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Claims 1–18 are pending in this application, wherein claims 10–15 and 18 are withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended recite granulated blast-furnace slag and alkali-silicate-based initiator component as parts of “Component A” and “Component B”, respectively.
Claim 3 has been amended to remove double commas.
No new matter has been introduced.
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”, previously cited) and Li et al. (Composites Part B, 2019, 171, 34–45, hereinafter “Li”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sautreuil teaches a multi-component mortar system (see generally abstract), which comprises a Component A and a Component B, wherein Component A comprises blast furnace slag (see paragraph 0056 teaching slag, and see paragraph 0058 teaching slag as blast furnace slag, specifically present as a fine powder; there is generally a distinction between ground and granulated blast furnace slag, with ground slag being a fine cementitious powder and granulated slag being coarse inert granules, however Applicants recite granulated slag as including powder and dust [see pg. 8, ll. 32–33]; this limitation will be discussed further below). Sautreuil further teaches the limitation wherein Component B comprises an alkali-silicate-based initiator component (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 pH 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. Furthermore, Li teaches the blast furnace slag as having a particle size ranging from 1.4–88 µm (see section 2.1), and Applicants teach blast furnace slags H4000 and H12000 as having size distributions of 0.1–100 µm and 0.1–10 µm, respectively (see specification, Table 1), which means Li teaches a size distribution that is within the range of H4000, and overlaps with the range of H12000, thus meeting the “granulated” limitation for Component A (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the alkaline initiator taught by Sautreuil can be modified according to Li to achieve better control over optimizable properties, such as water requirement, setting time, and compressive strength of alkali-activated slag cement (see Table 3). The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale C, which states it is prima facie obvious to use a known technique (Li’s specific alkali activators in recited proportions for controlling the properties of alkali-activated slag cement) to improve similar devices, methods or products (Sautreuil’s cement, which comprises blast furnace slag and alkaline activators without specifying proportions) in the same way (both references teach a cementitious composition comprising blast furnace slag and alkaline activators, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to use the blast furnace slag particle sizes disclosed by Li because Sautreuil is silent as to the particle size, besides referring to it as a “fine powder” (see paragraph 0058). The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (Sautreuil’s blast furnace slag and Li’s blast furnace slag) according to known methods (no methods needed, as Li is merely providing a parameter that is omitted from Sautreuil’s disclosure) to yield predictable results (the resulting composition would be identical, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable).
A person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to replicate the composition taught by Sautreuil would need 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, and the particle size of blast furnace slag, as this influences whether or not the slag is reactive or inert. As Li teaches a specific size range of blast furnace slag being activated by 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 Li’s blast furnace slag with either 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 claim 5, 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 does teach one powdered Component A [see Table 7, Component A9], but uses it in a reference composition which is deemed unsuitable for use in 3D printing [see paragraph 0218], so it is unclear if the powdered component A9 would be suitable for non-3D-printing applications). 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. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale D, which states it is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique (Ellenrieder’s two-phase, two-component mortar system) to a known product (Sautreuil’s two-component mortar system wherein both components are aqueous) ready for improvement (the set-inhibitor additive taught by Sautreuil would no longer be required; see MPEP 2144.04(II.A) regarding the obviousness of omitting components that are not required) to yield predictable results (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, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). It is noted that Sautreuil generally discloses the disadvantages of powder components in a two-component mortar system (see paragraph 0002), such as how the cement in powder form can form a corrosive dust, and how powder dosing is much more complicated in automated systems. However, these disadvantages are not considered to teach away from the proposed modification. The fact that cement powder can form a corrosive dust does not mean that it will always form a corrosive dust, and the dosing is only relevant in automated systems, which Ellenrieder does not teach. Furthermore, Sautreuil’s paragraph 0002 teaches the disadvantages of powder cement in general, while Sautreuil’s invention is specifically drawn to mortar systems comprising “an unusually low amount” of aluminous cement (see paragraph 0012). General cement includes Portland cement, which, in its powder form, contains high amounts of silica, and is considered very dangerous due to the risk of silicosis; aluminate cements contain little-to-no silica, and are considered much less hazardous, so Sautreuil already teaches an invention that is safer than the disadvantageous general cement powders. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find the proposed modification obvious for the reasons stated above, and the modification arrives at the claimed invention.
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, not slag).
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.
Regarding claim 17, Ellenrieder 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.
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”, previously cited).
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). The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale B, which states it is prima facie obvious to simply substitute one known element (Sautreuil’s alkali silicate, modified by Li to be sodium silicate) for another (Dakhane’s potassium silicate) to obtain predictable results (Sautreuil teaches alkali silicates, and potassium is an alkali metal, so Dakhane’s potassium silicate is expected to be compatible with Sautreuil’s composition; the results of the proposed modification are therefore predictable). The proposed modification arrives 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”, previously cited).
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 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 filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that amended claim 1 is directed to two different components, in different phases, that form a distinct geopolymer “glue” to chemically bind galvanized anchors. This is not persuasive. Rejected claim 1 does not recite two different phases, nor does it recite a geopolymer “glue”. The intended use, chemically binding galvanized anchors, can only impart patentability if it results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the prior art arrives at the claimed composition, and there is no reason to believe that the prior art is not capable of performing the claimed function.
Applicants argue that claim 1 is directed to a cementitious multi-component mortar system, and further argue that the present mortar system has a higher performance compared to other systems with lower load capacities. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not recite proportions of components, nor does it limit what the composition can comprise beyond granulated blast furnace slag and an alkali-silicate-based initiator component. Pursuant to MPEP 716.02, arguments of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims. If applicants allege that a specific composition, with a specific proportion of components, achieves results that would not be achieved by following the modified prior art, such a composition would need to be explicitly claimed, with data supporting the criticality of the composition.
Applicants argue that Sautreuil discloses a system that is suitable for repair and used in printing 3D structures, wherein component A includes aluminous cement. They further argue that aluminous cement is different from blast furnace slag, and so a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the two binder systems are different. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites Component A as comprising blast furnace slag. As long as Sautreuil teaches blast furnace slag as claimed, the claim limitation is met. It is also noted that applicants teach the compatibility of their composition with aluminate cement (see specification, pg. 6, ll. 22–23), so there is no concern about whether or not Sautreuil’s invention could reasonably arrive at the claimed invention. While Sautreuil does teach repair and 3D printing as intended uses, these do not distinguish Sautreuil from the claimed invention because Sautreuil, as modified by Li, arrives at the claimed composition, so there is no compositional or structural difference that would suggest the prior art is not related to the claimed invention.
Applicants argue that Sautreuil teaches powder dosing as being a disadvantage in automated systems compared to liquid dosing, leading to blockage and inhalation problems, and when water is mixed with cement, it leads to premature setting and hardening. This is not persuasive. As an initial note, applicants cite to paragraph 0004 to support their argument, which teaches the disadvantages of aluminous cement, and would therefore motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to use less aluminous cement, bringing them closer to the claimed invention. Paragraph 0004 specifically relates to the state of the prior art, not part of Sautreuil’s disclosed invention, as Sautreuil teaches “an unusually low amount of aluminous cement” in paragraph 0012. Sautreuil does teach general disadvantages of powder cements in paragraph 0002, but paragraph 0003 discusses overcoming these disadvantages by suspending the powder in water, which is the crux of Sautreuil’s invention. Since claim 1 does not limit Component A to only being dry, Sautreuil is still considered to meet this claim limitation.
Applicants argue that Sautreuil is careful to avoid a high content of alkaline because it leads to increased corrosiveness. This is not persuasive. As an initial note, applicants cite to paragraph 0041 to support their argument, but paragraph 0041 does not discuss corrosiveness, and merely discusses the use of the initiator to increase the pH of the system without mentioning the content of the initiator. Paragraph 0011 states that a high content of alkaline compounds typically leads to a high corrosiveness, but this is not considered to teach away from the claimed invention because (i) “typically” is hedging language, not definite, and (ii) Sautreuil’s invention explicitly limits the amount of aluminous cement, which is what reacts with the initiator to form corrosive compounds such as calcium hydroxide.
