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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 11/18/2025:
claims 1-2, 4-8 and 10-12 are currently pending
claims 1, 6-7 and 12 are amended
prior art grounds of rejection applying Campbell, Monawar, ASTM C33/C33-18, Boutouil and D’Avela 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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0141907 A1), hereinafter referred to as CAMPBELL, in view of Monawar et al. (US 20030041783 A1), hereinafter referred to as MONAWAR.
Regarding claim 1, CAMPBELL teaches a composition (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0001]: cementitious flowing floor screed) comprising:
a cementitious binding material includes a mixture of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and fly ash (FA), wherein the concentration of the FA in the mixture is no more than 5 wt. % (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0012]: binder comprising at least one of the Portland cement, …, pulverized fuel ash/fly ash, … or a combination of two or more thereof, and Table 1: Portland cement 0%-100%, pulverized fly ash 0%-100%); CAMPBELL teaches a mixture of Portland cement and pulverized fly ash, wherein the concentration of fly ash overlaps with 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);
coarse aggregate, wherein at least 90 percent of the coarse aggregate has a diameter of less than approximately 10 mm (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: aggregate (5 mm-12 mm): 0%-100%), CAMPBELL teaches that aggregate can have size less than 10 mm, thus, indicating that the disclosed composition comprises more than 90% of the coarse aggregate having a size of less than 10 mm. Please note, for the purpose of claim interpretation, the Examiner treats limitation “diameter” as referring to an average particle size;
fine aggregate having a diameter of approximately 0.75 to 4.75 mm (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: sand (0.5 mm-5 mm): 0%-100%);
glass powder having a diameter of less than approximately 75 microns (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: recycled glass powder (less than 0.5 mm): 0%-100%);
water (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0010]); and
plasticizer (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0024]);
wherein a ratio of water to cementitious binder material is 0.2 to 0.5 by weight (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: cement: 20%-100%, water: 10% to 20%); the ratio is calculated to be 0.1 to 1 (10%/100% and 20%/20%). CAMPBELL teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range;
wherein a ratio of coarse plus fine aggregate to cementitious binder material is 2 to 6 by weight (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: recycled glass 16%-75%, cement 20%-100%); the ratio of coarse and fine aggregate was calculated to be 0.16 to 3.75 (16%/100% and 75%/20%). CAMPBELL teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range;
wherein a ratio of fine aggregate to coarse aggregate is 2 to 5 by weight (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: aggregate (5 mm-12 mm): 0%-100%), sand (0.5 mm-5 mm): 0%-100%); CAMPBELL teaches the ratio of fine aggregate/sand to coarse aggregate of 0 to 100, which overlaps with the claimed range.
While CAMPBELL fails to explicitly teach an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block, it is noted that the recitation “an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block” is an intended use limitation and not a positive claim limitation as the claim is drawn to a composition that may be used to form an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block.
While CAMPBELL is silent with respect to a dry density of formed paving blocks from the composition being 1800-2200 kg/m3, CAMPBELL teaches all structural limitations of claim 1 as set forth and thus, the property such as claimed density is inherently disclosed. See MPEP §2112.01(I): “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best”.
It is noted, that CAMPBELL discloses cementitious composition comprising glass powder (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: recycled glass powder), and while CAMPBELL is silent with respect to the glass powder permitting a reduction in cement content of the composition, creating a pozzolanic reaction with calcium hydroxide in the composition to form calcium silicate hydrates, which immobilize free calcium ions inside the composition, preventing efflorescence formation, according to MPEP §2112.01(I): “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” Furthermore, pozzolanic properties of glass powder are evidenced from the disclosure of MONAWAR describing a cementitious composition that comprises cement and glass powder (see MONAWAR at paragraph [0008]), and disclosing that by functioning as a pozzolan, the glass powder can also perform the extremely important function of consuming excess calcium hydroxide in the cementitious composition (see MONAWAR at paragraph [0014]). Therefore, based on the aforementioned disclosure of MONAWAR and CAMPBELL’s description of a cementitious composition comprising glass powder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the composition of CAMPBELL would have the same properties or functions as set forth in claim 1, such as creating a pozzolanic reaction with calcium hydroxide in the composition to form calcium silicate hydrates.
Regarding claim 4, CAMPBELL as modified by MONAWAR teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the glass powder is recycled glass powder (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: recycled glass powder).
