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 .
Examiner’s Comment(s)
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges cancelled Claims 1-4 and amended Claims 15, 18, 19, 24-28, and 31-33 in the response filed on 10/24/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 15-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In Applicant’s response, Applicant does not equate Zhou et al.’s “high belite sulfoaluminate cement clinker” to Applicant’s claimed “calcium sulfoaluminate”. The Examiner recognizes that Zhou et al.’s high belite sulfoaluminate has a mineral phase of calcium sulfoaluminate, which Applicant deems to correspond to Applicant’s calcium sulfoaluminate. However, the Examiner deems that the overall high belite sulfoaluminate corresponds to Applicant’s calcium sulfoaluminate.
While the nomenclature in Zhou et al. uses the term “high belite sulfoaluminate”, it does not negate the fact that it is considered a calcium sulfoaluminate. As disclosed in Applicant’s Specification, the composition comprises CSA, wherein CSA is a calcium-sufflaminate-cement (please also see Claim 20). Calcium sulfoaluminate cements are hydraulic binders made from limestone, bauxite and gypsum ([0029]-[0033]). This material will have different mineral phases.
As evidence provided by EP 4011624, calcium sulfoaluminate cement or CSA refers to cements consisting predominantly of the mineral phases ye’elimite (calcium sulfoaluminate), belite, calcium sulfate, and aluminoferrite [0038]. Therefore, while Zhou et al.’s uses the term “high belite sulfoaluminate”, it is considered a calcium sulfoaluminate cement, albeit with a high content of the belite mineral phase.
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 15-34 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 15 recites specific concentration ranges for at least one of calcium sulfoaluminate and calcium aluminate, and calcium hydroxide. The instant claim further recites a ratio of the calcium sulfoaluminate and/or calcium aluminate to the calcium hydroxide ranges from 0.8 to 3. The ratio limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the ratio is based on. Assuming it is based on a weight ratio between the at least one of calcium sulfoaluminate and calcium aluminate to the calcium hydroxide, it is unclear to the Examiner how the weight ratio can be satisfied based on the respective concentration ranges of the at least one of calcium sulfoaluminate and calcium aluminate and calcium hydroxide.
For example, a weight ratio of 1 is within the claimed range of 0.8 to 3. However, it is unclear how this weight ratio is satisfied with (a) 65 wt.% to 85 wt. % of at least one of calcium sulfoaluminate and calcium aluminate, and (b) 15 wt.% to 35 wt. % calcium hydroxide. The content of (a) and (b) cannot be the same, and therefore cannot achieve a weight ratio of 1. For the purpose of examining prior art, prior art meeting the weight percent in (a) and (b) meets the claimed ratio.
Further clarification and/or correction are required in the next response.
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.
Claims 15, 17-20, 22-24, 26-30, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20200299194 (“Zhou et al.”).
With regards to Claims 15 and 17, as best understood under 112, Zhou et al. teaches an activator composition for activating a super sulfated cement, the activator composition comprising 62 wt. % to 95 wt. % of gypsum (calcium sulfate), 5 wt. % to 38% of a high belite sulfoaluminate cement clinker (calcium-sulfoaluminate-cement), and 0.05 wt. % to 15 wt. % of calcium hydroxide ([0005], [0007], [0011], [0021], and [0022]).
The high belite sulfoaluminate cement clinker is partially or wholly replaced by calcium aluminate cement clinker, wherein 1 part by weight of the high belite sulfoaluminate cement clinker is replaced by 0.2 to 0.5 parts by weight of calcium aluminate cement clinker [0028].
Claim 17 further limits Claim 15 by requiring calcium aluminate is partially substituted by calcium sulfate. That is, part of the content of calcium aluminate is replaced with calcium sulfate. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret Claim 17 as a composition comprising, inter alia, (calcium aluminate – gypsum)65-85 wt.%. Therefore, Zhou et al. teaching of (calcium aluminate – gypsum)63-100 wt.% overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 65 wt.% to 85 wt. %. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Due to Zhou et al. teaching the weight percentages overlapping Applicant’s ranges for the at least one of calcium sulfoaluminate and calcium aluminate, and calcium hydroxide, the Examiner deems that Zhou et al. teachings overlaps with the claimed ratio.
With regards to Claims 18 and 19, please paragraph [0028].
With regards to Claims 20, 22, and 23, please see paragraphs [0015], [0022], and [0028].
With regards to Claims 24 and 26-29, please see paragraphs [0007], [0017], [0033], and [0034].
With regards to Claim 30, please see paragraph [0024].
With regards to Claims 32 and 33, please see paragraph [0040].
With regards to Claim 34, please see paragraph [0001].
Claims 16, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20200299194 (“Zhou et al.”) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of KR 101581905 (“KR ‘905”).
With regards to Claim 16, Zhou et al. teaches the composition as set forth above.
Zhou et al. does not teach 20 wt. % to 30 wt.% calcium hydroxide.
However, KR ‘905 teaches a super sulfated cement comprising, inter alia, 100 parts by weight of blast furnace slag, 35-85 parts by weight of calcium sulfoaluminate, 7-25 parts by weight of calcium hydroxide, and 35-75 parts by weight of gypsum [0017]. Therefore, a composition for activating a super sulfated cement in KR ‘905 comprises 35-85 parts by weight of calcium sulfoaluminate, 7-25 parts by weight of calcium hydroxide, and 35-75 parts by weight of gypsum, wherein said composition is calculated to comprise of 26-67 wt. % calcium sulfoaluminate, 4-26 wt. % of calcium hydroxide, and 24-64 wt. % of gypsum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 20-26 wt. % of calcium hydroxide in Zhou et al.’s composition in order to control the setting time and strength to the cement.
With regards to 21 and 25, please see Claims 20, 22-24, and 26 above.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20200299194 (“Zhou et al.”) as applied to Claim 24 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 4072534 (“Ryder”).
Zhou et al. teaches a super sulfated cement as set forth above.
Zhou et al. does not teach the super sulfated cement further comprising a setting retardant.
However, Ryder teaches a super sulfated cement comprising a setting retardant (Abstract and Col. 3: Lines 31-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a setting retardant in Zhou et al.’s super sulfated cement in order to control the setting time that is desirable for a skilled artisan.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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 Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785