DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This claim specifically includes the language “… but is not limited to…” such that this does not appear to have any further limitation on the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 24, 25, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
In claims 24 and 30, reference to “the silane coupling agent” lacks antecedent
basis.
In light of the above, it is also unclear what is embraced by “the silane and/or siloxane” as it is unclear if this refers to the silane coupling agent.
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 17 to 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-72505, as interpreted by the English language translation, attached.
JP teaches a cement admixture which includes a polymer prepared from a
unsaturated polyether, an unsaturated carboxylic acid, an unsaturated silane and an unsaturated sulphonic acid. See paragraphs 4-9 and 18. These are the same found monomers found in the claimed polymer. The copolymer has a preferred Mw of from 10,000 to 150,000 (paragraph 9) which embraces the entire claimed range, yet is narrow enough such that the skilled artisan would have anticipated a Mw within the claimed range. If not anticipated, the skilled artisan certainly would have found an Mw of 20,000 to 120,000 to have been obvious over the JP teachings of 10,000 to 150,000.
The teachings in the JP reference differ from that claimed in that it does not specifically teach a molar ratio of the units (a), a polyether, to the units (d) , a sulphonic acid, within the range of 1 : (5-15). Rather this teaches a molar amount of (a) of 10 to 90 and a molar amount of (d) of 0 to 70. These amounts embrace the claimed range. For instance a molar ratio of (a) : (d) of 10 : 70 corresponds to 1:7 which falls within the claimed range.
The JP references teaches what properties each of these units bring to the copolymer (see the middle of paragraph 8 for the (d) unit and the middle of paragraph 5 for the (a) unit) such that on having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust and optimize the ratios of these components in an effort to determine the most useful and beneficial amounts for the particular utility and properties desired.
Note that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In this manner claim 17 is rendered obvious.
For claims 18 and 19, note that the broad molar amounts for (a) and (d) in the JP reference embraces these ratios as well. The Examiner relies on the rationale noted supra for the obviousness of an amount within this ratio over the teachings in the JP reference.
For claim 20, compare formula (II) to compound (1) in paragraph 4 of the prior art in that embrace the same compounds.
For claim 21 see the compounds found in the third line of JP paragraph 6 which meet the claimed monomers.
For claims 22 - 23, see the compounds found in paragraph 8 of the JP reference which meet these claims.
For claim 24, note that the siloxane component (2) in paragraph 4 meets this requirement.
For claim 25, as it is unclear what is embraced by this claim, the Examiner notes that, in the event that this does not limit the claimed component having structural unit (c) to a silane, the siloxane in paragraph 4 meets this requirement.
For claim 26, note that the monomers above can be polymerized in water with an initiator (paragraphs 10 and 11) and that the ratios of each of the four monomers in the JP reference can be found in molar amounts as claimed. See specifically paragraph 9.
For claims 27 to 31, note the citations in the JP reference found above regarding these monomers.
For claim 32, see paragraph 12 which teaches these same reaction conditions.
For claims 33 to 35, see paragraph 12 which teaches a cement admixture, the presence of other cement ingredients and amounts that meet the claimed range.
For claim 36, such an additive is not specifically disclosed by the JP reference. Paragraph 4 of applicants’ specification, among other teachings therein, state that such an additive is common in the cement art. This is evidenced too by searches on the internet resulting in the following summary:
Filtrate reducers, commonly known as water-reducing admixtures (WRAs), enhance the workability and strength of concrete by reducing the water-to-cement ratio.
What are Filtrate Reducers?
Filtrate reducers, or waterreducing admixtures, are chemical additives used in concrete to improve its properties. They work by reducing the amount of water needed in the concrete mix while maintaining the same level of workability. This is crucial for achieving higher strength and durability in concrete structures.
The above is cited to demonstrate the level of knowledge for one having ordinary skill in the art.
As such one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the addition of a known and common additive in the concrete field to the concrete in the JP reference in an effort to take advantage of the known benefits and properties, as evidenced by applicants’ own specification. In this manner claim 36 is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
1/24/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765