Regarding claim 5, CAMPBELL as modified by MONAWAR teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein a ratio of water to cementitious binder material is 0.3 to 0.35 by weight (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: cement: 20%-100%, water: 10% to 20%); the ratio is calculated to be 0.1 to 1 (10%/100% and 20%/20%). CAMPBELL teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL in view of MONAWAR in view of ASTM C33/C33-18, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, retrieved from https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/116020/4219e665765a45849324f9b4c9206c9f/ASTM-C33-C33M-23.pdf on 04/21/2025, hereinafter referred to as C33-18.
Regarding claim 2, CAMPBELL as modified by MONAWAR teaches the composition of claim 1, but is silent with respect to the fine aggregates having 40-50% of a particle size within the range of 1.18-2.36 mm and 30-40% of a particle size within the range of 0.3-0.6 mm.
However, C33-18 discloses the requirements for grading and quality of fine and coarse aggregate for use in concrete (see C33-18 at paragraph 1.1). C33-18 also discloses that those responsible for selecting the proportions for the concrete mixture shall have the responsibility of determining the proportions of fine and coarse aggregate (see C33-18 at paragraph 1.3). Additionally, C33-18 teaches that fine aggregate shall consist of natural sand, manufactured sand, or other recycled aggregate, or a combination thereof (see C33-18 at paragraph 5.1). Finally, C33-18 discloses grading requirements for fine aggregate (see C33-18 at Table 1); according to Table 1, the fine aggregates have 5-60% percent passing within the range of 300 µm/0.3 mm to 600 µm/0.6 mm and 50-100% percent passing within the range of 1.18 mm to 2.36 mm. Thus, the fine aggregates have around 40-45% of a particle size 1.18 mm to 2.36 mm and 5-60% of a particle size of 0.3mm to 0.6 mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of fine aggregate would have 5-60% percent passing within the range of 300 µm/0.3 mm to 600 µm/0.6 mm and 50-100% percent passing within the range of 1.18 mm to 2.36 mm since it is known in the art based on standard specification described in C33-18 (see C33-18 at Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the recycled fine aggregate of CAMPBELL with around 40-45% of a particle size of 1.18 mm to 2.36 mm and 5-60% of a particle size of 0.3mm to 0.6 mm according to the standards described on C33-18. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a suitable particle sizes within ranges known in the art, which were required but not disclosed in CAMPBELL.
Claims 7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL in view of MONAWAR and D’Avela et al. (US 10662121 B1), hereinafter referred to as D’AVELA.
Regarding claim 7, CAMPBELL teaches a composition (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0001]: cementitious flowing floor screed) comprising:
a cementitious binding material includes a mixture of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and fly ash (FA), wherein the concentration of the FA in the mixture is no more than 5 wt. % (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0012]: binder comprising at least one of the Portland cement, …, pulverized fuel ash/fly ash, … or a combination of two or more thereof, and Table 1: Portland cement 0%-100%, pulverized fly ash 0%-100%); CAMPBELL teaches a mixture of Portland cement and pulverized fly ash, wherein the concentration of fly ash overlaps with the claimed range.;
coarse aggregate having a diameter of less than approximately 10 mm in an amount from 10 to 15 wt. percent (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: aggregate (5 mm-12 mm): 0%-100%), CAMPBELL teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range;
fine aggregate having a diameter of approximately 0.75 to 4.75 mm in an amount from 32 to 39 wt. % (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: sand (0.5 mm-5 mm): 0%-100%), CAMPBELL teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range;
glass powder having a diameter of less than approximately 75 microns in an amount from 17 to 23 wt. % (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: recycled glass powder (less than 0.5 mm): 0%-100%), CAMPBELL teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range;
plasticizer (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0024]);
While CAMPBELL fails to explicitly teach an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block, it is noted that the recitation “an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block” is an intended use limitation and not a positive claim limitation as the claim is drawn to a composition that may be used to form an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block.
While CAMPBELL is silent with respect to a dry density of formed paving blocks from the composition being 1800-2200 kg/m3, CAMPBELL teaches all structural limitations of claim 1 as set forth and thus, the property such as claimed density is inherently disclosed. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
While CAMPBELL teaches a ratio of water to cementitious binder material from 0.1 to 1 (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: cement: 20%-100%, water: 10% to 20%), CAMPBELL fails to explicitly teach water in an amount of 6 to 9 wt. %.
