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 1-3 and 5-14 in the reply filed on 4/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Jacquet only teaches a step of measuring methylene blue. This is not found persuasive because claim 1 does not specify the “characteristic” being determined. Furthermore, the “defined concentration of plasticizing additive” in claim 1 can be 0 wt%.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/13/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
In chemical patent abstracts for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as its use, e.g., “The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas, useful as oral anti-diabetics.” Exemplification of a species could be illustrative of members of the class. For processes, the type of reaction, reagents and process conditions should be stated, generally illustrated by a single example unless variations are necessary.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not disclose the general nature of the compounds of steps of the claimed method. Furthermore, b) must be added after “step” at the end of line 7. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-3 and 5-14 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. Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The term “plasticizing additive” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plasticizing additive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “characteristic” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “characteristic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “predefined threshold” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predefined threshold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
A definite method is not claimed. Instead, criteria are presented for the skilled artisan to develop their own testing method.
The limitation “with regard to adsorption” is indefinite. The metes and bounds of the phrase are unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plasticizing additive" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 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. The phrase “a modified concentration” is indefinite.
Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the inventive method" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The determination of the water is indefinite, as no method of determination is identified.
The limitation “a standard water demand” is indefinite. The metes and bounds are unclear.
Claims 7-8 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the aqueous slurry" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the same rheology" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 recites the limitation "the total organic content" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the mitigating agent" in claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3 and 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jacquet et al. (2009/0241696).
Regarding claims 1: Jacquet et al. teach a method of providing an aqueous mixture (dispersion) of methylene blue (claimed plasticizing additive) of a defined concentration, contacting a sample of sand with the aqueous mixture so that the sand is completely immersed [0020-0030], taking a sample of the supernatant liquid; determining the concentration of methylene blue, and determining whether the difference in concentration meets a predefined threshold [0020-0030; 0109-0110; Examples].
Regarding claims 2-3: Jacquet et al. teach samples of sand being successively and repeatedly withdrawn until the difference in methylene blue value reaches a desired threshold [0086, 0112].
Regarding claim 5: Jacquet et al. teach that this testing is done to maintain a constant workability level, and to determine how much water is added [0003].
Regarding claim 6: Jacquet et al. teach filtering to remove solids [0028, 0047, 0059, 0109-0110].
Regarding claim 7: The defined proportion of mineral binder in Jacquet is 0 wt% [Examples].
Regarding claim 8: The defined proportion of plasticizing additive in Jacquet is 0 wt% [Example 1], 480 ppm [Example 2].
Regarding claim 9: Jacquet et al. test the methylene blue content [0020-0030; Examples].
Regarding claim 10: Jacquet et al. teach inerting agent FL2250 (epichlorohydrin-dimethylamine) [Examples], which possesses the claimed pH in water.
Regarding claim 11: The predetermined amount of PCE in Jacquet et al. is 0 wt%.
Regarding claim 12: Jacquet et al. teach fines with a grain size of less than 80 microns [0109].
Regarding claim 13: Jacquet et al. teach filtering to remove solids [0028, 0047, 0059, 0109-0110].
Regarding claim 14: Jacquet et al. tach adding a mitigating agent if the difference is more than a given threshold [0097-0099; Examples].
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