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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
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 2 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "more preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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. Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 9.
Claim 11 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. Variable “M” in formula 1 is note defined.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the strength enhancement component" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 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. Claim 12 is dependent upon claim 13, which is dependent upon claim 12.
Claim 13 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.
Regarding claim 13, the word “preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 7, 8, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takase et al. (DE 3049003 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7: Takase et al. teach a method for making a cementitious composition comprising mixing together with 36 parts by weight water the following components: a cementitious binder comprising a cementitious binder comprising 80 parts by weight of GGBFS and 20 parts by weight of gypsum hemihydrate (80 wt% GGBFS); 3 parts by weight of Portland cement (the claimed alkaline-earth activator), which contains CaO [0006], 0.5 parts by weight of slake lime (Calcium hydroxide; also the claimed alkaline-earth activator);,0.2 parts by weight of sodium lignosulfonate (claimed sulfonate dispersant) and 3 parts by weight of calcium chloride [Example 3; 0031].
Regarding claim 8: Takase et al. teach calcium chloride [Example 3; 0031].
Regarding claim 10: Takase et al. teach Portland cement is not a part of component A, since it is a hardener [0006, Example 3; 0031], and Takase et al. teach an example that is completely devoid of Portland cement and calcium sulfoaluminate cement [0032; Example 4].
Regarding claim 15: Takase et al. teach calcium carbonate is a clear alternative to slaked lime [0027].
Claim(s) 1-4, 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 1-4, 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].
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 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) 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.
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.
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