However, D’AVELA teaches that in the production of precast concrete products (e.g., such as precast concrete blocks), the concrete is discharged into molds (for shaping the blocks) while the concrete mixture is still loose and “fresh”, it is desirable to minimize time that the concrete must remain in the mold before it is sufficiently hardened such that it will not “slump” when removed from the mold; thus, the concrete mixture can sometimes be provided into the mold as a “zero-slump concrete” or “near-zero slump concrete,” which has a sufficiently high consistency and/or set time to allow forming into unit configurations such as by a block-making machine (see D’AVELA at Col. 1, lines 60-67 – Col. 2, lines 1-3). D’AVELA discloses that in a traditional zero-slump to near-zero-slump concrete mixing method for a normal weight density mix, the water-cement ratio may be traditionally minimized to an approximately range between 0.35 to 0.50 by weight so as to ensure desired formability, strength, and aesthetic properties, and that there are usually narrow limits to how much water a certain mix can accept in a traditional mixing process before undesirable properties appear (see D’AVELA at Col. 2, lines 59-63). D’AVELA also teaches that excess moisture may also result in a need for longer residence time in the mold and/or undesired slumping or deforming of the concrete products after the mold, longer curing time, increased curing energy burdens and strength reduction (see D’AVELA at Col. 3, lines 17-22).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential need to improve the
composition of CAMPBELL by adjusting the amount of water as disclosed by D’AVELA since D’AVELA explicitly teaches that that excess moisture may also result in a need for longer residence time in the mold and/or undesired slumping or deforming of the concrete products after the mold, longer curing time, increased curing energy burdens and strength reduction (see D’AVELA at Col. 3, lines 17-22). 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" (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
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 composition of CAMPBELL by adjusting amount of water to be within the claimed range to reap the benefits of lowering the amount of water as disclosed by D’AVELA such as avoiding undesired slumping or deforming of the concrete products after the mold, longer curing time, increased curing energy burdens and strength reduction.
It is noted, that CAMPBELL discloses cementitious composition comprising glass powder (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: recycled glass powder), and while CAMPBELL is silent with respect to the glass powder permitting a reduction in cement content of the composition, creating a pozzolanic reaction with calcium hydroxide in the composition to form calcium silicate hydrates, which immobilize free calcium ions inside the composition, preventing efflorescence formation, according to MPEP §2112.01(I): “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” Furthermore, pozzolanic properties of glass powder are evidenced from the disclosure of MONAWAR describing a cementitious composition that comprises cement, glass powder (see MONAWAR at paragraph [0008]), and disclosing that by functioning as a pozzolan, the glass powder can also perform the extremely important function of consuming excess calcium hydroxide in the cementitious composition (see MONAWAR at paragraph [0014]). Therefore, based on the aforementioned disclosure of MONAWAR and CAMPBELL’s description of a cementitious composition comprising glass powder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the composition of CAMPBELL would have the same properties or functions as set forth in claim 1, such as creating a pozzolanic reaction with calcium hydroxide in the composition to form calcium silicate hydrates.
Regarding claim 10, CAMPBELL as modified by MONAWAR and D’AVELA teaches the composition of claim 7, wherein the glass powder is recycled glass powder (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: recycled glass powder).
Regarding claim 11, CAMPBELL as modified by MONAWAR and D’AVELA teaches the composition of claim 7, wherein a ratio of water to cementitious binder material is 0.3 to 0.35 by weight (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: cement: 20%-100%, water: 10% to 20%); the ratio was calculated to be 0.1 to 1 (10%/100% and 20%/20%). CAMPBELL teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL in view of MONAWAR and D’AVELA as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of C33-18.
Regarding claim 8, CAMPBELL as modified by MONAWAR and D’AVELA teaches the composition of claim 7, but is silent with respect to the fine aggregates having 40-50% of a particle size within the range of 1.18-2.36 mm and 30-40% of a particle size within the range of 0.3-0.6 mm.
However, C33-18 discloses the requirements for grading and quality of fine and coarse aggregate for use in concrete (see C33-18 at paragraph 1.1). Additionally, C33-18 teaches that fine aggregate shall consist of natural sand, manufactured sand, or other recycled aggregate, or a combination thereof (see C33-18 at paragraph 5.1). Finally, C33-18 discloses grading requirements for fine aggregate (see C33-18 at Table 1); according to Table 1, the fine aggregates have 5-60% percent passing within the range of 300 µm/0.3 mm to 600 µm/0.6 mm and 50-100% percent passing within the range of 1.18 mm to 2.36 mm. Thus, the fine aggregates have around 40-45% of a particle size 1.18 mm to 2.36 mm and 5-60% of a particle size of 0.3mm to 0.6 mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of fine aggregate would have 5-60% percent passing within the range of 300 µm/0.3 mm to 600 µm/0.6 mm and 50-100% percent passing within the range of 1.18 mm to 2.36 mm since it is known in the art based on standard specification described in C33-18 (see C33-18 at Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the recycled fine aggregate of CAMPBELL with around 40-45% of a particle size of 1.18 mm to 2.36 mm and 5-60% of a particle size of 0.3mm to 0.6 mm according to the standards described on C33-18. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a suitable particle sizes within ranges known in the art, which were required but not disclosed in CAMPBELL.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present invention is directed to an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block composition, whereas CAMPBELL discloses a composition comprising recycled glass powder and a cementitious binder; it is emphasized that CAMPBELL pertains specifically to flowing screeds-not to concrete paving blocks (see Remarks received on 11/18/2025 at first paragraph on page 6).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. Claims 1 is drawn to the cementitious composition that is used to form an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block, thus, the recitation “an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block” is an intended use limitation and not a positive claim limitation as set forth. Furthermore, according to MPEP §2112.01(I): “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the composition of CAMPBELL can be used to form an efflorescence-resistant concrete paving block. Moreover, the applicability of a cementitious composition to forming both screeds and paving blocks as known in the art, as evidenced from the disclosure of BOUTOUIL describing that the concrete composition applicable for the manufacture of screeds can also be utilized to form blocks such as paving stones (see BOUTOUIL at paragraph [0003], paragraph on pages 2-3), as was discussed in the Office Action mailed on 08/28/2025 on page 7.
Applicant argues that CAMPBELL does not teach or suggest that the overall concentration of fly ash in the total mixture could be as low as 5 wt.% or less (see Remarks received on 11/18/2025 spanning paragraphs on page 6).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. While CAMPBELL states that "preferably, an alternative embodiment of a screed according to the present invention comprises a pulverized fuel ash powder filler. More preferably, this embodiment of the screed comprises about 10% to about 40%, more preferably from about 10% to about 35% pulverized fuel ash powder filler" (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0020]), according to MPEP §2123 (II): “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)”. CAMPBELL discloses binder comprising at least one of the Portland cement, pulverized fuel ash/fly ash or a combination of two or more thereof (see CAMPBELL at paragraph [0012]), and that Portland cement and fly ash can be present in the mixture in the ranges 20%-100% (Portland cement) and 0%-80% (fly ash) (see CAMPBELL at Table 1). Thus, CAMPBELL discloses that the composition that can comprise Portland cement and fly ash, wherein the concentration of fly ash can be less than 5 wt. %.
Applicant argues that CAMPBELL fails to disclose or suggest the use of ultrafine glass powder (<75 µm) for efflorescence suppression through a pozzolanic reaction (see Remarks received on 11/18/2025 at first paragraph on p. 7).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above, CAMPBELL discloses cementitious composition comprising glass powder (see CAMPBELL at Table 1: recycled glass powder). MPEP §2112(III) states: “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103”. Furthermore, the pozzolanic reactivity of glass powder is known in the art as evidenced from the disclosure of MONAWAR describing a cementitious composition that comprises cement, glass powder (see MONAWAR at paragraph [0008]), and disclosing that by functioning as a pozzolan, the glass powder can also perform the extremely important function of consuming excess calcium hydroxide in the cementitious composition (see MONAWAR at paragraph [0014]). Therefore, based on the aforementioned disclosure of MONAWAR and CAMPBELL’s description of a cementitious composition comprising the same constituents as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the products formed from the composition of CAMPBELL would have the same properties or functions such as efflorescence suppression (see MPEP §2112.01(I): “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”).
Therefore, the rejection of claims as being unpatentable over CAMPBELL 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