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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1–18 are pending in this application, wherein claims 10–15 and 18 stand withdrawn with traverse.
Claim 3 has been amended to overcome the grounds of indefiniteness identified in the non-final office action dated 07 August 2025. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 3 is herein withdrawn.
Based on the arguments presented in the Remarks filed 22 October 2025 and the interview conducted 29 September 2025, the previous grounds of rejection are herein withdrawn. The new grounds of rejection put forth in this office action are not necessitated by amendment, so accordingly, this action is non-final.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 22 October 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on application number 17/998,728 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sautreuil et al. (US 2019/0276364 A1, hereinafter “Sautreuil”) and Li et al. (Composites Part B, 2019, 171, 34–45, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Sautreuil teaches a multi-component mortar system (see generally abstract), which is taught to comprise an A component and a B component, wherein the A component comprises a mineral filler which is selected from a group which includes blast furnace slag (see paragraph 0056 teaching slag, and see paragraph 0058 teaching slag as blast furnace slag, specifically present as a fine powder [i.e., granulated]). The B component is taught to comprise an alkaline initiator component selected from a group which includes alkali silicate (see paragraph 0042).
Sautreuil is silent as to the limitation wherein the alkali-silicate-based initiator component has a pH in a range of from 12.5 to 13.5. Li, however, explores the roles of various activators in alkali-activated slag cement (see Li, abstract), which is considered to be within the same field of endeavor as the present invention. Specifically, Li explores three activators individually and in combination, and one of the three activators is sodium silicate (see Li, Figure 1). Li teaches the properties of individual initiators and combinations of initiators in Table 2, specifically teaching a pH of 12.6 when the initiator is solely sodium silicate (see Li, Table 2, Example 3).This falls within the claimed range of 12.5–13.5, thus meeting the limitation. It is noted, however, that Li also teaches away from the use of sodium silicate alone (see Li, pg. 34, col. 1 describing “problems such as short setting time within 30 minutes”). In Table 2, Examples 6 and 7 use sodium silicate in combination with sodium hydroxide, and in combination with sodium hydroxide and sodium carbonate, respectively. These combinations achieve a pH of 13.5 and 12.8, respectively, which also fall within the claimed pH range. Furthermore, because claim 1 recites the composition as “comprising” the listed components, the inclusion of other alkaline initiators as taught by Li is still within the scope of the claim.
There is motivation to modify the composition of Sautreuil according to the teachings of Li. Sautreuil teaches a multi-component mortar system which can comprise blast furnace slag and a generic alkali-silicate initiator, as well as a generic alkali hydroxide (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0042). Li teaches the various properties attained for an alkali-activated slag composition, specifically using sodium silicate alone or in combination with other alkaline initiators. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that, in replicating the composition taught by Sautreuil, it would be necessary to look to outside references for more information regarding the alkali-silicate-based initiator component, as Sautreuil fails to teach any specific examples using this genus. As Li teaches sodium silicate in a comparable composition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient motivation to modify Sautreuil’s composition by using sodium silicate as an initiator, which has a pH of 12.6, or a binary mixture of sodium silicate with sodium hydroxide, which has a pH of 13.5. This modification arrives at the claimed invention, thus rendering claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sautreuil, as modified by Li, teaches the cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 1. Sautreuil further teaches the limitation of claim 2, wherein the system further comprises silica fume (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0055 teaching the A component and the B component as each comprising at least one filler, thus allowing for more than just the blast furnace slag cited in the above rejection of claim 1; also see Sautreuil, paragraph 0058 teaching the use of silica fume as a filler). Sautreuil further teaches the limitation of claim 3, wherein the system further comprises at least one filler selected from the listed mineral fillers (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0058 teaching quartz and fly ash, which are both in the claimed list).
Regarding claim 4, Sautreuil, as modified by Li, further teaches the limitation wherein the cementitious multi-component mortar system is a two-component mortar system (see Sautreuil, paragraphs 0017–0019 teaching the system as comprising an A component and a B component).
Regarding claim 6, Sautreuil, as modified by Li, further teaches the limitation wherein the alkali-silicate-based initiator component comprises an alkali-metal-silicate-based initiator component comprising an alkali metal silicate selected from a group which includes sodium silicate (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0042 teaching an alkali silicate initiator; also see Li, pg. 34, col. 1 teaching sodium silicate as “the most effective activator for [alkali-activated slag] in terms of strength and durability”; also see the above rejection of claim 1 regarding the motivation to modify Sautreuil to use at least sodium silicate as taught by Li).
Claims 5, 8, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sautreuil and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ellenrieder et al. (US 2011/0100262 A1, hereinafter “Ellenrieder”, previously cited).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Sautreuil, as modified by Li, teaches the cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 4, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the two-component mortar system comprises a powdered A component and an aqueous B component (see Sautreuil, paragraphs 0018 and 0019, wherein both Components A and B are taught to include water, making them both aqueous; Sautreuil therefore fails to explicitly teach Component A as powdered). Ellenrieder teaches a multi-component cementitious system wherein one component is powdered, comprising granulated blast furnace slag and silica fume, and the other component is an aqueous solution comprising potassium silicate (see Ellenrieder, paragraph 0053, Table, column M1 [potassium silicate is synonymous with potassium waterglass]). This composition overlaps with the teachings of Sautreuil (see the above rejection of claim 1, wherein Sautreuil teaches the use of granulated blast furnace slag and aqueous alkali silicate; also the above rejection of claim 2 regarding Sautreuil’s use of silica fume).
Notably, Sautreuil teaches the necessity of a set inhibitor in Component A to prevent the cementitious components from reacting with water (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0034), and further teaches that, if the solids content differs greatly between Components A and B, this may cause problems for homogeneous mixing of Components A and B (see paragraph 0068). However, Ellenrieder teaches that the solid components can be mixed into an aqueous activator component to achieve a homogeneous product (see Ellenrieder, paragraph 0051). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the two-component mortar system taught by Sautreuil can be modified as taught by Ellenrieder; by keeping Sautreuil’s Component A in solid form, there is no need for an activation inhibitor, and the solid Component A can be mixed with aqueous Component B as taught by Ellenrieder to achieve a homogeneous mixture. Such a modification is further supported by the fact that both Sautreuil and Ellenrieder describe multi-component alkali-activated cementitious systems comprising equivalent components, i.e., they only differ in whether or not the Component A is solid or aqueous. This modification arrives at the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites the cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 5, and further recites the limitation wherein the granulated blast furnace slag has a grinding fineness in a range of from 4,000 to 12,000 cm2/g. Sautreuil is silent as to the fineness of the slag, but Ellenrieder teaches the granulated blast furnace slag as having a grinding fineness of 2,000–10,000 cm2/g (see Ellenrieder, paragraph 0015; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges). Absent any evidence of criticality of the claimed range, Ellenrieder’s overlapping range is sufficient to render this limitation obvious.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Sautreuil, as modified by Li, fails to explicitly teach the limitations wherein the granulated blast furnace slag is present in an amount of from 1–50 wt.%, based on a total weight of a binder component, or wherein silica fume is present in an amount of from 1–10 wt.%, based on a total weight of a binder component (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0062 teaching slag as being a filler in Component A, and paragraph 0063 teaching Component A as having 30–78 wt.% of filler based on the total mass of Component A, not based on the mass of a binder; also see Sautreuil, paragraph 0066 teaching component B as having 65–86 wt.% filler based on the total mass of Component B, not based on the mass of a binder). Since Sautreuil fails to teach any explicit examples using slag or silica fume, it is not possible to determine if the proportions fall within the claimed ranges relative to a binder component (see Sautreuil, Tables 1–12 teaching various compositions of Components A and B, wherein Exalt and Ternal® LC are aluminous cement binders). Conversely, Ellenrieder teaches a composition which is considered to be a binder, and which is intended to be further mixed with aggregate fillers to produce a mortar composition (see Ellenrieder, paragraphs 0046 and 0047). Ellenrieder teaches the binder composition as comprising 10–50 wt.% of blast furnace slag (see paragraphs 0020–0021; note that “slag sand” is taught to be synonymous with blast furnace slag in paragraph 0015), and further comprising 1–70 wt.% of silica fume (see paragraph 0022; note that “microsilica” is synonymous with silica fume; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the prima facie obviousness of overlapping ranges). In both cases, these ranges are relative to the total mass of the binder component, which includes everything in Components A and B (see paragraph 0013 wherein the mixtures are referred to as “the binder system”). Thus, since Sautreuil teaches the use of these components without providing an example with which their relative proportions can be determined, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to follow Sautreuil’s procedure would be sufficiently motivated to look to Ellenrieder, who teaches a substantially similar composition with disclosed amounts of each component. By modifying Sautreuil’s procedure according to Ellenrieder, a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention, thus rendering claims 8 and 9 obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sautreuil and Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dakhane et al. (Adv. Civ. Eng. Matls. 2014, 3(1), 371–387, hereinafter “Dakhane”).
Regarding claim 7, Sautreuil, as modified by Li, teaches the cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the alkali-silicate-based initiator component is an aqueous solution of potassium hydroxide and potassium silicate (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0042 teaching the initiator component as being an alkali silicate, an alkali hydroxide, or mixtures thereof; see Li, Table 2, Example 6 teaching sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide as initiators; while Sautreuil teaches a genus that includes the potassium salts of the named initiator components, neither Sautreuil nor Li explicitly teach the potassium salts). Dakhane, however, teaches a comparison between sodium and potassium silicates as activators for alkali-activated slag systems (see Dakhane, abstract), which are within the same field of endeavor as the compositions taught by Sautreuil and Li. Dakhane teaches mortars activated with potassium silicate and sodium silicate to both have comparable 1-day compressive strengths, while potassium silicate achieves a higher 3-day compressive strength than sodium silicate (see Dakhane, pg. 377, Figure 3(b); specifically, this analysis is in regards to the samples marked K-Si 1.5 and Na-Si 1.5, which represent K2O·1.5(SiO2) and Na2O·1.5(SiO2), respectively).
Sautreuil teaches an object of the disclosed invention to be early development of compressive strength (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0122), especially for applications such as 3D concrete printing. Since Dakhane teaches sodium silicate and potassium silicate to achieve comparable compressive strengths after 1 day, but higher 3-day compressive strength for mortars made with potassium silicate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be sufficiently motivated to use potassium silicate as taught by Dakhane in lieu of the sodium silicate taught by Li. Since Sautreuil merely teaches the use of alkali silicates, either species is still compatible with Sautreuil’s disclosure. Furthermore, Dakhane’s Table 2 clarifies that the alkali initiator is an aqueous solution of alkali silicate and alkali hydroxide (see Dakhane, Table 2, wherein K-Si 1.5 is taught to comprise 196.3 g of potassium silicate, 32.4 g of potassium hydroxide, and 308.3 g of water). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention seeking to modify Sautreuil according to Dakhane, as discussed above, would be sufficiently motivated to utilize an aqueous solution of potassium hydroxide and potassium silicate, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sautreuil and Li as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Condelas Pons (WO 2017196163 A2, hereinafter “Condelas Pons”).
Regarding claim 16, Sautreuil, as modified by Li, teaches the cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 4, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the two-component mortar system is a two-component capsule mortar system. Condelas Pons, however, teaches a method of preparing capsules for multi-component cement, mortar and concrete systems (see generally abstract), wherein capsules containing additives are used to facilitate storage, dosing and mixing of components for cementitious systems (see paragraph 0004). Sautreuil already teaches a two-component system with defined compositions for components A and B (see Sautreuil, paragraphs 0018 and 0019), and further teaches a need to inhibit the activation of component A for days, months or years (see Sautreuil, paragraph 0034). Condelas Pons teaches a method of encapsulating cementitious components to facilitate storage over long periods of time. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, seeking to produce a composition according to Sautreuil and Li, would have been sufficiently motivated to incorporate the teachings of Condelas Pons, separately encapsulating Sautreuil’s Component A and Component B in order to facilitate storage over long periods of time. This modification arrives at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–9, 16 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants presented compelling arguments regarding the non-obviousness of the pH range in claim 1 and the resulting inapplicability of the previously applied Schwarz reference (see Interview Summary Record filed 01 October 2025 and Remarks filed 22 October 2025). Accordingly, new grounds of rejection have herein been presented which do not rely on Schwarz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 6:30-4:30.
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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731