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 and the species where the performance modifiers are lignin sulfonates and the hardener is a calcium carbonate in the reply filed on June 16 2026 is acknowledged. Calcium oxide is rejoined with the calcium carbonate as obvious variants of one another as hardeners.
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.
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.
Claims 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 101328411 – English translation referenced for citations) in view of Dittrich et al. (US Patent No. 4,609,649), Mihara et al. (JP-S59220694 - English translation referenced for citations), and Ohno et al. (US Patent No.6,054,596).
Zhang et al. teach a reinforcing composition for application to earthen sites that does not include cement (see paragraphs 2-5). The composition includes a calcium compound, active silica, alcohol, solvent, and surfactant (see paragraph 8). They teach the calcium compound to be calcium oxide as well as weak acid salts of calcium such as calcium oxalate and calcium acetate (see paragraph 9). The active silica is taught to be an alkali metal silicate with a modulus of 3 to 4.2 (see paragraph 10). Zhang et al. teach the surfactant as compounds that include two envisioned sulfonates and a polyether, where calcium lignosulfonate (calcium lignin sulfonate) is named (see paragraph 12). The surfactant may be a combination of components (see paragraph 12). They go on to teach an example with lithium silicate having a modulus of 4, calcium oxide, and calcium lignosulfonate (calcium lignin sulfonate) (see paragraphs 24-25). Zhang et al. do not explicitly teach an additional lignin sulfonate or calcium carbonate as a weak acid salt of calcium.
Dittrich et al. teach anionic surfactants envision for agricultural application and they include calcium lignosulfonate, ammonium lignosulfonate, and sodium lignosulfonate (see column 1 lines 64-68 and column 2 lines 46-53).
Mihara et al. teach a composition for solidifying a particulate material (see page 2 first full paragraph). They teach treatment with a weak acid salt and this class of compounds is taught to include calcium carbonate (see page 2 first and third full paragraphs). Further, Ohno et al. teach calcium acetate, calcium oxalate, and calcium carbonate as alternatives amongst weak acid salts (see column 6 lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add ammonium lignosulfonate or and sodium lignosulfonate to the exemplified composition of Zhang et al. This choice would have been obvious in light of Dittrich et al. because they are known and structurally similar surfactants to the calcium lignosulfonate already included and because Zhang et al. suggest combinations of surfactants in their composition. Further, “[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP 2144.06). It additionally would have been obvious to exchange calcium carbonate for the calcium oxide in light of Mihara et al. and Ohno et al. who teach calcium carbonate as a known and alternative weak acid salt to other calcium weak acid salts that are envisioned. This modification is obvious as the simple substitution of one known element for another in order to yield a predictable outcome. Therefore claims 33-36 are obvious over Zhang et al. in view of Dittrich et al., Mihara et al., and Ohno et al.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARALYNNE E HELM whose telephone number is (571)270-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Robert Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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.
/CARALYNNE E HELM/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights