DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/03/2026:
claims 1-2, 4, 6-15 are currently pending
claims 8-11 are withdrawn from consideration
claims 1, 6 and 13 are amended
previously presented 112d rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims
prior art grounds of rejection addressing newly amended claims applying Guynn and Sakamoto are presented herein
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guynn et al. (US 20190071354 A1), hereinafter referred to as GUYNN, in view of Sakamoto et al. (EP 1767564 A2), hereinafter referred to as SAKAMOTO.
Regarding claim 1, GUYNN teaches a method for increasing the workability (see GUYNN at paragraph [0126]: improving workability) of a binder composition comprising calcined clay, limestone, and Portland cement (see GUYNN at paragraphs [0126]: selecting an amount of hydraulic cement; select an amount of SCM; substitute a portion of the hydraulic cement with mineral fines; [0066]: the term “hydraulic cement” includes Portland cement; [0068]: SCM include calcined clay; and [0070]: the term “quarry fines” refers to fines of any mineral including limestone fines), the method comprising the step of adding an admixture comprising at least one polycarboxylate ether (PCE) (see GUYNN at paragraph [0106]: admixtures known in the industry can be included in cementitious compositions; such as superplasticizers (e.g., polycarboxylate ethers)) and at least one additive selected from the group consisting of sugar acids, sugars, sugar alcohols, and hydroxycarboxylic acids (see GUYNN at paragraph [0106]: retardants (e.g., hydroxycarboxylic acids and carbohydrates)),
wherein the binder composition comprises 50 mass parts of Portland cement, 20-50 mass parts of calcined clay, and 10-50 mass parts of limestone (see GUYNN at paragraph [0254], Table: Range: OPC 198.4-275.5 lb/yd3, GGBSF 156-198.3 lb/yd3, mineral fines 125-159.8 lb/yd3); GUYNN also discloses that SCM include materials commonly used in the industry as partial replacements for Portland cement in concrete, mortar, and other cementitious materials; examples include moderate to highly reactive materials with both cementitious and pozzolanic properties (e.g., GGBFS, Class C fly ash, and steel slag), moderate to highly reactive pozzolanic materials (e.g., silica fume and activated metakaolin), and low to moderately reactive pozzolanic materials (e.g., Class F fly ash, volcanic ash, natural pozzolans, trass, calcined shale, calcined clay, and ground glass) (see GUYNN at paragraph [0068]). Thus, based on the aforementioned disclosure of GUYNN, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized calcined clay as a substitute to GGBSF recited in paragraph [0254]. Additionally, GUYNN teaches that fines of any mineral, including waste or manufactured limestone fines (see GUYNN at paragraph [0070]). Therefore, GUYNN teaches a binder composition comprising 50-69 mass parts of OPC, 39-50 mass parts of calcined clay/GGBFS, and 31-40 mass parts of limestone/mineral fines, which overlaps with the claimed range;
wherein the binder composition additionally comprises calcium sulfate n an amount of 1-8 wt.-%, relative to the total dry weight of the composition (see GUYNN at paragraph [0100]: a supplemental sulfate source can be added, such as calcium sulfate hemihydrate (plaster of Paris), calcium sulfate dihydrate (gypsum), anhydrous calcium sulfate (anhydrite); when used, the amount of supplemental sulfate based on the total weight of cementitious binder (cement, SCM and mineral fines apportioned to the cementitious binder) can be about 0.1% to about 6%). GUYNN teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
While GUYNN discloses the cementitious binder comprising 65% of hydraulic cement, 25% of SCM, 10% of mineral fines (see GUYNN at paragraph [0126]), and teaches including the admixture such as superplasticizers (e.g., polycarboxylate ethers) and retardants (e.g., hydroxycarboxylic acids and carbohydrates) (see GUYNN at paragraph [0106]), GUYNN is silent with respect to the admixture added to the binder composition in such an amount that a weight ratio of the at least one additive to calcined clay is in the range of 1:580 to 1:100.
However, SAKAMOTO discloses that cement composition obtained by using a cement admixture containing a polymer in a specific range of parameters values has remarkably excellent dispersion (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007]). SAKAMOTO teaches that the disclosed polymer is characterized in that said polymer (P) comprises a constitutional unit derived from a polyoxyalkylene chain and a constitutional unit having a site derived from carboxyl group (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007, <vi>]: Chemical formulas 5-6). SAKAMOTO discloses that in use of a polymer for cement admixture, other additives may be contained in a cement admixture (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0094]). Additionally, SAKAMOTO teaches composition that needs two components of cement admixture (copolymers (A) and (B)) and retardant: the retardant can employ oxycarboxylic acids such as gluconic acid and citric acid, saccharides such as glucose, sugar alcohols such as sorbitol) (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0099 (4)]). SAKAMOTO discloses a ratio of polycarboxylic acid-based polymer to the total cement weight being preferably between 0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0102]); and as ratio of formulation of the cement admixture to the retardant, a weight ratio of copolymers to the retardant is in the range of 50/50 to 99.9/0.1 (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0099, (4)]). Finally, SAKAMOTO teaches that the cement admixture can be used by adding to a cement compositions which can include cement, limestone; and that even in a small ratio of water to cement, concrete holds a workability not disturbing ordinary use in a ratio of water/cement of 25% or less (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0100]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the cementitious binder composition of GUYNN based on the teachings of GUYNN describing that composition can include chemical admixtures (see GUYNN at paragraph [0106]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add admixture comprising polymer and retardant disclosed by SAKAMOTO to the composition of GUYNN since SAKAMOTO explicitly teaches that cement composition obtained by using a cement admixture containing a polymer in a specific range of parameters values has remarkably excellent dispersion (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007]), and that even in a small ratio of water to cement, concrete holds a workability not disturbing ordinary use in a ratio of water/cement of 25% or less (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0100]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that utilization of the amount of admixture disclosed by SAKAMOTO in the composition of GUYNN would result in the following ratio of additive to calcined clay (see GUYNN at paragraph [0126]: 25% of SCM): 1:125 to 1:5 (which overlaps with the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blended cementitious mixture of GUYNN by utilizing the amount of admixture disclosed by SAKAMOTO in order to obtain cement composition which has excellent dispersion.
Regarding claim 2, GUYNN as modified by SAKAMOTO teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one polycarboxylate ether (PCE) is one copolymer or a mixture of more copolymers, wherein each copolymer comprises (i) repeating unit A of the general structure (I) (see rejection of claim 1 above and SAKAMOTO at Chemical formula 6), and (ii) repeating unit B of the general structure (II) (see SAKAMOTO at Chemical formula 5), wherein
each Ru independently of one another is H or a methyl group (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007], <vii>: R1 and R2 each independently represents a hydrogen or a methyl group),
each Rv independently of one another is H (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007], <vii>: R1 and R2 each independently represents a hydrogen) or COOM,
each M independently of one another is H, an alkali metal ion or an alkaline earth metal ion (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007], <viii>: M1 independently represents a hydrogen atom, an alkali metal element, an alkali earth metal element),
m =0, 1, 2 or 3 (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007], <vii>: x represents an integer of 0 to 2),
p= 0 or 1 (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007], <vii>: y represents 0 or 1),
each R1 independently of one another is –[YO]n-R4, wherein Y is a C2- to C4-alkylene and R4 is H, C1- to C20-alkyl, -cyclohexyl or -alkylaryl, and n = 2-350 (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0007], <vii>: n represents an average addition number of moles of oxyalkylene groups being 1 to 300; and R3 represents a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group with carbon atoms of 1 to 20),
and wherein the repeating units A (constitutional unit II) and B (constitutional unit I) in the copolymer have a molar ratio A:B between 10:90 – 90:10 (see SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0042]: ratio of each constitutional unit composing the polymer by weight, constitutional unit (I)/constitutional unit (II) is 2 to 98 wt%/2 to 90 wt%). SAKAMOTO teaches molar ratio 2:98 to 90:2, which overlaps with the claimed range.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
191
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, GUYNN as modified by SAKAMOTO teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the calcined clay is metakaolin (see GUYNN at paragraph [0068]: “SCM” includes pozzolanic materials (e.g., activated metakaolin)).
Regarding claim 6, GUYNN as modified by SAKAMOTO teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the admixture is added to the binder composition in such an amount that a weight ratio of the at least one PCE to calcined clay is in the range of 1:580 to 1:300 (see rejection of claim 1 above and GUYNN at paragraph [0254[, GUYNN teaches a binder composition comprising 50-69 mass parts of OPC, 39-50 mass parts of calcined clay/GGBFS, and 31-40 mass parts of limestone/mineral fines; and SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0102]: discloses a ratio of polycarboxylic acid based polymer to the total cement weight being preferably between 0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less). Thus, GUYNN teaches a ratio of copolymers (as modified by SAKAMOTO) to calcined clay in the range of 0.25 to 10 wt% or 1:400 to 1:10, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, GUYNN as modified by SAKAMOTO teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one PCE and the at least one additive are added in a weight ratio of the at least one PCE to the at least one additive of 20:1 to 1:10 (see rejection of claim 1 above spanning paragraphs on pages 7-9 and SAKAMOTO at [0099, (4)]: a weight ratio of copolymers to the retardant is in the range of 50/50 to 99.9/0.1). SAKAMOTO teaches a ratio of the copolymer to the retardant of 999:1 to 1:1, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, GUYNN as modified by SAKAMOTO teaches a hardenable composition obtainable by a method of claim 1 (see GUYNN at paragraph [0221]: cast into molds, allowed to harden).
Regarding claim 13, GUYNN as modified by SAKAMOTO teaches a hardenable composition according to claim 12, wherein it comprises:
a binder composition comprising calcined clay (CC), limestone (L), and Portland cement (P) (see GUYNN at paragraphs [0126]: selecting an amount of hydraulic cement; select an amount of SCM; substitute a portion of the hydraulic cement with mineral fines; [0066]: the term “hydraulic cement” includes Portland cement; [0068]: SCM include calcined clay; and [0070]: the term “quarry fines” refers to fines of any mineral including limestone fines)) in weight ratios of P:CC from 33:1 to 1:1 (see GUYNN at paragraphs [0254], Table: Range: OPC 198.4-275.5 lb/yd3, GGBSF 156-198.3 lb/yd3, mineral fines 125-159.8 lb/yd3; and [0068]: SCM include materials commonly used in the industry as partial replacements for Portland cement in concrete, mortar, and other cementitious materials; examples include moderate to highly reactive materials with both cementitious and pozzolanic properties (e.g., GGBFS), moderate to highly reactive pozzolanic materials (e.g., activated metakaolin), and low to moderately reactive pozzolanic materials (e.g., calcined clay). GUYNN teaches P : CC ratio of 1.76:1 to 1:1, which is within the claimed range; the binder composition additionally comprising calcium sulfate in an amount of 1-8 wt.-%, relative to the total dry weight of the composition (see GUYNN at paragraph [0100]: a supplemental sulfate source can be added, such as calcium sulfate hemihydrate (plaster of Paris), calcium sulfate dihydrate (gypsum), anhydrous calcium sulfate (anhydrite); when used, the amount of supplemental sulfate based on the total weight of cementitious binder (cement, SCM and mineral fines apportioned to the cementitious binder) can be about 0.1% to about 6%),
wherein the binder composition comprises 50 mass parts of Portland cement, 20-50 mass parts of calcined clay, and 10-50 mass parts of limestone (see GUYNN at paragraph [0254], Table: Range: OPC 198.4-275.5 lb/yd3, GGBSF 156-198.3 lb/yd3, mineral fines 125-159.8 lb/yd3); GUYNN also discloses that SCM include materials commonly used in the industry as partial replacements for Portland cement in concrete, mortar, and other cementitious materials; examples include moderate to highly reactive materials with both cementitious and pozzolanic properties (e.g., GGBFS, Class C fly ash, and steel slag), moderate to highly reactive pozzolanic materials (e.g., silica fume and activated metakaolin), and low to moderately reactive pozzolanic materials (e.g., Class F fly ash, volcanic ash, natural pozzolans, trass, calcined shale, calcined clay, and ground glass) (see GUYNN at paragraph [0068]). Thus, based on the aforementioned disclosure of GUYNN, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized calcined clay as a substitute to GGBSF recited in paragraph [0254]. Additionally, GUYNN teaches that fines of any mineral, including waste or manufactured limestone fines (see GUYNN at paragraph [0070]). Therefore, GUYNN teaches a binder composition comprising 50-69 mass parts of OPC, 39-50 mass parts of calcined clay/GGBFS, and 31-40 mass parts of limestone/mineral fines, which overlaps with the claimed range;
at least one PCE (see GUYNN at paragraph [0106]: admixtures known in the industry can be included in cementitious compositions; such as superplasticizers (e.g., polycarboxylate ethers)), and
at least one additive selected from the group consisting of sugar acids, sugars, sugar alcohols, and hydroxycarboxylic acids (see GUYNN at paragraph [0106]: retardants (e.g., hydroxycarboxylic acids and carbohydrates)).
wherein the admixture is present in an amount that a weight ratio of the at least one additive to calcined clay is in the range of 1:580 to 1:100 (see rejection of claim 1 above and GUYNN at paragraph [0254[, GUYNN teaches a binder composition comprising 50-69 mass parts of OPC, 39-50 mass parts of calcined clay/GGBFS, and 31-40 mass parts of limestone/mineral fines; and SAKAMOTO at paragraph [0102]: discloses a ratio of polycarboxylic acid based polymer to the total cement weight being preferably between 0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less). Thus, GUYNN teaches a ratio of copolymers (as modified by SAKAMOTO) to calcined clay in the range of 0.25 to 10 wt% or 1:400 to 1:10, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, GUYNN as modified by SAKAMOTO a hardenable composition according to claim 12, wherein it further comprises water in a weight ratio of water to binder composition of between 0.1-0.6 (see GUYNN at paragraph [0107]: the w/cm can be in any desired value in a range of about 0.2 to about 0.7). GUYNN teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, GUYNN as modified by SAKAMOTO teaches a hardened body resulting from curing a hardenable composition according to claim 14 (see GUYNN at paragraph [0221]: cast into molds, allowed to harden).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a feature of claim 1 as amended: “the binder composition comprises 50 mass parts of Portland cement, 20-50 mass parts of calcined clay, and 10-50 mass parts of limestone” distinguishes the claimed invention over the cited references (see Remarks received on 02/03/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 7-8).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. While examiner agrees that previously recited embodiment disclosed by GUYNN describing a composition comprising 65 wt% cement, 25 wt% SCM, and 10 wt% filler (see GUYNN at paragraph [0126]) does not read on the limitations of the amended claim 1, it is noted that the previously cited binder composition described by GUYNN in paragraph [0126] was just one of the multiple embodiments disclosed by GUYNN. In paragraph [0209] GUYNN also discloses the examples where 25-50% of the OPC normally contained in concrete was replaced with various SCMs and mineral fines. Furthermore, as was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, GUYNN explicitly teaches a binder composition comprising 50-69 mass parts of OPC, 39-50 mass parts of calcined clay/GGBFS, and 31-40 mass parts of limestone/mineral fines (see GUYNN at paragraph [0254], Table: Range: OPC 198.4-275.5 lb/yd3, GGBSF 156-198.3 lb/yd3, mineral fines 125-159.8 lb/yd3). It is noted, that MPEP §2123(I) states: “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized calcined clay as a substitute to GGBSF based on GUYNN’s disclosure that SCM include materials commonly used in the industry as partial replacements for Portland cement in concrete, mortar, and other cementitious materials; examples include moderate to highly reactive materials with both cementitious and pozzolanic properties (e.g., GGBFS, Class C fly ash, and steel slag), moderate to highly reactive pozzolanic materials (e.g., silica fume and activated metakaolin), and low to moderately reactive pozzolanic materials (e.g., Class F fly ash, volcanic ash, natural pozzolans, trass, calcined shale, calcined clay, and ground glass) (see GUYNN at paragraph [0068]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the feature upon which Applicant relies (i.e., slump keeping properties) is not recited in the rejected claim (see Remarks received on 02/03/2026 spanning paragraphs on page 8).
Therefore, the rejection of claims as being unpatentable over GUYNN and SAKAMOTO is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights