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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 8, 10 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. Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example" 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).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "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).
Claims 19 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “nM” in claims 19 is used by the claim to mean “a unit of measure of concentration,” while the accepted meaning is “nanometer” a unit of measure of length. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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) 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Rahbar et al. US 2018/0244585. Rahbar et al. disclose a cement mix comprising:
An aqueous solution of carbonic anhydrase enzyme having a molar concentration of 1-10 uMolar. [0027].
A “grit” type particulate, cement and aggregate. Wherein the enzyme associated with said grit type particulate at a pH of 3.0-9.5. [0003-4, 0008-10, 0025-38, 00041-43].
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Rahbar et al. US 2018/0244585 in view of Jonkers US 8,460,458. Rahbar et al. disclose a self healing cement mix, including carbonic anhydrase enzyme in a aqueous solution, but do not explicitly recite the use of calcium formate Ca++. However, Jonkers teaches a healing agent in cement based materials can improve the durability of repaired concrete structures, and include a cement paste having embedded therein, a particulate filler, such as grit, loaded with bacteria and chemical biomineral precursor compounds, such as calcium formate or other carboxylic acid calcium salt. See Abstract; Col. 2, lns. 10-50. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the self healing cement mix of Rahbar et al. with calcium formate, as taught by Jonkers in order to improve the self-healing properties of the cement mix. See Col. 2, lns. 51-62.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trimble US 4,502,814 in view of Rahbar et al. US 2018/0244585. Trimble disclose a method for repairing a crack (16) in a roadway (18) comprising the steps of:
Treating, by filling said crack with a “suitable matrix material (22).
Subjecting said treated crack to ambient conditions. Fig. 1; Col. 2, ln. 43-Col. 3, ln. 35.
What Trimble does not disclose is the use of a self-healing, crack-filler. However, Rahbar et al. teach a cement mix comprising:
An aqueous solution of carbonic anhydrase enzyme having a molar concentration of 1-10 uMolar. [0027]. A “grit” type particulate, such as cement and aggregate.
Wherein the enzyme associated with said grit type particulate at a pH of 3.0-9.5.
See [0003-4, 0008-10, 0025-38, 00041-43]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of crack repair of Trimble with the self-healing crack filler taught by Rahbar et al. in order to prevent repeated failures/cracks from developing.
With respect to claims 7, 8 Rahbar teaches Carbonic Anhydrase is an enzyme derived from all living organisms, including humans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the CA is at least partially purified before use and recombinantly produced by the bacterial in the cement mixture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 571-272-0547. 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 need help 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.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 12/22/2025
Prosecution Insights