DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 12/16/2025. Applicant filed a Response on 02/12/2026.
Claims 1-16 and 19-22 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 20-22 are rejected. Claims 8, 16 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 20-22, and Species B, wherein the cationic polymer is obtained by polycondensation of epichlorohydrin with a mono- or di-alkylamine (claim 9), in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“A negative impact upon addition of pozzolanic materials to a composition of cement with adjuvant (Glenium 27 - a polycarboxylate ether water reducer) is … demonstrated in Sebastien. Table 2 of Sebastien illustrates the fact that the 30% substitution of a part of the cement by a hydraulic and/or pozzolanic material (Pouzzolane de Milos - Grèce), generally leads to a degradation of the rheology (spread) but also of the mechanical performances (passage from line 1 to line 2). …and as exemplified passage from line 2 to 3, the loss in terms of rheology that is experienced from the addition of pozzolanic material is typically recovered by addition of more water which results in a drop of the mechanical performances (see decrease in compressive strength values), or an increase in the water reducing adjuvant (passage from line 2 to 4) which still performs worse than without the binder substitution with pozzolanic material.”
Remarks, page 3-4.
Examiner respectfully traverses for the following reasons. Applicant refers to Table 2 of Sébastien. Although Sébastien mentions Table 2 in ¶ [0142], Table 2 does not exist in the publication. Further, it is unclear to what passages and lines Applicant is referring. Further, Sébastien at ¶ [142] and ¶ [0154-0155] states that by adjusting the quantity of cationic polymer, those skilled in the art can obtain substituted cements with spreads and compressive strengths comparable to those when using cement alone. See also Tables 3 and 5 of Sébastien.
Applicant further argues:
“Additionally, Applicant has demonstrated that the combination of Sebastien's water reducing agent, Glenium 27 shown as PCE in the present examples, combined with a cationic polymer, demonstrates that even by keeping the total water volume the same, the combination has no impact on reducing setting times. See REF 1 and COMPAR1 in FIG. 1, Table 2 and para. [0349]. In REF3 of the present application, which includes Rinaldi's CHRYSO Optima 100 water reducing agent and the hydraulic binder, the composition has the same amount of water but an even longer setting time of 25 hours. See para. [0351] and FIG. 3. REF4 also demonstrates that the addition of the cationic polymer alone with the binder sets so fast that a block forms and slump and other properties cannot be measured.”
Remarks, page 4.
This is not found persuasive because the examples in the specification do not demonstrate unexpected results over the prior art of record because the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The only compared composition as claimed (“INV,” Table 2, page 28 of the specification) comprises: Cement SPCL in an amount of 24.0 binder wt%, limestone in an amount of 61.5 binder wt%, and fine limestone filler in an amount of 14.5 binder wt%. This composition is admixed with 200.5g water to achieve an efficient water/binder ratio of 0.22, wherein an admixture is used, expressed in weight solids content in liquid admixture compared to the total weight of the binder, the admixture comprising 0.23% of the specific “phosphonate type polymer” Chryso Optima 100, and 0.55% of the specific cationic polymer provided by SNF, which is a polycondensation of epichlorohydrin and dimethylamine having a cationic charge density of 7.3 meq/g and an intrinsic viscosity of 0.04 dl/g, sold under the commercial name FL2250, and having a solids content of 55 wt% (specification, pages 25-26);
while the claims allow for any concrete composition comprising a hydraulic binder in any amount, wherein the hydraulic binder comprises Portland clinker in any amount and a mineral addition selected from the group consisting of limestone, fly ash, or combinations thereof, the limestone and/or fly ash representing any amount of at least 50% by weight of the total weight of the binder; any cationic polymer having any cationic charge density greater than 0.5 meq/g and any intrinsic viscosity less than 1 dl/g in any amount; a water-reducing additive comprising any at least one phosphonic amino-alkylene group in any amount; any aggregates in any amount, and water in any amount.
As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire range of concretes comprising hydraulic binders, cationic polymers, water-reducing additives, aggregates and water as presently claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Naranjo have been considered but are moot because the grounds of rejection set forth below does not rely on Naranjo for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Further, Examiner maintains that the special technical feature does not provide a contribution over the prior art of record, Sébastien et al, US 2011/0196069 A1 in view of Rinaldi, US 2012/0129981 A1 and Martin et al, US 2015/0020714 A1, taken in view of evidence by He et al, “Workability Tests on Fresh Concrete Formulated with Eco-friendly Admixture,” for the reasons set forth in the below rejection.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, and claim 8 is withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/12/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5,
Claim 2, line 3,
Claim 6, line 3,
Claim 7, line 2,
Claim 10, line 4, and
Claim 21, line 2,
it is suggested to amend the term “binder” to “hydraulic binder” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 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.
