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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 06/22/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6-13, 15-19 and 21-24 are presently pending; claims 11-13 are withdrawn; claims 2, 4-5, 14 and 20 are canceled; claims 1, 21 and 23 are amended; claims 1, 3, 6-10, 15-19 and 21-24 are under examination.
The objection to claim 23 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-10, 15-19, 21-22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the rejection of claim 2 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, 19 and 23 over GRUN, claims 8 and 15 over GRUN in view of MARAILLA, claim 18 over GRUN in view of CADER, claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, 19, 21-22 and 24 over UNNO, and claim 23 over UNNO in view of CADER are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the rejection of claim 2 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3, 6-7, 9-10, 16-17, 19, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno, et al. (JP-04055600-A) (hereinafter, “UNNO”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a previous office action) in view of Ayusawa, et al. (JP-2018080092-A) (hereinafter, “AYUSAWA”; citations herein refer to the attached machine translation), with evidence from Alabadan, et al., "The Potentials of Groundnut Shell Ash as Concrete Admixture", Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal (hereinafter, “ALABADAN”) as to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, UNNO teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system (see UNNO generally at Overview, teaching a bolt-fixing inorganic capsule composed of cement housed in a container and a hardener separated from the cement) comprising:
a curable, powdery Portland cement clinker-based component A (see UNNO at paragraph 7, teaching that the cement component (i.e., component A) is Portland cement),
and an initiator component B in aqueous-phase for initiating a curing process (see UNNO at paragraph 8, teaching that the hardener component/curing agent (i.e., component B) is water),
wherein component B comprises water and, optionally, a plasticizer (see UNNO at paragraph 8, teaching that component B is water which can optionally be mixed with a water reducing agent, i.e., a plasticizer),
wherein component A and component B are present in a multi-chamber inorganic capsule (see UNNO at Overview and paragraphs 5-6, 11 and 13),
wherein the multi-chamber inorganic capsule is not in the form of a bag (see UNNO at paragraphs 4-6, teaching a glass capsule),
wherein component A does not include calcium-aluminate based cement (see UNNO at paragraph 7, teaching that component A can consist of Portland cement),
wherein component A comprises from about 20 wt.-% to about 99.5 wt.-% of Portland cement clinker, based on a total weight of component A (see UNNO at paragraph 7, teaching that component A can consist of Portland cement, i.e., an amount of up to 100 wt.-% Portland cement),
wherein (a) component A consists of Portland cement, a sulfate agent silica dust, and optionally a mineral filler, or (b) wherein component B consists of water and optionally a plasticizer (see UNNO at paragraph 8, teaching that component B is water which can optionally be mixed with a water reducing agent, i.e., plasticizer).
UNNO does not explicitly mention a sulfate agent present in a range of from 0.5 wt.-% to 6 wt.-% based on the total weight of component A; however, UNNO teaches that component A is Portland cement, and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) typically comprises about 4% calcium sulphate, as evidenced by ALABADAN (see ALABADAN at pg. 1, “Introduction” and pg. 2, Table 1). OPC is a very commonly used and well-known type of cement in the art, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Therefore, “Portland cement” in UNNO is taken to mean ordinary Portland cement, as no other less common type is specified, and as the selection of ordinary Portland cement as the Portland cement is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; therefore, component A of UNNO which consists of Portland cement comprises about 96% of clinker and about 4% of calcium sulfate, i.e., sulfate agent.
Although the recitation of “for chemical fastening of anchors, bolts, screw anchors, screw bolts, and post-installed reinforcing bars in mineral substrates” is directed toward an intended use of the multi-component system rather than being directed toward the multi-component system itself, and is therefore not interpreted as limiting the multi-component system, see UNNO at Overview and paragraph 1, teaching that the inorganic capsule is used for fixing an anchor bolt to a mineral substrate.
UNNO teaches that component A may further comprise an additive such as aggregates or a non-shrinkage agent, a rapid hardening agent, etc. (see UNNO at paragraphs 7 and 10), but fails to explicitly teach that component A further comprises silica dust.
AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system (see AYUSAWA generally at paragraphs 9-10) wherein the hydraulic component contains fine aggregates such as silica powder (i.e., silica dust) (see AYUSAWA at paragraph 46). AYUSAWA teaches that including a fine aggregate such as silica powder reduces shrinkage that occurs when the hydraulic paste is cured and prevents cracks from occurring in the hardened body (see AYUSAWA at paragraph 46).
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 multi-component system of UNNO by including silica powder (i.e., silica dust) as an aggregate/non-shrinkage agent in the hydraulic component (see UNNO at paragraphs 7 and 10) as taught by AYUSAWA (see AYUSAWA at paragraph 46). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing shrinkage and preventing cracks from occurring as taught by AYUSAWA (see AYUSAWA at paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein component A further comprises a mineral filler (see UNNO at paragraph 10, teaching that component A can include sand).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein the sulfate agent is calcium sulfate (see UNNO at paragraph 7; as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the sulfate agent is calcium sulfate).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein the sulfate agent is calcium sulfate dihydrate, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, or a mixture thereof (see UNNO at paragraph 7; as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the sulfate agent is calcium sulfate; calcium sulfate is inherently in the form of dihydrate, anhydrite, hemihydrate, or mixtures thereof).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein the multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system is a two-component inorganic capsule anchoring system, wherein component A is present in a first chamber of the multi-chamber inorganic capsule and component B is present in a second chamber of the multi-chamber inorganic capsule (see UNNO at paragraphs 5-6, 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 9, wherein the two-component inorganic capsule anchoring system is in a form of a glass capsule (see UNNO at paragraphs 5-6).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein component A and component B are separated from each other in the multi-chamber inorganic capsule to inhibit reaction (see UNNO at Overview and paragraphs 5-6, 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein component A and component B are separated from each other by walls or foil (see UNNO at paragraphs 5-6, 11 and 13; the components are separated by capsule walls).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein the multi-chamber inorganic capsule includes cartridges made of glass, plastic, plastic sheets, or ceramic (see UNNO at paragraphs 5-6, teaching glass, synthetic resin (plastic), or porcelain (ceramic)).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein component A consists of Portland cement, a sulfate agent, silica dust, and optionally a mineral filler (see UNNO at paragraphs 7-8 and 10, teaching that component A can consist of Portland cement, which comprises calcium sulfate as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and optionally sand; see AYUSAWA at paragraph 46, teaching silica powder).
Regarding claim 22, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein component B consists of water and optionally a plasticizer (see UNNO at paragraph 8, teaching that component B is water which can optionally be mixed with a water reducing agent, i.e., plasticizer).
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein component A is inorganic (see UNNO at paragraphs 1 and 7-8).
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNNO in view of AYUSAWA, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cader, et al. (WO-2018/189295-A1) (hereinafter, “CADER”), with evidence from Sika®, “Sika® ViscoCrete® & Sika® ViscoFlow® Solutions for Concrete Workability” (hereinafter, “SIKA”).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein component B comprises the plasticizer (see UNNO at paragraph 8, teaching that component B is water which can be mixed with a water reducing agent, i.e., plasticizer).
However, UNNO fails to explicitly teach that the plasticizer comprises polycarboxylate ether.
CADER teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system comprising a first component A comprising Portland cement and a sulfate agent and an aqueous initiator component B comprising water (see CADER at Abstract, pg. 4, lines 16-18 and 26-27, pg. 5, lines 6-8, and pg. 6, lines 10-18) wherein component A and/or B may comprise a dispersing agent/plasticizer, e.g., ViscoCrete® 510P, a polycarboxylate powder (see CADER at pg. 8, lines 12-13, pg. 10, lines 23-24, and pg. 20, lines 13-16), which is polycarboxylate ether plasticizer, as evidenced by SIKA; see SIKA at pg. 1-2).
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 multi-component system of UNNO in view of AYUSAWA by simply substituting the unspecified plasticizer with a polycarboxylate ether plasticizer as taught by CADER (see CADER at pg. 20, lines 13-16). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used a polycarboxylate ether plasticizer with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a suitable dispersing agent/plasticizer for the composition. Further, as evidenced by CADER and SIKA, polycarboxylate ether plasticizers are known plasticizers in the art, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 23, as applied to claim 1 above, UNNO in view of AYUSAWA teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1, wherein the sulfate agent is present in an amount overlapping with the claimed range of from 1.1 wt.-% to 5.4 wt.-%, based on a total weight of component A (see UNNO at paragraph 7, teaching that component A can consist of Portland cement, which contains about 4% calcium sulfate as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above), thereby rendering the claimed range obvious. UNNO also teaches that the cement component (component A) can further comprise sand (see UNNO at paragraph 10), but does not mention a specific amount.
UNNO does not explicitly teach that component A comprises from about 24.8 wt.-% to about 30.8 wt.-% of Portland cement clinker.
CADER teaches a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system comprising a first component A comprising Portland cement clinker and a sulfate agent and an aqueous initiator component B comprising water (see CADER at Abstract, pg. 4, lines 16-18 and 26-27, pg. 5, lines 6-8, and pg. 6, lines 10-18), wherein component A may consist of 20 to 40% by weight of Portland cement (CEM-I, i.e., OPC) and 50 to 70% by weight of sand (other components may optionally be included but are not required) (see CADER at pg. 5, line 19, and pg. 9, lines 1-10). CADER teaches that this mixture is a suitable component A for a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system which can be handled and stored safely and mixed with an aqueous component B to form a usable mortar having good fresh and hardened properties (see CADER at Abstract, pg. 2, lines 26-33, and pg. 4, lines 16-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of UNNO in view of AYUSAWA by including the sand in component A in an amount of 50 to 70 wt% and the Portland cement in an amount of 20 to 40 wt% as taught by CADER (see CADER at pg. 9, lines 1-10). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the components in these amounts with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a component A which can be handled and stored safely and can be mixed with an aqueous component B to form a usable mortar (see CADER at Abstract and pg. 2, lines 26-33; see UNNO at Overview and paragraphs 7-8).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, OPC typically comprises about 96% clinker and about 4% calcium sulfate; therefore, an amount of 20 to 40 wt% Portland cement would have a clinker content of about 19% to about 38% and a calcium sulfate content of about 0.8% to about 1.6%. These ranges overlap with and thereby render obvious the claimed ranges of about 24.8 wt.-% to about 30.8 wt.-% of the Portland cement clinker and from 1.1 wt.-% to 5.4 wt.-% of the sulfate agent. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Additionally, AYUSAWA explicitly teaches that the amount of fine aggregates (sand and silica powder) included in the hydraulic component affects properties of the composition and cured product such as shrinkage, heat generation and temperature rise, fluidity, setting time, crystal growth due to hydration, and strength of the cured product (see AYUSAWA at paragraphs 46-47); i.e., AYUSAWA explicitly teaches that the amount of the sand/silica powder is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. 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.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "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." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine experimentation and optimization, the amount of fine aggregate mixed with the Portland cement, including amounts resulting in contents of the Portland cement clinker and sulfate agent falling within the claimed ranges, in order to achieve desired properties of the hydraulic composition and cured product such as shrinkage, heat generation and temperature rise, fluidity, setting time, crystal growth due to hydration, and strength of the cured product as taught by AYUSAWA (see AYUSAWA at paragraphs 46-47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach nor would one of ordinary skill in the art have considered it obvious to make the multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system of claim 1 including 0.5 wt.-% to 6 wt.-% of a sulfate agent which is a mixture of anhydrite and hemihydrate.
The subject matter of claims 8 and 15 is allowable over the closest prior art, Unno, et al. (JP-04055600-A) (“UNNO”), for the following reasons:
As discussed in the rejection above, UNNO discloses a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system according to claim 1 (with the exception of the silica dust; however, as discussed above, the addition of silica dust is rendered obvious by the disclosure of AYUSAWA).
However, UNNO does not disclose or suggest a multi-component inorganic capsule anchoring system including 0.5 wt.-% to 6 wt.-% of a sulfate agent which is a mixture of anhydrite and hemihydrate; as discussed in the rejection above, the gypsum which is inherently included in ordinary Portland cement is considered to be the sulfate agent of UNNO, and UNNO does not disclose or suggest including a separate sulfate agent comprising anhydrite and hemihydrate, nor provide any suggestion as to an amount in which one might include a separate sulfate agent.
Therefore, it is clear that UNNO, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the subject matter of claims 8 and 15. The prior art as a whole fails to disclose or render obvious the subject matter of claims 8 and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/29/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references as set forth in the grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm 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 Orlando can be reached on 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights