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 1-6 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2026
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 1-6 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 recites “a great amount” this is a relative term not defined in the instant specification. The term “great” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “great” 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.
Claim Interpretation and Introduction
Any and all claim interpretations as above or below set forth are expressly incorporated into each and every rejection below as though fully set forth therein.
Any and all introductory matter below set forth are expressly incorporated into each and every rejection below as though fully set forth therein.
To the extent that overlapping ranges are below recited, said ranges render obvious the instantly claimed ranges including but not limited to Blaine fineness. See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the process comprising the steps of fine grinding the pozzolan to a Blaine fineness of at least 8,000 cm2/g” The language following appears to relate the product produced by the grinding and properties (i.e. having silicon and aluminum atoms exposed and available to react with lime when in a pore solution) thereof and do not appear to set forth affirmative process/method steps. There is no step of adding the ground pozzolan to pore solution. There is no step of reacting with lime.
The prior art having taught the claimed pozzolan material ground to a Blaine fineness rendering obvious the instantly claimed range of Blaine fineness will necessarily possess exposed silicon and aluminum atoms which are available to react with lime in a pore solution and are capable of doing so. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claim 1 recites the process comprising the steps of fine grinding the pozzolan to a Blaine fineness of at least 8,000 cm2/g” the language following appears to relate the product produced by the grinding and properties thereof and do not appear to set forth affirmative process/method steps. There is no step of adding the ground pozzolan to pore solution. There is no step of reacting with lime. For purposes of examination, this claim has been interpreted to require the fine grinding of pozzolan to a Blaine fineness of at least 8,000 cm2/g. For purposes of examination the ground pozzolan is interpreted to possess exposed silicon and aluminum atoms (the natural pozzolan possesses silicon and aluminum and that when ground will be exposed in a “great amount”) and said atoms having been exposed are therefore available and capable of reacting with lime in a pore solution. The claims does not affirmatively add the ground materials to a pore solution with lime.
Claim 4 recites blending the finely ground pozzolan with cement kiln dust having an amount of potassium sulfate or potassium chloride for accelerating the setting times and increasing the early strength gain. Giving the claim the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification the cement kiln dust will necessarily possess an amount of potassium sulfate or potassium chloride and any amount thereof will be interpreted to be sufficient to accelerate set times and increase early strength in some amount/range.
The claims are afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. See Specification: “natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan”
PNG
media_image1.png
176
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
P5
PNG
media_image2.png
240
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
P6
The examiner maintains the pozzolans disclosed in the below cited prior art meet the instant claim limitations for a natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan.
The has interpreted “pozzolan” and “the pozzolan” to be the “natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan” recited in the preamble of the claim.
The earliest effective filing date of the instant application is 5/19/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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(s) 1 -6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benck et al (US 2023/0295046) published 9/21/2023 with an effective filing date of 3/22/2021 and no common inventors or assignees the instant effective filing date is 5/19/2022 as such this publication serves as prior art (a)(2))
Regarding claim 1
Benck et al (US 2023/0295046) published 9/21/2023 with an effective filing date of 3/22/2021 and no common inventors or assignees) discloses
[0006] A cementitious binder comprising precipitated lime and at least one pozzolan.
[0007] A cementitious binder comprising lime and at least one pozzolan.
[0008] A cementitious binder comprising lime, at least one pozzolan, and at least one additional material selected from the group including tricalcium silicate, calcium aluminate cement, calcium sulfoaluminate cement, and ye’elemite.
[0009] (ye elimite is a naturally occurring anhydrous calcium sulfoaluminate i.e. a natural pozzolan)
Natural pozzolans may be used (meeting claim 1 for a natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan)and the composition may comprise blast furnace slag, silica fume, various ash including rice husk ash, ground glass etc. ground pumice, [0117] (meeting the limitation for fine grinding pozzolan) cement kiln dust, fly ash, bottom ash [0231] (meeting claim 4)
The pozzolan has a Blaine fineness of 1 m2/g to 1000 m2/g (overlapping the claimed range of at least 8000 cm2/g = 0.8 m2/g)[0124] [0125]with particle sizes in the micron and nm ranges [0130-0133] (i.e. fine ground)
The composition comprises lime and pozzolan and tricalcium silicate calcium aluminate cement calcium sulfo aluminate cement and ye elemite [0008] the composition comprise pozzolan silicate aluminosilicate mineral which is natural occurring and capable of reacting with lime in waters lime and water [0027-0028] (i.e. natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan with great amount of exposed silicon and aluminum atoms available to react with a pore solution)
The materials are fine ground [0117][0173] The composition is mixed and ground [0234](meeting the limitation of claim 1 for fine ground and claims 2 et seq for mixing and blending)
Regarding Claims 2-3:
Benck discloses the limitations above set forth. The composition includes accelerating additives including without limitation calcium chloride, sodium sulfate sodium nitrate calcium nitrate etc. [0171] (meeting claims 2-3)
The composition is mixed and ground [0234](meeting the limitation of claims 2 et seq for mixing and blending)
Regarding Claims 4-6:
Benck discloses the limitations above set forth.
The composition has cement kiln dust [110-114]( meeting claim 4)
Example: Natural Pozzolan/Ground Glass/Lime Kiln Dust/Additive Cement
[0300] For 1 kg cement, mix 0.20 kg volcanic tuff natural pozzolan, 0.35 kg ground glass, 0.25 kg lime kiln dust, 0.15 kg Portland cement, 0.03 kg gypsum powder, 0.02 kg calcium chloride.
The composition is mixed and ground [0234](meeting the limitation of claims 2 et seq for mixing and blending) See also [0105] and [0114] for cement kiln dust
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bullerjahn et al (US 2022/0340488) published 10/27/2022 with an effective filing date of 4/25/2022 preceding the effective filing date of the instant application and not possessing any common inventors or assignees the instant effective filing date is 5/19/2022 as such this publication serves as prior art (a)(2))
Regarding Claim 1:
Bullerjahn et al (US 2022/0340488) discloses a cement composition comprises a hyaloclastite pozzolan having SiO.sub.2 and Al.sub.2O.sub.3 and an activator (Abstract) Natural pozzolan includes volcanic glass [0035-0037] The pozzolan has fineness of 4500 to 8000 cm2/g [0040] and is ground [012][0039] Rendering obvious the range of claim 1 for at least 8000 cm2/g.
While the reference teaches 8000 cm2/g it is sufficiently close the claimed at least 8000 cm2/g to render the claimed range obvious. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
The composition comprises limestone to further improve the action of pozzolan [0026] [0027] and water and lime [0059] and water for reactions [0033][0059]
The material is ground (See reference claim 36 and [0024]-[0025] for reactive grinding [0041][0045][0050-0052] to a fine particle size/fraction [0024] in grinding systems such as ball mills etc. [0056](meeting the limitation for fine grinding)
The materials are blended [035] reference claim 33, etc.
Pozzolanic materials have a content of reactive silica and / or alumina [0033](i.e. a great amount of silicon and aluminum atoms available tor react with lime in a pore solution)
Regarding Claims 2-4:
Bullerjahn teaches the limitations above set forth.
The composition may comprise accelerators [0120]
Bullerjahn et al (US 2022/0340488) discloses a cement composition comprises a hyaloclastite pozzolan having SiO.sub.2 and Al.sub.2O.sub.3 and an activator (Abstract)
The composition includes alkali in the form of sulfates and chlorides to accelerate the pozzolanic reaction [0027] [0033] [0041][0043 0052](i.e. activator of claims 2-4) these alkali are added [0043]
Alkali metals includes potassium [0045] Rendering obvious potassium chloride and potassium sulfate. The composition includes accelerators [0048]
The pozzolanic activity if improved with an alkali reach cement so the reactivity of the composition is improved by adjusting alkali content and by addition of alkali bearing materials such as cement kiln dust [0025] CDK having alkali sulfates [0027]
The materials are blended [035] reference claim 33, etc.
Regarding Claims 5-6
Bullerjahn discloses the limitations above set forth.
The composition further comprises granulated blast furnace slag fly ash waste glass silica fume burned organic matter residues rich in silica such as rice husk ash etc. [0048]
The composition comprises limestone to further improve the action of pozzolan [0026] [0027] and water and lime [0059] and water for reactions [0033][0059]
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawry et al (WO 2019/239203A1) published 12/19/2019 being more than one year prior to the instant effective filing date
(and also published as Bawry et al (US 2021/0323869) published 10/21/2021 and having an effective filing date of 6/15/2018 preceding the effective filing date of the instant application of 5/19/2022 and not sharing common inventors or assignees)
citing solely to US 2021/0323960 for convenience (and to avoid duplication)
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 5-6
Bawry WO 2019/239203A1 citing to :Bawry et al (US 2021/0323869) discloses pozzolanic materials include fly ash silica fume granulated blast furnace slag metakaolin among others contribute to the properties of concrete when they are very finely ground so that are able to react to the concrete composition and enhance cementitious properties [0006]
Bawry teaches a composition comprising pozzolanic material, a pozzolanic activator and additional cement materials. The composition has a Blaine fineness of 10000 to 15000 cm2/g [0016-0017] The pozzolanic material is ground to very fine levels [0034] [0039][0040](meeting the limitation for fine grinding and overlapping the claimed Blaines Fineness)
The second set of cement material includes pozzolanic material and has a Blaines fineness in the range of 10000 to 15000 cm2/g (See claims 1 and 3 of reference) and the composition comprises an activator of sodium sulfate (See claim 5 reference) (overlapping the Blaines fineness range of claim 1)
[0044] In an embodiment of the present invention, the pozzolanic material is selected from a group comprising of fly ash, blast furnace slag, volcanic ash material, a quartz material, pond ash, chemically modified fly ash, chemically modified blast furnace slag, chemically modified quartz, and combinations thereof. Further, the pozzolanic material is preferably fly ash. (meeting the limitation for natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan of claim 1)
The pozzolanic material includes combinations of fly ash, ground blast furnace slag, volcanic ash material, quartz material, pond ash [0056] The composition further comprises ground granulated blast furnace slag (See claim 9 reference) (meeting the limitation for natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan of claim 1)
Pozzolanic material has the capability of binding in the presence of water [0030] and may be added to react with calcium hydroxide and water [0034] (reacts in a pore solution)
Bawry teaches the limitations above set forth. Bawry discloses Caustic activators include alkali sulfates [0041] Adding pozzolan activators (such as sodium sulphate—Na.sub.2SO4, or lime, or slag), activates the pozzolan material, such as fly ash, to trigger its pozzolan reaction such as with calcium hydroxide, and the chemical was not intended to react by itself with the fly ash/ pozzolan).
[0045] In an embodiment of the present invention, the pozzolan activator material is selected from a group comprising of sodium sulphate, slag sand, lime and combination thereof. The pozzolan activator material is provided as a coat of on an external surface of the pozzolan material in one implementation of the present subject matter.
Regarding Claims 2-3:
Bawry teaches the limitations above set forth. Bawry discloses the composition comprises an activator of sodium sulfate (See claim 5 reference) (i.e. an accelerator)
Bawry teaches the limitations above set forth. Bawry discloses Caustic activators include alkali sulfates [0041] Adding pozzolan activators (such as sodium sulphate—Na.sub.2SO4, or lime, or slag), activates the pozzolan material, such as fly ash, to trigger its pozzolan reaction such as with calcium hydroxide, and the chemical was not intended to react by itself with the fly ash/ pozzolan).
[0045] In an embodiment of the present invention, the pozzolan activator material is selected from a group comprising of sodium sulphate, slag sand, lime and combination thereof. The pozzolan activator material is provided as a coat of on an external surface of the pozzolan material in one implementation of the present subject matter.
While Bawry gives and example of sodium sulfate, it also teaches all alkali sulfates as such one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would find it obvious to try alkali sulfates including potassium sulfate as potassium is an alkali metal from a finite groups of alkali metals.
Claim(s) 3 (in the alternative) and claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawry et al (WO 2019/239203A1) published 12/19/2019 being more than one year prior to the instant effective filing date
(and also published as Bawry et al (US 2021/0323869) published 10/21/2021 and having an effective filing date of 6/15/2018 preceding the effective filing date of the instant application of 5/19/2022 and not sharing common inventors or assignees)
citing solely to US 2021/0323960 for convenience (and to avoid duplication) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above further in view of Bullerjahn et al (US 2022/0340488)
Regarding Claims 3-4:
Bawry teaches the limitations above set forth. Bawry discloses Caustic activators include alkali sulfates [0041] Adding pozzolan activators (such as sodium sulphate—Na.sub.2SO4, or lime, or slag), activates the pozzolan material, such as fly ash, to trigger its pozzolan reaction such as with calcium hydroxide, and the chemical was not intended to react by itself with the fly ash/ pozzolan).
[0045] In an embodiment of the present invention, the pozzolan activator material is selected from a group comprising of sodium sulphate, slag sand, lime and combination thereof. The pozzolan activator material is provided as a coat of on an external surface of the pozzolan material in one implementation of the present subject matter.
Bawry does not expressly disclose the additional of cement kiln dust and Assuming arguendo Bawry does not render obvious potassium as an alkali metal:
Bullerjahn et al (US 2022/0340488) discloses a cement composition comprises a hyaloclastite pozzolan having SiO.sub.2 and Al.sub.2O.sub.3 and an activator (Abstract) Natural pozzolan includes volcanic glass [0035-0037] The pozzolan has fineness of 4500 to 8000 cm2/g [0040] and is ground [012][0039] Rendering obvious the range of claim 1 for at least 8000 cm2/g.
The composition comprises limestone to further improve the action of pozzolan [0026] [0027] and water and lime [0059] and water for reactions [0033][0059]
The material is ground (See reference claim 36 and [0024]-[0025] for reactive grinding [0041][0045][0050-0052] to a fine particle size/fraction [0024] in grinding systems such as ball mills etc. [0056]
The materials are blended [035] reference claim 33, etc.
Pozzolanic materials have a content of reactive silica and / or alumina [0033](i.e. a great amount of silicon and aluminum atoms available to react with lime in a pore solution)
The composition may comprise accelerators [0120]
Bullerjahn et al (US 2022/0340488) discloses a cement composition comprises a hyaloclastite pozzolan having SiO.sub.2 and Al.sub.2O.sub.3 and an activator (Abstract)
The composition includes alkali in the form of sulfates and chlorides to accelerate the pozzolanic reaction [0027] [0033] [0041][0043 0052](i.e. activator of claims 2-4) these alkali are added [0043]
Alkali metals includes potassium [0045] Rendering obvious potassium chloride and potassium sulfate. The composition includes accelerators [0048]
The pozzolanic activity if improved with an alkali reach cement so the reactivity of the composition is improved by adjusting alkali content and by addition of alkali bearing materials such as cement kiln dust [0025] CDK having alkali sulfates [0027]
The materials are blended [035] reference claim 33, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the inventio to use potassium as an alkali metal in Bawry as taught by Bullerjahn as it is a know alkali metal used in pozzolanic compositions.
It would have been obvious to add and blend the cement kiln dust of Bullerjahn into the composition of Bawry as it will provide improved pozzolanic activity by adjusting alkali content.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102014113620A
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6
DE 102014113620A discloses pozzolans including rocks limestone and other natural pozzolan [0014] esp. rock having silicon and aluminum [0016] (meeting the limitation for natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan)
The pozzolan are ground to a desired grain size [0045] (meeting the limitation for fine grinding)
The pozzolan has a Blaine value of 7500 cm2/g or more or preferably above 9000 cm2/g or more [0027] (overlapping the range of claim 1)
The pozzolan can be used directly or in a mixture with the addition of fly ash, hearth furnace coke, activated carbon [0031] (meeting claim 6)
The composition may comprise additives and absorbents [0007] [0040] and additional auxiliary components to achieve a desired effect as determined by one of ordinary skill in the art [0041] the pozzolan may be used with sulfur and with adjuvants/additives such as sulfides, thionates, catalytic agents [0054] and soluble salts such as copper nitrate [0055]
The pozzolan has a large proportion of leachable silicon compounds and/or aluminum compounds [0023] has leachable silicon compounds and/or aluminum compounds which are excellent absorbers and react with flue gases [0029](exposed silicon and aluminum available to react with lime in a pore solution)
[0035] The substances can be fixed/applied to the surface of the pozzolans proposed according to the invention on the basis of conventional methods, for example by impregnation, preferably impregnation with soluble salts, e.g. copper nitrate, it being possible for the pozzolans proposed according to the invention to be used not only for adsorptive purification of the exhaust gases/flue gases but also for catalytically active purification, for example in the SCR reduction of nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gas from cement furnaces or in the oxidation of organic substances and/or chlorinated hydrocarbons and/or CO.
The composition comprises agents such as calcium hydroxide calcium carbonate and lime [0032-0033] The pozzolan may be in water with a pH of 7.5 [0026] (alkaline) Substances can be applied to the surface of the pozzolan (it is reactive) [0035]
The pozzolan may be mixed with basic agents including quicklime in fluids [0052](i.e. capable of exposing and reacting with lime in pore solution)
The reference teaches away from the addition of kin dust:
The composition may be used to remove substances from fluids including exhaust gases from combustion systems [0001] The use of activated carbon, fly ash are not favorable for use in the concrete cement processes as the they are high cost and interfere with formation of air pore formation in concrete essential to the properties of concrete. The references teaches the addition of sulfur which aids in utilization as an adsorbent [0034-0037] but does not expressly teach potassium sulfate or potassium chloride and does not teach a chemical accelerator
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeskey (US 3,982,954)
Regarding Claims 1 and 5-6
Jeskey (US 3,982,954) discloses pozzolans such as diatomaceous earth pumice and ash (C1 L15-25)(being a natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan) and scoria pozzolan (C2 L10-12)( being a natural inactive sedimentary pozzolan) with a Blaine size of 2000 to 10000 cm2/g to provide rapid cure time (C2 L26-35) (overlapping the claimed Blaine size)
The scoria cinder is crushed in a ball mill and ground to a Blaine size of 2000 to 1000 (C2 l42-55) (meeting he limitation for fine grinding natural pozzolan and overlapping the claimed Blain particle size)
Fly ash, pozzolan, Portland cement may be formulated and adjusted for strength and curing times (C4 L30-65)(meeting the limitation of claims 5-6 for blending other pozzolan materials such as fly ash)
PNG
media_image3.png
280
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(C4 meeting the limitation for exposing silicon and aluminum atoms of claim 1 available to react with lime in a pore solution)
The composition may comprise cement, water, and scoria aggregate which is fine ground and is mixed(C3 L25-40 meeting the limitations for adding and blending)
The pozzolan is in water (Table 1) and -(C3 L25-35)(pore solution)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action. For example:
Guynn (US 2020/0331805) discloses a composition comprising supplementary cement materials with pozzolanic properties such as fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag and natural pozzolan and comprising an accelerator [0050]
Ultra fine SCM finer than the hydraulic cement can be used to complement the hydraulic cement. Fine fly ash, ultra fine fly ash, etc. formed by grinding. Another example is ultrafine natural pozzolan such as pumice volcanic ash metakaolin from grain [0053]
There may be a sulfate deficiency in the presence of aluminates in supplementary cement material such as fly ash, ground blast furnace slat and natural pozzolan resulting in loss of workability and set retardation and delayed strength etc. Added lime and added sulfate helps to react addressing this problem [0058]
The materials have a Blaine fineness of less than 375 m2/kg with a minimum of 15 m2/kg [0020][0081](overlapping the claimed range)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732