Applicants argue that Li generically discloses alkali-activated slag cement to control the length of time of setting cement, and NaOH, which is one of the alkali activators, was found to alter the polymerization state of silicate ions in the sodium silicate activating solutions. This is not persuasive. Li teaches improvements to the existing alkali-activated slag art, which is highly relevant to the disclosure of Sautreuil, who teaches alkali-activated cement that includes blast furnace slag. The interaction between NaOH and sodium silicate is inconsequential, as Li teaches embodiments that don’t include these two activators in combination (see Table 2, Samples 1–5).
Applicants argue that Sautreuil does not disclose, teach or suggest a granulated blast furnace slag as present in amended claim 1, and that the slag disclosed by Sautreuil is a filler, not a binder. Applicants further argue that the term slag includes steel slag, which can be present in the form of a liquid melt or a generic fine powder. This is not persuasive. Regardless of the breadth of the term “slag”, Sautreuil explicitly teaches “Slag, also called blast furnace slag […] is used in the form of a fine powder” (see paragraph 0058). Sautreuil does not define slag to include steel slag, and does not teach the slag as being a liquid melt. Although the slag is introduced as a filler, paragraph 0062 explicitly states that slag is a latent hydraulic binder. As discussed in the above rejection of claim 1, there is normally a distinction between “granulated” and “ground” slag, but the present invention, Sautreuil, and Li are all considered to teach the same type of slag based on their use of the term “powder”, and the particle size range of the slag.
Applicants argue that Li does not disclose the use of granulated blast furnace slag with its activators having a high pH. This is not persuasive. This is exactly what Li teaches (see section 2.2 teaching the combination of alkali activators with blast furnace slag).
Applicants argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have used granulated blast furnace slag according to Sautreuil, because the main purpose of Sautreuil is to avoid powders. This is not persuasive. Sautreuil does not teach the avoidance of powders in general; Sautreuil teaches the avoidance of calcium aluminate powders, and explicitly teaches their suspension in water to overcome the disadvantages of the powder (see paragraphs 0002–0004). Even if Sautreuil did explicitly teach disadvantages of blast furnace slag powder, the suspension of powder in water would still meet the limitations of claim 1, which merely recites Component A as comprising slag, without specifying that the slag must be dry and/or free from water.
Applicants argue that Sautreuil uses single phase Components A and B, rather than mixed phases of granulated Component A and aqueous Component B, which forms a different geopolymer network. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not limit the phases of Components A or B. The argument regarding the formation of a different geopolymer network requires evidentiary support, and must be commensurate in scope with the claim (see MPEP 2145(I), which states an argument does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary).
Applicants traverse the rejections relying on Ellenrieder, but don’t present any substantive arguments beyond stating that Ellenrieder does not cure the deficiencies of Sautreuil and Li. As explained in the above rejections and the response to applicants’ arguments, Sautreuil and Li are not believed to have deficiencies that need to be cured. Accordingly, this is not persuasive.
Applicants traverse the rejection relying on Dakhane, but don’t present any substantive arguments beyond stating that Dakhane does not cure the deficiencies of Sautreuil and Li. As explained in the above rejections and the response to applicants’ arguments, Sautreuil and Li are not believed to have deficiencies that need to be cured. Accordingly, this is not persuasive.
Applicants traverse the rejection relying on Condelas Pons, but don’t present any substantive arguments beyond stating that Condelas Pons does not cure the deficiencies of Sautreuil and Li. As explained in the above rejections and the response to applicants’ arguments, Sautreuil and Li are not believed to have deficiencies that need to be cured. Accordingly, this is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Tu, W, F after 5:30 PM and Th from 8 AM to 6 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, 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
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights