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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Considering Claim 1: Claim 1 recites “following two structures” rather than “wherein the following two structures”.
Considering Claim 5: There is a typographical error in line two so that it read “whereinin” rather than “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Considering Claim 7: Claim 7 is two sentences, while claims are required to be a single sentence.
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 5-11 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.
Considering Claim 5: Claim 5 contains a structure shown in general formula (8), but does not contain a definition for the variable R11. As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite, as it is not clear what structures fall within the scope of the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the structure of general formula (0)" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as referring to general formula (8).
Considering Claim 6: Claim 6 contains the transitional phrase “comprising, but not limited to” in the paragraph discussing the acid catalyst D. It is not clear if the language “but not limited to” merely reinforces the open ended language of the term comprising, or if the language renders the limitation optional, as the acid catalyst is not limited to the members of the list.
Claim 6 further contains a limitation that component I is reacted with the aldehyde group of B and C. However, the formula of general formula (9), which is component B of the reaction, does not contain an aldehyde group. It is not clear how component I reacts with the aldehyde group of compound B, when B does not contain an aldehyde group.
Considering Claim 8: Claim 8 recites that the chain transfer agent comprises (1) … (2). The claim does not use a conjunction, so it is not clear if (1) and (2) are required, or (1) or (2) are required. As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Further, claim 8 does not recite how the chain transfer agent is used in the process, i.e. what step the chain transfer agent is added or if it is mixed with other components. As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are allowed.
Claims 5-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Considering Claim 1: The closest prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed multifunctional group superplasticizer comprising the polyolamine side chains substituted with phosphoric acid or phosphite having the claimed structure. The closest prior art is Qianping et al. (CN 107337766). Note: The applicant has provided a copy of Qianping et al. Qianping et al. teaches a superplasticizer comprising a carboxylic acid side chain, a polyether side chain, and a phosphoric acid functional side chain (Abstract). However, Qianping et al. does teach the specific structures claimed in structural formula (1) and (2).
Mallat et al. (US 2016/0168029) teaches a phosphorylated amine for use in a superplasticizer (¶0043), but does not teach the specific structure claimed.
As the specific structure claimed is not taught in the prior art, the claim is non-obvious and novel over the closest prior art of record.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights