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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 15 April 2026 are accepted. Claims 1–3, 5–15, and 17–22 are pending. Claims 11–13 stand withdrawn with traverse. Claims 4 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 21 and 22 have been introduced as new claims.
Claim 19 was previously objected to. The amendment to claim 19 overcomes the objection, and therefore the objection to claim 19 is withdrawn.
Claims 1–10, 14, 15, and 17–20 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. The amended scope of claim 1 overcomes the previous grounds of rejection. The cancelation of claims 4 and 16 renders the rejection of claims 4 and 16 moot. The 103 rejection of claims 1–3, 5–10, 14, 15, and 17–20 is herein withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a “cementitious multi-component mortar system for inorganic chemical fastening of anchoring elements in mineral substrates”.
Regarding the phrase “mortar system”, there is a distinction between mortar and other cementitious systems. Mortar generally comprises cement, fine aggregates and water, while concrete generally comprises cement, fine aggregates, coarse aggregates and water. Thus, the phrase “mortar system” in the preamble of claim 1 would suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the recited system contains no coarse aggregates. However, claim 1 recites a plurality of mineral fillers in component A of the two-component system, including fine aggregates (e.g., sand and clay), as well as coarse aggregates (e.g., crushed stone and gravel). Although claim 1 does not explicitly refer to these latter species as “coarse aggregates”, crushed stone and gravel are widely recognized as coarse aggregates in the art, and are not known to be fine aggregates. Therefore, although the plain meaning of the term “mortar system” would suggest a system without coarse aggregate, Applicants’ own disclosure allows for coarse aggregates in the mortar system, and thus any prior art teaching a comparable composition will be considered to encompass the claimed mortar system, even if the prior art does not explicitly refer to a mortar system.
Regarding the phrase “for inorganic chemical fastening of anchoring elements in mineral substrates”, pursuant to MPEP 2111.02, preamble statements reciting intended use are only limiting if they result in a structural difference between the claims and the prior art. The cementitious multi-component mortar system recited in the body of the claims is defined by components with specific parameters, but there is nothing in the claims or specification to suggest that the intended use conveys additional structural limitations beyond those already recited in the claim. Therefore, any comparable composition is at least capable of being applied toward the claimed intended use, whether or not that intended use is explicitly disclosed, and thus the intended use limitations will be considered to be met by any prior art that teaches or arrives at the claimed composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1. Claim 1 recites component A as consisting of finely ground blast-furnace slag and optionally silica fume and/or at least one mineral filler selected from a given Markush group. Claim 1 is therefore interpreted as reciting blast furnace slag as a mandatory constituent, while slag and mineral fillers are optional. Claim 2 recites the system of claim 1, “wherein component A further consists of the silica fume”. This leads to indefiniteness because “further consists of” is not a recognized transitional phrase. It is unclear if claim 2 should be interpreted as reciting blast furnace slag and silica fume as mandatory, while the mineral fillers remain optional, or as reciting component A as consisting of only the blast furnace slag and silica fume. Similarly, claim 3 recites the system of claim 1, “wherein component A further consists of one or more of the at least one mineral fillers” selected from a narrower Markush group. It is unclear if claim 3 should be interpreted as requiring blast furnace slag and at least one of the mineral fillers from the narrower Markush group, while silica fume and the other fillers remain optional, or as reciting component A as consisting of only the blast furnace slag and one or more of the mineral fillers selected from the narrower Markush group. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will herein interpret these claims according to the broader first interpretation, i.e., the “further consists of” species is mandatory, while the unrecited species remain optional. However, the Examiner also notes that the second interpretation, being much more limiting in scope, appears to be potentially allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim 10, being dependent on claim 2, inherits its deficiencies, and is rejected on the same grounds.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5–8, 15, and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 5 and 15 both recite “a powdered A component, comprising…”, but parent claim 1 recites “wherein component A consists of…”. “Comprising” is considered open-ended language, allowing for the inclusion of other, unrecited components, while “consists of” is closed to unrecited species. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 are broader than their parent claim. However, because parent claim 1 recites component A as consisting of blast-furnace slag and several optional species, while claims 5 and 15 recite component A as comprising blast-furnace slag, the Examiner will herein interpret “comprising” as inclusive only to the optional components recited in claim 1. If this interpretation aligns with Applicants’ intended meaning, the Examiner recommends amending claims 5 and 15 to recite “a powdered A component, consisting of the finely ground granulated blast-furnace slag with a grinding fineness in the range of from 5,000 to 15,000 cm2/g, and silica fume, and any of the optional mineral additives, and an aqueous B component.”
Claims 6–8, being dependent on claim 5, inherit its deficiencies, and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 17 and 18 both recite the mortar system according to claim 1, comprising finely ground blast-furnace slag with grinding fineness in the claimed ranges. Parent claim 1 has been amended to recite a two-component mortar system comprising component A and component B, wherein component A consists of finely ground blast furnace slag. Because the parent claim recites the blast furnace slag in component A, which uses the transitional phrase “consists of”, component A is closed to other, unrecited elements. Therefore, if claims 17 and 18 are interpreted as limiting the slag of component A, this creates a dependency issue, as claims 17 and 18 use the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”. Claims 17 and 18 could potentially be interpreted as limiting blast-furnace slag that is not part of component A, as parent claim 1 does recite the mortar system as comprising components A and B, leaving it open to other unrecited components. However, this interpretation would create new dependency issues, as claim 1 clearly recites “a two-component mortar system”, which does not allow for other components to be present.
Claim 19 depends from claim 17, and further recites the limitation “wherein all blast-furnace slag present has a grinding fineness…”, which affects the blast furnace slag of claim 1 through claim 19’s dependence from claim 17. Claims 17–19 are therefore determined to be broader than their parent claim. The Examiner will herein interpret “comprising” as inclusive only to the optional components recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–3, 5–9, 17–19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gong (US 2020/0031717 A1, hereinafter “Gong”).
Regarding claims 1–3, Gong teaches a cementitious multi-component mortar system, wherein the cementitious multi-component mortar system is a two-component mortar system comprising component A and component B (see generally abstract teaching a geopolymer concrete comprising at least one binder, at least one fine aggregate, and at least one coarse aggregate [all part of the claimed “component A”], and at least one alkali activator [the claimed “component B”]; also see paragraph 0020 teaching the solid binder and aggregates as a mixture, which is subsequently mixed with the aqueous activator). Gong further teaches the limitation wherein component A consists of: finely ground granulated blast-furnace slag (hereinafter “GGBFS”) with a grinding fineness in a range of grom 5,000 to 15,000 cm2/g (see paragraph 0037 teaching the binder material as GGBFS; see paragraph 0040 teaching an ultrafine GGBFS with grinding fineness 800 m2/kg, which is equivalent to 8000 cm2/g), and optionally silica fume (see paragraph 0027) and/or at least one mineral filler selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, quartz, sand, a titanium oxide, a light filler, crushed stone, gravel, pebbles, and a mixture thereof (see paragraph 0025 teaching fine and coarse aggregates as including quartz sand, alumina sand, rutile [a titanium oxide], magnesia [a light filler], natural graphite [a light filler], quartz gravel, and several other species which can fit into any of the claimed broad genera “light filler”, “crushed stone”, “gravel”, and “pebbles”). Gong further teaches the use of “at least one binder material”, which allows for the inclusion of additional binder materials, including fly ash, blast-furnace slag, and metakaolin [calcined clay] (see paragraph 0018), which are additional fillers recited in the claimed Markush group.
Regarding the transitional phrase “consists of”, Gong explicitly teaches the concrete as comprising four components: (i) at least one binder material, (ii) at least an alkali silicate activator, (iii) at least one fine aggregate, and (iv) at least one coarse aggregate (see paragraph 0017), and further teaches components (i), (iii) and (iv) in a dry mixture (see paragraph 0020), which is equivalent to component A (and wherein component (ii) is equivalent to the claimed component B). Since Gong teaches silica fume and fillers that are encompassed by the same components that component A consists of, and because Gong does not teach any additional components as being included or critical to the invention, Gong is considered to meet the “consists of” limitation.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Gong teaches silica fume and mineral fillers including sand as being included in the solid mixture that is equivalent to component A (see paragraph 0027 teaching silica fume, and paragraph 0025 teaching quartz and alumina sands; see paragraph 0020 teaching these components as part of the dry mixture with the binder). Based on the Examiner’s interpretation of claims 2 and 3 in view of their indefiniteness (see the above 112(b) rejections of claims 2 and 3), Gong is considered to meet these limitations.
Regarding claims 5–8, Gong teaches the cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 1, and further teaches the limitation wherein the two-component mortar system comprises:
a powdered A component, comprising (see the above 112(d) rejection of claim 5) the GGBFS with a grinding fineness in the range of from 5,000 to 15,000 cm2/g, and silica fume (see paragraph 0037 teaching GGBFS; see paragraph 0040 teaching a fineness equivalent to 8,000 cm2/g; see paragraph 0027 teaching the inclusion of silica fume), and
an aqueous B component (see paragraph 0045 teaching the activator component as a solution; see paragraph 0047 teaching the solvent as water, making it an aqueous solution).
Gong further teaches the limitations of claims 6–8 wherein the aqueous B component comprises an alkali-silicate-based component, specifically a potassium silicate component (see paragraph 0046 teaching potassium silicate), and wherein the aqueous B component is an aqueous solution of potassium hydroxide and potassium silicate (see paragraph 0045 teaching potassium hydroxide; see paragraph 0046 teaching potassium silicate; also see MPEP 2123(II) regarding the use of nonpreferred embodiments as prior art, which is cited in regard to paragraph 0046 teaching a preference for sodium silicate over potassium silicate).
Regarding claim 9, Gong further teaches the limitation wherein the GGBFS is present in a range of from 1 wt.% to 50 wt.% based on a total weight of a binder component of the cementitious multicomponent mortar system. Applicants’ specification defines “binder component” as synonymous with component A (see pg. 3, ll. 17–19), so the claimed 1–50 wt.% is relative to the combined mass of all species in component A. Gong teaches compositional proportions relative to the entire mixed composition, wherein the binder (GGBFS) is included in an amount of from 10–35 wt.%, and wherein the alkali activator components (water, silicate, hydroxide) are included in an amount ranging from 7–44 wt.% (see paragraph 0063, Table 2). Thus, if Gong’s equivalent to component B accounts for 7–44 wt.% of the total mass, the equivalent to component A must account for 56–93 wt.% of the total mass. 10–35 wt.% of 56–93 wt.% equals 5.6–32.55 wt.% GGBFS, relative to the mass of component A. This range falls fully within the claimed range of 1–50 wt.%.
Regarding claims 17–19, Gong further teaches the limitations wherein the GGBFS has a grinding fineness of 6,000–15,000 cm2/g (as claimed in claims 17 and 19), and of 8,000–13,000 cm2/g (as claimed in claim 18) (see paragraph 0040 teaching a fineness of about 800 m2/kg, which is equivalent to 8,000 cm2/g). As 8,000 cm2/g falls within the ranges of claims 17 and 19, and touches the endpoint of the range of claim 18, claims 17–19 are anticipated (see MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Gong teaches a cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 1, wherein component A consists of GGBFS with a grinding fineness in a range of from 5,000 to 15,000 cm2/g (see paragraph 0037 teaching GGBFS; see paragraph 0040 teaching a fineness of 8,000 cm2/g), and optionally silica fume (see paragraph 0027) and/or at least one mineral filler selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, quartz, sand, a titanium oxide, a light filler, and a mixture thereof (see paragraph 0025 teaching fine and coarse aggregates as including quartz sand, alumina sand, rutile [a titanium oxide], magnesia [a light filler], natural graphite [a light filler], and several other species which can fit into the claimed broad genus “light filler”). Gong further teaches the use of “at least one binder material”, which allows for the inclusion of additional binder materials, including blast-furnace slag and metakaolin [calcined clay] (see paragraph 0018), which are additional fillers recited in the claimed Markush group.
Gong further teaches the limitation wherein component A does not contain a zinc salt (see paragraph 0040 teaching the composition of the GGBFS, which does not contain zinc; also see the above rejection of claim 21, wherein none of the recited aggregates from paragraph 0025 include zinc salt).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong.
Regarding claim 10, Gong teaches the cementitious mortar system according to claim 1. Gong further teaches the limitation wherein the silica fume is present in a range of from 1 wt.% to 10 wt.%, based on a total weight of a binder component of the cementitious multi-component mortar system (see the above rejection of claim 9, wherein Gong’s Table 2 teaches a solids content of 56–93 wt.%; Table 2 further teaches a silica fume content of 0–20 wt.%, and 0–20 wt.% of 56–93 wt.% equals 0–18.6 wt.% silica fume; thus, Gong teaches 0–18.6 wt.% silica fume, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1–10 wt.%; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Regarding claim 20, Gong further teaches the limitation wherein the GGBFS is present in a range of from 10 wt.% to 50 wt.%, based on a total weight of a binder component to the cementitious multi-component system (see the above rejection of claim 9, wherein Gong’s Table 2 was used to calculate a GGBFS content of 5.6–32.55 wt.%, which overlaps with the claimed range; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Condelas Pons (WO 2017/196163 A2, hereinafter “Pons”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Gong teaches the cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the two-component mortar system is a two-component capsule mortar system. Pons teaches a capsule-based cementitious system (see generally abstract), wherein cementitious components are encapsulated to facilitate storage, dosing and mixing (see paragraph 0004). Pons teaches a plurality of capsule types, including reaction accelerators (see paragraph 0028) and finely ground mineral additives (see paragraph 0035). The accelerators are taught to include potassium hydroxides and potassium silicates (see paragraph 0059), which are the same components used in Gong’s activator, and finely ground mineral additives is a genus that includes GGBFS as taught by Gong. 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 two-component system taught by Gong can be modified according to Pons to use a two-component capsule system. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale C, which states it is prima facie obvious to use a known technique (Pons’ capsule-based cementitious system) to improve similar devices, methods or products (Gong’s two-component cementitious system) in the same way (Pons teaches encapsulation as improving storage, dosing and mixing; Pons explicitly teaches encapsulated species which overlap with Gong’s activator, and teaches a genus that includes Gong’s binder, and there is no suggestion in either reference to suggest that the two disclosures are incompatible, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). The proposed modification arrives at the claimed invention, thus rendering claim 14 prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Gong, as modified by Pons, teaches the cementitious multi-component mortar system according to claim 14. Gong further teaches the limitation wherein the system comprises:
a powdered A component comprising (see the above 112(d) rejection of claim 15) the GGBFS with a grinding fineness in the range of from 5,000 to 15,000 cm2/g, and silica fume (see paragraph 0037 teaching GGBFS; see paragraph 0040 teaching a fineness equivalent to 8,000 cm2/g; see paragraph 0027 teaching the inclusion of silica fume), and
an aqueous B component (see paragraph 0045 teaching the activator component as a solution; see paragraph 0047 teaching the solvent as water, making it an aqueous solution).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–3, 5–10, 14, 15, and 17–20 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.
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 Tue, Thu, Sat, Sun from 7 AM to 5 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