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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/8/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1, 7-9, 16, and 20, cancelled Claims 3, 14, 15, and 17, and new Claim 21 in the response filed on 5/8/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references, Espinosa and Han, teach away from one another, such that a skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine Espinosa and Han to “optimize the concentrations of Espinosa et al.’s calcium aluminate cement.” Espinosa is directed to providing cementitious compositions with a prolonged setting time and increased workability for applications, like drilling well walls, that require long setting time. See, e.g., Espinosa at paragraphs [0018-0020].
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. While the Examiner recognizes that Espinosa and Han are directed to different workability time, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, the setting time is directed to the mineralogical phases in the calcium aluminate cement. Espinosa et al. recognizes that the mineralogical phase CA is known to be very reactive at ambient temperature when it is in the presence of water, that is why its mass fraction in the calcium aluminate of the cement is maintained less than or equal to 20% as a way to maintain long workability of the cement [0151].
Han was not relied upon to teach the calcium aluminate cement, but for the conventional hydraulic binders, aggregates, etc. that are commonly used in mortars, cement, concretes, etc. Note that while Han do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Han was used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the conventional additives/binders, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Kuosa discloses that “NFC refers to mechanically disintegrated products.” Id. Thus, a skilled artisan would understand that NFC is a different and distinct material from a natural cellulose fibre and natural cellulose pulp.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kuosa teaches that the term “nanofibrillar cellulose (NFC)” refers to isolated cellulose fibers and fiber bundles having a diameter in the submicron range [0021]. The celluloses utilized in NFC may be obtained from any cellulose raw material based on any plant material that contains cellulose ([0022] and [0023]). Therefore, Kuosa’s teaching of NFC reads on Applicant’s broad limitation of “natural cellulose fibres” and/or “natural cellulose pulp”.
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, 2, 4-8, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180208510 (“Espinosa et al.”) in view of EP 3100990 (“Han et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, Espinosa et al. teaches a cementitious composition comprising a certain proportion of calcium aluminate cement mixed with a Portland cement in Table 14. As shown in Table 14, the percentages give the weight of the calcium aluminate cement added with respect to the total dry weight of cement used. Specifically, Table 14 discloses calcium aluminate cement (Cement3) at 5 wt%, 8 wt%, and 15 wt% with respect to the total dry weight of the cement used. Thus, the complement for reaching 100% corresponds to the weight of Portland cement contained in the total dry weight of the cement ([0354]-[0359]). Cement3 is a calcium aluminate cement that comprises 55 wt% CA2, wherein C is CaO and A is Al2O3 ([0086], [0110], [0156], and Table 5).
While Espinosa et al. also recognizes that 0 wt% to 50 wt% of one or more other hydraulic binders are used (Abstract and [0183]-[0205]), Table 14 does not necessarily teach about 20 wt% to about 60 wt% of one or more other hydraulic binders.
However, Han et al. teaches a cementitious binder composition comprising 1 wt% to 40 wt% of a calcium aluminate cement and 0 wt% to 80 wt% of Portland cement (hydraulic binder). This cementitious composition may be formed into a mortar composition by the addition of granular materials and additives, such that the mortar comprises 10 wt% to 50 wt% of the cementitious composition and 50 wt% to 90 wt% of the granular materials ([0040]-[0051]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to optimize and use appropriate concentrations of other hydraulic binders in Espinosa et al. as claimed in order to produce a cementitious composition with desirable structural properties to the composition.
With regards to Claims 2 and 8, Espinosa et al. teaches the cementitious composition further comprise compounds other than the calcium aluminate cement, such as but not limited to granular materials, tobermorite modifiers, etc. ([0183]-[0205], [0482], and Table 25).
Espinosa et al. does not explicitly teach the cementitious composition further comprising the claimed material(s) and concentration(s).
However, Han et al. teaches a cementitious composition comprising 1 wt% to 40 wt% of calcium aluminate cement, 0 wt% to 80 wt% of Portland cement, 0 wt% to 20 wt% of calcium sulfate (tobermorite modifiers), and 0 wt% to 10 wt% of lime. This cementitious composition may be formed into a mortar composition by the addition of granular materials and additives, such that the mortar comprises 10 wt% to 50 wt% of the cementitious composition and 50 wt% to 90 wt% of the granular materials, wherein the granular material is sand ([0040]-[0051]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have Espinosa et al. include appropriate additives, such as 50-80 wt% of granular sand, in order to provide structural properties to the composition and be appropriately used in various building applications.
With regards to Claim 4, Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises C2AS, wherein C is CaO, A is Al2O3, and S is SiO2 ([0097]-[0098])
With regards to Claim 5, Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises equal to or greater than 80 wt% total CA2 and C2AS, based on the total dry weight of the calcium aluminate cement, wherein C is CaO, A is Al2O3, and S is SiO2 (Abstract, [0086], [0098], [0112], and [0113]).
With regards to Claim 6, please see paragraphs [0062]-[0070] and [0083]-[0099].
With regards to Claim 7, Espinosa et al. teaches the one or more other hydraulic binders is selected from Portland cement, fly ash, pozzolanic ash, blast furnace slag, silica flour, silica fume, metakaolin, lime, basalt, alumino silicate, pozzolan, or a combination thereof ([0183]-[0187], [0195], and [0359]).
Claim 10 is dependent on Claim 2, wherein the cementitious composition does not necessarily require blowing agents. Therefore, the prior art of record meets the scope of the instant claim.
With regards to Claims 18 and 19, Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises 50 wt% to 60 wt% CA2, wherein C is CaO and A is Al2O3 ([0086], [0110], and [0156]). Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises from 26 wt% to 32 wt% of C2AS, wherein C is CaO, A is Al2O3, and S is SiO2 ([0097], [0098], and [0157]). Therefore, the calcium aluminate cement comprises 76-92 wt% total CA2 and C2AS, based on the total dry weight of the calcium aluminate cement (Abstract, [0086], [0097], [0098], [0110], [0156], and [0157]).
Claims 9, 11-13, 16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180208510 (“Espinosa et al.”) in view of EP 3100990 (“Han et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20160257614 (“Kuosa et al.”).
With regards to Claims 9, 11-13, and 21, Espinosa et al. teaches its cementitious composition is realized by mixing calcium aluminate cement with water, put in place, and then heated ([0220]-[0223], [0238]-[0240], and [0245]-[0247]). Espinosa et al. further teaches that its cementitious compositions are autoclaved ([0381] and [0470]-[0477]).
Espinosa et al. does not teach a method of making an autoclaved cement product, such as a fibre cement board or autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC).
However, Kuosa et al. teaches autoclaved aerated concrete which refers to a cementitious material in which quartz sand, lime and/or cement is used as a binder. Typically aluminum powder (blowing agent) is used in an amount of 0.05 to 0.08% by volume [0033]. Kuosa et al. further teaches that 0.01% or more of nanofibrillar cellulose (NFC) is used as a gas-entrainment stabilizer ([0033]-[0037] and [0040]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate of an aluminum blowing agent and about 0.5 wt% to about 10 wt% natural cellulose reinforcing fibres and autoclaving Espinosa’s cementitious composition in order to produce an autoclaved cement product with improved gas/air pore, structure quality and/or stability and/or robustness of the material ([0037] and [0038]).
With regards to Claim 16, Espinosa et al. teaches the cementitious composition further comprise compounds other than the calcium aluminate cement, such as but not limited to granular materials, 0.5 wt% to about 8 wt% tobermorite modifiers, etc. ([0183]-[0205], [0482], and Table 25).
Espinosa et al. does not explicitly teach the cementitious composition comprising the granular materials, reinforcing fibres, and blowing agents with their respective concentrations.
Han et al. teaches a cementitious composition comprising 1 wt% to 40 wt% of calcium aluminate cement, 0 wt% to 80 wt% of Portland cement, 0 wt% to 20 wt% of calcium sulfate (tobermorite modifiers), and 0 wt% to 10 wt% of lime. This cementitious composition may be formed into a mortar composition by the addition of granular materials and additives, such that the mortar comprises 10 wt% to 50 wt% of the cementitious composition and 50 wt% to 90 wt% of the granular materials, wherein the granular materials is sand ([0040]-[0051]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have Espinosa et al. include the appropriate additives, such as 50-70 wt% of granular sand and about 0.5 wt% to about 8 wt% of calcium sulfate, in order to provide structural properties to the composition and be appropriately used in various building applications.
