of Jang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and McLanahan teaches further comprising establishing a mass ratio of the mass of the first material to the mass of the second material before or during feeding the first material and the second material to the processing plant (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 2 teaching Penn said… “We’re now producing aggregates… that are 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste…”). 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste is taken to meet the claimed limitations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLanahan in view of Jang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghanbari et al. (Production of natural and recycled aggregates: the environmental impacts of energy consumption and CO2 emissions, J Mater Cycles Waste Management, 2017); as evidenced by Stradacon.
Regarding claim 4, McLanahan in view of Jang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned, McLanahan further teaches wherein the second material comprises at least one of fragments of… concrete (see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 5 teaching another part of Penna’s larger vision of sustainability involves recycling construction and demolition waste materials for reuse as construction aggregate). Construction and demolition waste materials is taken to meet the claimed limitation as evidenced by Stradacon (see Stradacon at page 1 paragraph 2 evidencing C&D materials… contains… a broken concrete).
However, McLanahan does not explicitly teach wherein: the first material includes at least one of fragments of rock or fragments of stone.
Like McLanahan, Ghanbari teaches a mixture of natural and recycled aggregates (see Ghanbari at Abstract teaching… production of recycled aggregate (RA) with respect to construction and demolition waste… the third scenario, which is a hybrid scenario, handles the combination of natural aggregates (NA) and RA). Ghanbari further teaches NA production (the first scenario) consists of three stages… in the second step, stone rubbles… the third step includes crushing, reducing the size, and converting the rubbles into aggregates (gravel and sand) (see Ghanbari at page 814, right column, paragraph 1), which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the first material includes at least one of… fragments of stone”.
Ghanbari also teaches the third scenario (the hybrid approach) acted as a solution… suggested the combination of NA and RA with a mixing ratio which depends on the usage of the aggregates (building, concrete, road construction, and pavement) and requires related experimental research (see Ghanbari at page 821, left column, paragraph 1)… the third scenario (the hybrid approach) is more acceptable due to saving energy consumption, reducing CO2 emissions, and taking technical-qualitative advantages of NA and RA (see Ghanbari at page 821, left column, paragraph 2).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Ghanbari teaches that the combination of natural aggregates (i.e., fragments of stone) and recycled aggregate (i.e., C&D recycled waste) saves energy consumption and reduces CO2 emissions, and seek those advantages by using fragments of stone as natural aggregate in the Stradacon Penna case study as taught by McLanahan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use fragments of stone as natural aggregate as taught by Ghanbari in the Stradacon Penna case study as taught by McLanahan because the combination of natural aggregates (i.e., fragments of stone) and recycled aggregate (i.e., C&D recycled waste) saves energy consumption and reduces CO2 emissions.
Claims 6, 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLanahan in view of Jang as applied to claim 1 and, claims 1-2 and 7, respectively above, and further in view of McLanahan (UltraWASH Modular Wash Plants, 08/13/2022) (“Module” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, McLanahan in view of Jang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned, McLanahan teaches the aggregate (or C&D) product is… presented to the… UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant to be added in with the naturally produced aggregates (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 1). But, McLanahan does not explicitly teach further comprising sizing the first material and the second material together using at least one sizer during or after the mixing of the first material and the second material.
Like McLanahan, Module teaches UltraWASH Modular Wash Plant (see Module at page 1 paragraph 1 teaching modular wash plants, such as the McLanahan UltraWASH, are assembled from containerized washing modules and produce up to five products, including three clean aggregate and two washed sand fractions). Module also teaches depending on the module, material will be fluidized and washed… sized… with washing equipment to remove any deleterious materials, dust or coatings, and reduce moisture content to produce a stackable product… you can create an entire wet processing plant to produce various types of aggregate and sand products… modules can be added and removed as the application requires, providing you with the flexibility to produce the highest quality products of any type of deposit (see Module at page 2 paragraphs 2-3). In summary, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Module teaches that raw materials subjected to the modular wash plants will be washed and sized to produce various types of aggregate products and there is flexibility in adding and removing modules as the application requires, which is taken to meet the claimed “sizing the first material and the second material together using at least one sizer”.
Additionally, MPEP states that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C). In this instance, the order of the claimed “the sizing the first material and the second material together during or after the mixing” is obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
As such, the claimed “sizing the first material and the second material together using at least one sizer during or after the mixing of the first material and the second material” is being treated as being taught by McLanahan and Module because the raw materials subjected to the modular wash plants will be washed and sized to produce various types of aggregate products and there is flexibility in adding and removing modules as the application requires; the order of the claimed “the sizing the first material and the second material together during or after the mixing” is obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; and it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of McLanahan and Module, to select the order of sizing of the first material and the second material.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12-13, McLanahan in view of Jang teach the limitations as applied to claims 1-2 and 7 above, and see claim 6 rejection based on Module as it is incorporated herein. McLanahan does not explicitly teach further comprising conveying the first material using a first conveyor and conveying the second material using a second conveyor before feeding the first material and the second material to the processing plant (claim 9), further comprising feeding the first material to a first feed of the first conveyor and/or feeding the second material to a second feed of the second conveyor (claim 10), wherein adjusting the mass ratio of the first material and the second material includes adjusting a first conveying velocity of the first conveyor and/or a second conveying velocity of the second conveyor (claim 12), and further comprising forming a mutual mass flow of the first material and the second material by discharging the second material onto the first conveyor or discharging the first material onto the second conveyor (claim 13).
However, as mentioned, Module illustrate conveyor belts (see Module at page 1 Figure). Module also teaches additional modules can be added as needed to create a complete wet processing plant that is flexible enough to meet any production needed (see Module at page 1 paragraph 3)… modules can be added and removed as the application requires, providing you with the flexibility to produce the highest quality products of any type of deposit (see Module at page 2 paragraphs 2-3). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in the modular wash plants, conveyor belts are utilized. As such, the claimed limitations recited in claims 9-10 and 12-13 are being treated as being taught by McLanahan and Module because it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of McLanahan and Module, to meet the claimed limitations as claimed in claims 9-10 and 12-13 based on the teaching of McLanahan and Module that additional modules can be added as needed to create a complete wet processing plant that is flexible enough to meet any production needed; modules can be added and removed as the application requires, providing the flexibility to produce the highest quality products of any type of deposit; and there is no evidence indicating that the claimed limitations are critical, absent new and unexpected results.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLanahan in view of Jang as applied to claims 1-2 and 7 above, and claims 23-24 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLanahan as applied to claims 21-22 and 25, respectively above; and further in view of Ghanbari and Hashimoto et al. (JP 2020007178 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Hashimoto” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 8, 23 and 26, McLanahan teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1-2 and 7, 21-22, and 25, respectively above, and please see, claim 4 rejection based on Ghanbari as it is incorporated herein. As mentioned, McLanahan teaches Penn said… “We’re now producing aggregates… that are 10% derived from recycled concrete from demolition waste…” (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 2). Additionally, McLanahan teaches conveyor belts (see McLanahan at page 3 Figure).
However, McLanahan does not explicitly teach further comprising adjusting the mass ratio of the first material and the second material such that a mutual mass flow of the first material and the second material includes 1 - 5% of the second material (claims 8, 23 and 26).
Ghanbari teaches the third scenario (the hybrid approach) acted as a solution… suggested the combination of NA and RA with a mixing ratio which depends on the usage of the aggregates (building, concrete, road construction, and pavement) and requires related experimental research (see Ghanbari at page 821, left column, paragraph 1)… the third scenario (the hybrid approach) is more acceptable due to saving energy consumption, reducing CO2 emissions, and taking technical-qualitative advantages of NA and RA (see Ghanbari at page 821, left column, paragraph 2).
Like McLanahan and Ghanbari, Hashimoto teaches aggregates (see Hashimoto at [0006] teaching the method for adjusting the aggregate particle size of concrete… comprises the steps of… preparing a combination of fine and coarse aggregates, the fine and coarse aggregates being mixed together… such that the 2.5-5 mm aggregate particles of the fine and coarse mixed aggregate are less than 10 weight percent), which is taken to meet the claimed “first material and the second material includes 1 - 5% of the second material” (claims 8, 23 and 26).
Hashimoto further teaches it is known that reducing bias in aggregate gradation improves fresh properties such as the workability of fresh concrete (see Hashimoto at [0002])… however, in reality, coarse and fine aggregate that fall within the gradation range by the JIS are purchased to be used as aggregate for concrete, which results in a valley in the gradation distribution near the boundary between the coarse aggregate and the fine aggregate… therefore, an object of the present disclosure is to provide a method of adjusting the aggregate particle size of concrete, which can achieve good fresh properties without causing valleys in the particle size distribution (see Hashimoto at [0006]).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
In summary, Hashimoto teaches that the mass ratio of the aggregate is important if the aggregate is used in concrete production. As such, the claimed “further comprising adjusting the mass ratio of the first material and the second material such that a mutual mass flow of the first material and the second material includes 1 - 5% of the second material” is being treated as being taught by McLanahan, Ghanbari and Hashimoto because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed limitation are critical, absent new and unexpected results, and the combination of natural aggregates and recycled aggregates requires experimental research which depends on the usage of the aggregates.
Regarding claims 11, 24 and 27, McLanahan in view of Ghanbari and Hashimoto teach the limitations as applied to claims 1-2 and 7-8, 21-22, and 25, respectively above, and as mentioned, McLanahan teaches conveyor belts (see McLanahan at page 3 Figure). Furthermore, McLanahan in view of Ghanbari and Hashimoto teach further comprising measuring a first mass flow of the first material using a first sensor and/or measuring a second mass flow of the second material using a second sensor (claims 11, 24 and 27), as outlined below.
Ghanbari and Hashimoto further comprising measuring a first mass flow of the first material using a first sensor and/or measuring a second mass flow of the second material using a second sensor (see Hashimoto at [0006] teaching the method for adjusting the aggregate particle size of concrete… comprises the steps of… preparing a combination of fine and coarse aggregates, the fine and coarse aggregates being mixed together… such that the 2.5-5 mm aggregate particles of the fine and coarse mixed aggregate are less than 10 weight percent, and see Ghanbari at page 815, tables 1-2 teaching conveyor belts as main equipment considered natural aggregates production plant and aggregate recycling plant).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that that in the production of both natural and recycled aggregates, conveyor belts are utilized and the mass ratio of the aggregates is important if the aggregate is used in concrete production. As such, the claimed “measuring a first mass flow of the first material using a first sensor and/or measuring a second mass flow of the second material using a second sensor” (claims 11, 24 and 27) is being treated as being taught by McLanahan, Ghanbari and Hashimoto because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed limitation are critical, absent new and unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discusses that McLanahan and Jang do not explicitly teach the claimed “the second material comprises grain sizes less than 4mm”… McLanahan teaches away from the claimed grain sizes because McLanahan states that the coarse material screw washer is built primarily to wash crushed stone and gravel, generally ranging from 10 mm (3/8”) to 100 mm (4”) and it is recommended that sand (generally minus ¼” or 6 mm) be screened out prior to using a Coarse Material Screw Washer, as finer material will cushion the washing action based on McLanahan website cited in Applicant’s argument (see Applicant’s arguments at page 6, paragraph 2 to page 7, paragraph 7).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes the Applicant’s arguments based on the cited website focuses on a washer to wash crushed stone and gravel, which is a preferred embodiment. Additionally, McLanahan teaches that “we’re very happy with the products coming out of the wash plant, and a key feature is the flexibility of the plant,” Penna said, referring to his ability to adjust material flows and split products with the UltraWASH’s flexible design (see McLanahan at page 3 paragraph 5)… additional modules can be added as needed to create a complete wet processing plant that is flexible enough to meet any production need (see Module at page 1 paragraph 3). Furthermore, Stradacon evidences that the first step in a C&D recycling operation is the dry processing of the material… this process includes the crushing and screening of large lumps of aggregate material in the C&D debris stream into smaller sizes suitable for construction use of further downstream processing (see Stradacon at page 1 paragraph 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that McLanahan provides its customers the flexibility they need to produce the construction aggregates they require.
As such, McLanahan is not teaching away from the claimed grain sizes for the second material, and McLanahan in view of Jang have reasonably met the claimed limitations as outlined in claim 1. The rejection for independent claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant discusses that McLanahan and Jang relate to different technical fields… McLanahan is intended to be installed underground, not for the manufacture of concrete blocks (see Applicant’s arguments at page 7 last paragraph to page 8 first paragraph).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that McLanahan teaches recycling construction and demolition waste materials for reuse as construction aggregates (see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 4), thus McLanahan and Jang relates to the same technical field. The rejection for independent claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant discusses that Jang is directed toward natural sand and not sand obtained from construction as naturally occurring (sedimentary) sand may have a round grain shape, but sand obtained from construction waste has an angular and uneven coarser grain shape… therefore, because the onsite processing of McLanahan does not have access to natural sand, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to the fine aggregate preferred in Jang to the use in the system of McLanahan (see Applicant’s arguments at page 8, paragraph 2).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that Jang teaches sand or fine aggregate recycled from waste concrete (see Jang at [0006], paragraph 9) and McLanahan teaches recycling construction and demolition waste materials for reuse as construction aggregates (see McLanahan at page 2 paragraph 4).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art" and “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references” (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP 2145.III and IV).
McLanahan in view of Jang have reasonably met the claimed limitations as outlined in claim 1. The rejection for independent claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant discusses that one of ordinary skill in the art understands that sand does not improve the flexibility, strength, or durability of a cement block… rather, sand in a cement mix functions as a chemical inert filler which does not contribute to the strength or durability… these properties are instead governed by the binder, such as Portland cement… and, the rigid sand particles act to restrict deformation of the cement matrix and promote brittle failure due to stress concentration at the interfacial transition zones, thereby reducing flexibility, strength, and durability (see Applicant’s arguments at page 8, paragraph 3).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that as stated in the MPEP, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) (see MPEP 2141.01(a).I.). In this instance, the reference Jang is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention), which relates to recycled aggregates. Thus, McLanahan in view of Jang have reasonably met the claimed limitations as outlined in claim 1. The rejection for independent claim 1 is maintained.
With respect to claims 4, 6, 8, and 9-13, Applicant discusses that Ghanbari and Stradacon do not cure the failure of McLanahan… McLanahan… Ghanbari and Hashimoto… to disclose or make obvious the subject matter of amended independent claim 1 from which claim 4… claims 6 and 9-13… claims 8 and 11, depends respectively (see Applicant’s arguments at page 8 paragraph 6 to page 9 paragraph 2).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that the rejection to independent claim 1 is maintained as outlined above. As such, the rejection to dependent claims 4, 6, 8, and 9-13 are also maintained.
Applicant discusses that McLanahan does not explicitly teach new independent claims 21 and 25 (see Applicant’s arguments at page 9 paragraph 3 to page10 paragraph 4).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that McLanahan has reasonably taught the limitations of independent claims 21 and 25, respectively, as outlined above; and the rejection to independent claims 21 and 25 are maintained.
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 MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731