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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirota (JP 2012-171855A).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8: Hirota teaches a method for making a cementitious composition comprising mixing together with 513.1 water the following components:
977 kg GGBFS and 216 kg fly ash, which is 82% GGBFS and a weight ratio of GGBFS:fly ash of 81.9:18.1;
163 kg slaked lime (calcium hydroxide);
11.9 kg polycarboxylate ether dispersant and 29.3 of FC agent that contains calcium chloride [Examples; Table 10]. 11.9 kg will contain at least to PC type polymers. The polycarboxylate ether of Hiroa is called an air entrainer [Examples; Table 10], and therefore will introduce air voids that improves workability (has initial slump enhancing property).
Regarding claim 10: Hirota teaches that the composition is devoid of Portland cement and calcium sulfoaluminate cement [Examples; Table 10].
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (JP 2012-171855A) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5-6: The amount of water in Hirota, being 42% [Examples; Table 10], is close to the claimed amounts of 40% (claim 5) and 38% (claim 6). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9: Hirota teaches that calcium nitrate can be used interchangeably with calcium chloride [0033]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use calcium nitrate in place of calcium chloride as the concrete modifier in the examples of Hirota.
Regarding claim 16: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (JP 2012-171855A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Kuo et al. (2016/0362337).
Regarding claims 11-12: Hirota fails to teach the claimed polycarboxylate dispersant.
However, Kuo et al. teach a polycarboxylate dispersant for cementitious compositions obtained from the three monomer components A, B and C [0006; Examples], and a mixture of two different B monomers [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polycarboxylate dispersant of Kuo et al. as the polycarboxylate dispersant of Hirota. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to add the polycarboxylate of Kuo et al. in combination with the polycarboxylate of Hirota. 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 13: Hirota teaches a cellulose type thickener [claim 5, 0043, 0048, 0072, 0075, 0078].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (JP 2012-171855A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Majors et al. (2013/0087079).
Hirota fails to teach sodium naphthalene sulfonate.
However, Majors et al. teach that in a cementitious composition comprising granulated blast furnace slag that a sodium naphthalene sulfonate can be used interchangeably with polycarboxylates [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sodium naphthalene sulfonate as taught by Majors et al. in place of the polycarboxylate in the composition. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (JP 2012-171855A) as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Takase et al. (DE 3049003 A1).
Hirota teaches 8.5% slaked lime [Examples; Table 10].
Hirota fails to teach calcium carbonate.
However, Takase et al. teach, in an analogous composition, that calcium carbonate is a clear alternative to slake lime [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use calcium carbonate as taught by Takase et al. in place of slake lime in the examples of Hirota. It is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has alleged that Hirota fails to teach at least two PC type polymer dispersants. This is not persuasive because the examples compositions of Hirota comprise more than a single polycarboxylate ether polymer. The instant claims do not require that the polycarboxylate ether polymers have a different structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights