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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/22/2025 has been entered.
Modified 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 18-28, 32 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (WO 2015/139121 A1), in view of Jin (CN 102134827 A), in view of Bury et al. (USP 8,258,210).
Regarding claims 18, 24 and 32
Shao discloses a process for preparing construction products (paragraphs 0002-0003), making landscaping products such as a paver obvious, comprising: i) mixing an aggregate, a binder comprising steel slag and water (paragraphs 0100-0101); ii) molding and compacting the mixture of step i) to a shaped product having an initial water to slag ratio (figure 3 and paragraphs 103 and 0130); iii) reducing the initial water to slag ratio of said shaped product ii) to provide a shaped product having a second pre-carbonation water to slag ratio (figure 3 and paragraph 136); and iv) curing the shaped product of step ii) or iii) with carbon dioxide (i.e. curable in the presence of carbon dioxide) to provide a block which could be used as a landscaping product (figure 3, paragraph 138).
Shao teaches that the steel slag comprises either electric arc furnace slag or basic oxygen furnace slag (claim 8).
Although Shao does not teach the use of an admixture mixed with the composition, Shao does disclose the other limitations of the claim. However, Jin teaches that a water reducer can be added to a slag cement in an amount of 1-1.5% (abstract and claim 1), and Bury discloses that in cementitious compositions water-reducing admixtures can be added to allow a reduction in the water used while maintaining flowability and workability of the mixture, leading to an increase in strength (column 1, lines 12-18). Bury further teaches that the water reducer is a polycarboxylate dispersant. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Shao by including a water-reducing admixture in an amount of 1-1.5 wt %, with a reasonable expectation of success, and the expected benefit of increasing the strength of the form product, as suggested by Jin and Bury.
With respect to the compressive strength this is a property of the composition. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § § 2112- 2112.02.
It is noted that the comprising language of the claims does not disallow for any additional ingredients.
Regarding claims 19-20
Shao teaches that the water to slag ratio may be greater than 0.2 (paragraph 0130).
Regarding claim 21
Shao teaches that the second pre-carbonation water to slag ratio is between approximately 0.08 and 0.10 (paragraph 0136).
Regarding claim 22
Shao teaches curing with carbon dioxide, where the carbon dioxide may be substantially pure CO2 (paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 23
Shao teaches that the curing reaction with CO2 is done at a pressure from 0.1 MPa to 0.5 MPa (paragraph 0138).
Regarding claim 25
Shao teaches that the steel slag has a cumulative calcium silicate content of at least about 20 % (claim 14).
Regarding claim 26
Shao teaches a fineness of fine slag pieces is greater than 150 m2/kg (paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 27
Shao teaches that the compaction pressure may be between 5 and 20 MPa. As the ranges overlap, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Regarding claim 28
Shao teaches a density of 2545.0+/-25.1 kg/m3 (table 4).
Regarding claim 38
Shao discloses the use of lightweight aggregate (claim 9).
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (WO 2015/139121 A1), in view of Jin (CN 102134827 A), in view of Bury et al. (USP 8,258,210), as applied to claims 18-28, 32 and 38 above, in view of Yao (CN-105948578).
Regarding claims 33-34
Although, Shao, Jin and Bury do not disclose the use of a water repellent in their cementitious compositions, they do teach or suggest the other limitations of the claim. However, Yao discloses a cementitious composition that comprises slag and a water repellent in an amount of 1-3 pts by wt (abstract and claims). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the prior art by using a 1-3 pts by wt of a water repellent with a reasonable expectation of success, and the expected benefit of making the cured composition more water repellent, as suggested by Yao.
Regarding claim 35
As the amount of Yao and the instant invention overlap, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (WO 2015/139121 A1), in view of Jin (CN 102134827 A), in view of Bury et al. (USP 8,258,210), in view of Yao (CN-105948578), as applied to claims 18-28 and 32-35 above, in view of Korneev (SU 1648921 A).
Regarding claims 36-37
Korneev discloses that a slag cement can have an air entraining additive or foaming additive added (abstract). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the prior art by including an air entraining agent in the slag cement of Shao, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Korneev, and the expected benefit of reducing the density of the formed material.
Further it would be obvious to add all three additives (i.e., water reducer, air entrainer, and water repellent) to the cementitious composition.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (WO 2015/139121 A1), in view of Jin (CN 102134827 A), in view of Bury et al. (USP 8,258,210), as applied to claims 18-28, 32 and 38 above, in view of Sullivan et al. (US 2011/0197980).
Regarding claim 39
Although Shao discloses the use of aggregate, Shao does not disclose the claimed aggregates. However, Sullivan discloses that concrete is made of an aggregate and cement, and that the aggregate can be limestone or granite (para 0002). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to add to the teachings of Shao by using limestone or granite as the aggregate, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by Sullivan.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections.
Applicants argue that the Declaration shows that slag cement is ground granulated blast furnace slag optionally mixed with cement clinker and/or ordinary Portland cement. This is not persuasive as the Declaration states that “such a pozzolanic cement includes a ground granulated blast furnace slag and/or iron slag, mixed with cement clinker and/or ordinary cement. However, the documents provided by applicants shows that slag cement is “a hydraulic cement formed when granulated blast-furnace slag is ground to a suitable fineness” As such the provided document discounts both the augments by applicants in the response and the declaration.
Applicants argue that Jin is directed to GGBFS and not steel slag. While this may be true it is not persuasive, as Jin teaches that a water reducer can be added to a slag cement, and Shao uses a slag cement.
Applicants argue that their product is carbonation cured. While this may be true so is the composition of Shao.
Applicants argue that Bury discloses a hydraulic cement. While this may be true it does not overcome the rejection as Bury givers reasons to added the components to a cementitious composition, and applicants have not shown that none of the expected benefits of adding a water reducer would be achieved.
Applicants argue that Jin does not contemplate any of the claimed steel slags. This is not persuasive as Shao was used to teach the steel slag, not Jin.
Applicants submit a declaration in an attempt to show that different admixtures may have different affects. The declaration has been fully considered but is not persuasive as it consist primary of opinion evidence which is given little weight, and there is no showing that the composition of Shao would not benefit from the addition of a water reducing agent. With respect to the arguments on the other additives, it is noted that the claims did not require all three components.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights