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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, and the species slag, in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the different groups require separate searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/15/2026.
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.
Claim 9 is 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. The volume ratio is indefinite for the embodiment when the aggregate of claim 1 is optionally not present in the composition.
Claim 10 is 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. The claimed water/powder ratio is indefinite since it is unclear which component(s) are considered the ”powder”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dombrowski et al. (2014/0275307).
Regarding claim 1: Dombrowski et al. teach a cementitious composition comprising 28 wt% of Portland Cement Type 1 (claimed composite hydraulic binder; CEM I), 2.50 wt% powdered polyurethane, and 61.38 wt% quartz sand (claimed aggregate) [Examples; Tables].
Regarding claims 2 and 4: Dombrowski et al. teach Portland Cement Type 1 (equivalent to CEM I) and calcium carbonate (claimed supplementary cementing material) [0044; Examples; Table 1]. Calcium carbonate is considered an equivalent to limestone in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6: Dombrowski et al. teach 28.00 wt% Portland cement and 8.00 wt% calcium carbonate (supplementary material) [Table 1], which is a weight ratio of 28:8 or 7:2.
Regarding claim 8: Dombrowski et al. teach the claimed particle size [Examples; Table 2].
Regarding claim 9: Dombrowski et al. teach the claimed percentage of powdered urethane to quartz sand [Table 1; Examples].
Regarding claim 10: Dombrowski et al. teach a porcessable cementitious composition obtained by making the composition described above in claim 1 with water, with the claimed water/powder weight ratio [Examples; Tables 3 and 6].
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bu (CN 109180098A).
Regarding claim 1: Bu teaches a cementitious composition comprising 25 kg Portland cement [0017], 24.5 kg slag (supplementary cementing material), 2 kg of polyurethane powder, the claimed aggregation is optionally not present [0029].
Regarding claim 2: Since claim 2 covers all five types of cement, the Portland cement of Bu will inherently be one of the claimed cement types.
Regarding claims 4-6: Bu teaches 25 kg Portland cement [0017] and 24.5 kg slag [0029], which meets the claimed weight ratio of claim 6.
Regarding claim 8: Bu teaches a particle size of 1-3 mm [0019].
Regarding claim 9: For this claim the 46 kg of vitrified microspheres [0029] is being considered the claimed aggregate. Bu teaches the claimed ratio [0029].
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishio (JP 2005-226361A).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 10: Nishio teaches a cementitious composition comprising 14.3 parts by weight of Portland cement, 33 parts by weight of slag, 4 parts by weight of polyurethane powder, and 28.9 parts by weight of water [0086]. Since claims 2 and 6 cover all five types of cement, the Portland cement of Nishio will inherently be one of the claimed cement types.
Regarding claim 7: Nishio teaches a cementitious composition comprising 24 parts by weight of coal-fly ash, 24 parts by weight of slag, lime and 0.8 parts by weight of polyurethane powder [0083].
Regarding claim 8: Nishio teaches the claimed particle size [0085].
Regarding claim 9: There is no aggregate in the example of Nishio [0086]. Therefore, the claimed ratio does not apply to the embodiment selected from claim 1, wherein the aggregate is not present in the composition.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombrowski et al. (2014/0275307).
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Dombrowski et al. teach slag cement as one of the inorganic binders along with Portland cement [0048, 0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixture of Portland cement and slag. It is obvious to combine separately taught prior art ingredients which perform the same function; it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. In re Crockett 126 USPQ 186. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 7: Dombrowski et al. teach calcium sulfate hemihydrate or alumina cement as one of the inorganic binders along with Portland cement [0048, 0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixture of Portland cement and calcium sulfate hemihydrate or a mixture of calcium sulfate hemihydrate and alumina cement. It is obvious to combine separately taught prior art ingredients which perform the same function; it is logical that they would produce the same effect and supplement each other. In re Crockett 126 USPQ 186. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dombrowski et al. (2014/0275307) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Buhler et al. (2011/0039984).
Dombrowski et al. fail to specify the claimed Portland cement type.
However, Buhler et al. teach that CEM II, III, IV and VI can be used interchangeably with type I in construction compositions [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use CEM II, III, IV V or VI as the Portland cement in Dombrowski et al. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishio (JP 2005-226361A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Buhler et al. (2011/0039984).
Nishio fails to specify the claimed Portland cement type.
However, Buhler et al. teach that CEM II, III, IV and VI can be used interchangeably with type I in construction compositions [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use CEM II, III, IV V or VI as the Portland cement in Nishio. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763