Kuosa et al. teaches autoclaved aerated concrete which refers to a cementitious material in which quartz sand, lime and/or cement is used as a binder. Typically aluminum powder (blowing agent) is used in an amount of 0.05 to 0.08% by volume. Kuosa et al. further teaches that at least 0.01 wt% of nanofibrillar cellulose (NFC) is used as a gas-entrainment stabilizer ([0033]-[0037] and [0040]-[0045]). Examiner notes that product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate about 0.01 wt% to about 2 wt% of aluminum blowing agent and about 0.5 wt% to about 10 wt% of natural cellulose reinforcing fibres in Espinosa’s cementitious composition in order to provide a cementitious composition with improved gas/air pore, structure quality and/or stability and/or robustness of the material ([0037] and [0038]).
With regards to Claim 20, please see rejected Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 16 above.
Claims 1, 4-7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180208510 (“Espinosa et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20040255822 (“Reddy et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, Espinosa et al. teaches a cementitious composition comprising a certain proportion of calcium aluminate cement mixed with a Portland cement in Table 14. As shown in Table 14, the percentages give the weight of the calcium aluminate cement added with respect to the total dry weight of cement used. Specifically, Table 14 discloses calcium aluminate cement (Cement3) at 5 wt%, 8 wt%, and 15 wt% with respect to the total dry weight of the cement used. Thus, the complement for reaching 100% corresponds to the weight of Portland cement contained in the total dry weight of the cement ([0354]-[0359]). Cement3 is a calcium aluminate cement that comprises 55 wt% CA2, wherein C is CaO and A is Al2O3 ([0086], [0110], [0156], and Table 5).
While Espinosa et al. also recognizes that 0 wt% to 50 wt% of one or more other hydraulic binders are used (Abstract and [0183]-[0205]), Table 14 does not necessarily teach about 20 wt% to about 60 wt% of one or more other hydraulic binders.
However, Reddy et al. teaches a cementitious composition comprising calcium aluminate cement and one or more other hydraulic binders, such as fly ash. The fly ash is included in the composition in an amount in the range from about 15 to about 50% by weight of the composition (Abstract and [0016]-[0021]), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range, based on a total dry weight of the cementitious composition. Examiner notes that product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and use appropriate concentrations of other hydraulic binders in Espinosa et al. as claimed in order to produce a cementitious composition that is appropriate for use in well applications.
With regards to Claim 4, Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises C2AS, wherein C is CaO, A is Al2O3, and S is SiO2 ([0097]-[0098])
With regards to Claim 5, Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises equal to or greater than 80 wt% total CA2 and C2AS, based on the total dry weight of the calcium aluminate cement, wherein C is CaO, A is Al2O3, and S is SiO2 (Abstract, [0086], [0098], [0112], and [0113]).
With regards to Claim 6, please see paragraphs [0062]-[0070] and [0083]-[0099].
With regards to Claim 7, Espinosa et al. teaches the one or more other hydraulic binders is selected from Portland cement, fly ash, pozzolanic ash, blast furnace slag, silica flour, silica fume, metakaolin, lime, basalt, alumino silicate, pozzolan, or a combination thereof ([0183]-[0187], [0195], and [0359]).
With regards to Claims 18 and 19, Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises 50 wt% to 60 wt% CA2, wherein C is CaO and A is Al2O3 ([0086], [0110], and [0156]). Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises from 26 wt% to 32 wt% of C2AS, wherein C is CaO, A is Al2O3, and S is SiO2 ([0097], [0098], and [0157]). Therefore, the calcium aluminate cement comprises 76-92 wt% total CA2 and C2AS, based on the total dry weight of the calcium aluminate cement (Abstract, [0086], [0097], [0098], [0110], [0156], and [0157]).
Claims 2, 8-13, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180208510 (“Espinosa et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20040255822 (“Reddy et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20160257614 (“Kuosa et al.”).
With regards to Claims 2, 9-13, and 21, Espinosa et al. teaches its cementitious composition is realized by mixing calcium aluminate cement with water, put in place, and then heated ([0220]-[0223], [0238]-[0240], and [0245]-[0247]). Espinosa et al. further teaches that its cementitious compositions are autoclaved ([0381] and [0470]-[0477]).
Espinosa et al. does not teach a method of making an autoclaved cement product, such as a fibre cement board or autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) comprising one or more reinforcing fibres.
However, Kuosa et al. teaches autoclaved aerated concrete which refers to a cementitious material in which quartz sand, lime and/or cement is used as a binder. Typically aluminum powder (blowing agent) is used in an amount of 0.05 to 0.08% by volume [0033]. Kuosa et al. further teaches that 0.01% or more of nanofibrillar cellulose (NFC) is used as a gas-entrainment stabilizer ([0033]-[0037] and [0040]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an aluminum blowing agent and about 0.5 wt% to about 10 wt% of natural cellulose reinforcing fibres and autoclaving Espinosa’s cementitious composition in order to produce an autoclaved cement product with improved gas/air pore, structure quality and/or stability and/or robustness of the material ([0037] and [0038]).
Claims 8 and 10 are dependent on Claim 2, wherein the cementitious composition does not necessarily require granular materials and/or blowing agents. Therefore, the prior art of record meets the scope of the instant claim.
With regards to Claims 18 and 19, Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises 50 wt% to 60 wt% CA2, wherein C is CaO and A is Al2O3 ([0086], [0110], and [0156]). Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises from 26 wt% to 32 wt% of C2AS, wherein C is CaO, A is Al2O3, and S is SiO2 ([0097], [0098], and [0157]). Therefore, the calcium aluminate cement comprises 76-92 wt% total CA2 and C2AS, based on the total dry weight of the calcium aluminate cement (Abstract, [0086], [0097], [0098], [0110], [0156], and [0157]).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20180208510 (“Espinosa et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20040255822 (“Reddy et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20160257614 (“Kuosa et al.”) and EP 3100990 (“Han et al.”).
The prior art of record teaches a cementitious composition.
Espinosa et al. teaches the calcium aluminate cement comprises one or more of C, CA, CA6, C3A, C4A3$, C12A7, CAS2, CS, C2S, C3S, C3S2, A3S2, C4AF, and C2A1-yFy, wherein C is CaO, A is Al2O3, S is SiO2, $ is SO3, F is Fe2O3, and y is 0 to 1 ([0062]-[0070] and [0083]-[0099]). Espinosa et al. further teaches the cementitious composition comprise compounds other than the calcium aluminate cement, such as but not limited to granular materials, tobermorite modifiers, etc. ([0183]-[0205], [0482], and Table 25).
Espinosa et al. does not explicitly teach the cementitious composition further comprising the claimed material(s) and concentration(s).
Kuosa et al. teaches autoclaved aerated concrete which refers to a cementitious material in which quartz sand, lime and/or cement is used as a binder. Typically aluminum powder (blowing agent) is used in an amount of 0.05 to 0.08% by volume [0033]. Kuosa et al. further teaches that 0.01% or more of nanofibrillar cellulose (NFC) is used as a gas-entrainment stabilizer ([0033]-[0037] and [0040]-[0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate from about 0.01 wt% to about 2 wt% of an aluminum blowing agent and about 0.5 wt% to about 10 wt% of natural cellulose fibres reinforcing fibres in Espinosa’s cementitious composition in order to produce a cement product with improved gas/air pore, structure quality and/or stability and/or robustness of the material ([0037] and [0038]).
Han et al. teaches a cementitious composition comprising 1 wt% to 40 wt% of calcium aluminate cement, 0 wt% to 80 wt% of Portland cement, 0 wt% to 20 wt% of calcium sulfate (tobermorite modifiers), and 0 wt% to 10 wt% of lime. This cementitious composition may be formed into a mortar composition by the addition of granular materials and additives, such that the mortar comprises 10 wt% to 50 wt% of the cementitious composition and 50 wt% to 90 wt% of the granular materials, wherein the granular materials is sand ([0040]-[0051]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to have Espinosa et al. include the appropriate additives, such as 50-70 wt% of granular sand and about 0.5 wt% to about 8 wt% of calcium sulfate, in order to provide structural properties to the composition and be appropriately used in various building applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785