Regarding claim 12, lines 8 and 9, 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 12, line 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sébastien et al, US 2011/0196069 A1 (Sébastien) in view of Rinaldi, US 2012/0129981 A1 (Rinaldi) and Martin et al, US 2015/0020714 A1 (Martin), taken in view of evidence by He et al, “Workability Tests on Fresh Concrete Formulated with Eco-friendly Admixture” (He).
Sébastien and Rinaldi were cited in the PTO-892 mailed 12/16/2025.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, 9, and 11-13 Sébastien teaches a mix comprising at least one hydraulic and/or pozzolanic material and at least one water-soluble cationic polymer, the cationic polymer having a density of cationic charges greater than 0.5 meq/g and an intrinsic viscosity less than 1 dl/g (i.e., a cationic polymer having a cationic charge density and intrinsic viscosity as claimed), the hydraulic and/or pozzolanic material not being clinker, limestone, gypsum, calcium sulphate, anhydrous calcium sulphate, hemi hydrated calcium sulphate, plaster, or lime (Sébastien; [0007], [0045-0046]).
The hydraulic compositions obtained from the mix require a much lower dosage of superplasticizer for an identical consistency or fluidity, require a much lower quantity of total water, and have a better slump retention than hydraulic compositions obtained from the same hydraulic and/or pozzolanic materials in the same proportions but without a cationic polymer (Sébastien; [0008-0010]).
Further, the mix makes it possible to use, as a substitution of the clinker, a greater quantity of hydraulic and/or pozzolanic materials without degrading the performances of the hydraulic compositions, in particular in terms of rheology and mechanical strengths. A reduction of CO2 emissions can also be achieved (Sébastien; [0012]).
Preferably, the mix comprises fly ash as the hydraulic and/or pozzolanic material (i.e. the mineral addition fly ash as claimed) (Sébastien; [0039]).
Sébastien teaches a hydraulic composition comprising the mix and at least one hydraulic binder, wherein the hydraulic binder is a clinker or Portland cement (Sébastien; [0017] and [0082]). The hydraulic binder is mixed with water to form a paste which sets and hardens as a result of hydration reactions (Sébastien; [0017]). The hydraulic composition is capable of setting to form a concrete as claimed (Sébastien; [0032]).
Preferably, the hydraulic composition further comprises aggregates as claimed (Sébastien; [0085]).
Preferably, the mix further includes at least one superplasticizer, wherein superplasticizers include polyoxyalkylene diphosphonates, as well as other known superplasticizers (Sébastien; [0066-0068] and [0076-0080]).
Sébastien exemplifies a composition comprising Cement CEM 1 52.5N CE CP2 NF, wherein the cement is substituted by “X” amount of hydraulic and/or pozzolanic material. The composition further comprises water, sand (i.e., an aggregate), and admixture (Sébastien; Table 1 of [0132], and [0133]). As is evidenced by He, CEM I 52.5N CE CP2 NF is a Portland cement comprising 95% clinker and 5% secondary components (He; page 316, “2.2 Sample Preparation,” lines 1-3).
The admixture is Glenium 27 (Sébastien; [0136]). As is evidenced on page 25, lines 22-24 of Applicant’s specification, BASF Glenium 27 is a polycarboxylate ether based water reducer.
The cationic polymer used in the hydraulic and/or pozzolan material is a polyamine epichlorohydrin-dimethylamine having a cationicity of 7.3 meq/g and an intrinsic viscosity of 0.04 dl/g (i.e., the cationic polymer of claims 1 and 9) (Sébastien; [0137]). These are preferred cationic polymers of Sébastien (Sébastien; [0059]).
In the examples of Table 5, cement clinker is substituted with 25% fly ash (Sébastien; [0147-0155] and Table 5).
Therefore, Sébastien teaches concrete compositions comprising Portland clinker, fly ash, a cationic polymer, aggregates, and water as claimed, as well as a water reducer.
Given that Sébastien discloses water reducers/superplasticizers that include polyoxyalkylene diphosphonates, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polyoxyalkylene diphosphonate as the water reducer in the compositions of Sébastien, such as by substitution of the exemplified Glenium 27 with a polyoxyalkylene diphosphonate water reducer.
Sébastien does not explicitly teach:
the fly ash representing at least 50% by weight of the total weight of the hydraulic binder, and
a water-reducing additive comprising at least one phosphonic amino-alkylene group as claimed.
With respect to difference 2), Rinaldi teaches that an amount of mixing water should be sufficient to handle concrete; however, an increase in water content reduces the compressive strength after hardening (Rinaldi; [0003]). Therefore, a water-reducing agent may be used to obtain a concrete having satisfactory fluidity during the workability window without using excessive water (Rinaldi; [0004]). The aim of Rinaldi is to provide a composition with a base hydraulic which has a workability window of at least 90 minutes, which has a reduced viscosity in the workability window, and for which the setting time is not too high (Rinaldi; [0006]).
The hydraulic compositions comprise at least one hydraulic binder, at least one first water-reducing additive comprising a phosphonic amino-alkylene group, and at least one second water-reducing comprising a comb polymer (Rinaldi; [0010]).
The water-reducing first additives are compounds of formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
286
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
454
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Rinaldi; [0005] and [0037-0055]).
These first additives of formula (1) comprise phosphonic amino-alkylene group water-reducing additives (claim 1), which further comprising a polyoxyalkyl chain (Ri-O)n (claim 11), and which overlap in scope with the phosphonic amino-alkylene compounds of formula (1) (claim 12) and formula (3) (claim 13) as claimed.
See, for example, the first additive of formula (2) exemplified by Rinaldi:
PNG
media_image3.png
98
302
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Rinaldi; [0067]). This additive corresponds to the claimed formula (1) of claim 12 wherein Q is a C2 hydrocarbon group, Ri is ethylene, R is hydrogen, n=50, r+q=1, y=1, A=C1 alkylidene, and Rj is CH2PO(OH)2.
Rinaldi further teaches additives of formula (4) which are equivalent to the water reducing additives of formula (3) as claimed (claim 13):
PNG
media_image4.png
254
328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rinaldi; ([0072-0078]).
The hydraulic binder may be a Portland cement such as CEM I 52.5 N type (Rinaldi; [0026] and [0128]).
Rinaldi is analogous art as it teaches water-reducing additives comprising at least one phosphonic amino-alkylene group for use with a hydraulic binder made from Portland clinkers (i.e., Portland cement).
In light of the motivation provided by Rinaldi to use a water-reducing additive comprising at least one phosphonic amino-alkylene group in a hydraulic binder composition, including “polyoxyalkylene diphosphonate” water reducing agents as disclosed by Sébastien, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the water-reducing additives comprising at least one phosphonic amino-alkylene group of Rinaldi, including phosphonic amino-alkylene water-reducing additives comprising a polyoxyalkyl chain (claim 11), of formula (1) (claim 12), and of formula (3) (claim 13) as claimed, as the water reducing agent/superplasticizer in the hydraulic binder compositions of Sébastien, in order to provide a composition with a base hydraulic which has a workability window of at least 90 minutes, which has a reduced viscosity in the workability window, and for which the setting time is not too high, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, because both Sébastien and Rinaldi are trying to solve the same problems, i.e., increasing fluidity or workability of concrete without increasing the setting time or reducing compressive strength, by using water-reducing agents, and because Sébastien teaches that known water reducing agents and superplasticizers, including polyoxyalkylene diphosphonates, are suitable for use in the hydraulic binders, those skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation is success in using the first water-reducing additives of Rinaldi in the compositions of Sébastien, absent a showing otherwise.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
With respect to difference 1), Martin teaches a hydraulic binder comprising in parts by mass: (a) 40 to 70 parts of Portland clinker; (b) 30 to 60 parts of fly ash; (c) optionally, up to 30 parts of an inorganic material other than clinker or than fly ash; (d) 2.5 to 15 parts of an alkali metal salt expressed in parts of equivalent-Na2O relative to 100 parts of fly ash; and (e) 2 to 14 parts of sulphate expressed in parts of SO3 relative to 100 parts of clinker; the fly ash having a Dv97 less than or equal to 40 µm and the sum of (a), (b) and (c) being equal to 100 (Martin; [0018-0023]).
30 to 60 parts fly ash, based on the total of Portland clinker, fly ash and optional inorganic material, overlaps in scope with the claimed range of at least 50% fly ash (claim 1), or at least 60% fly ash (claim 2), based on the total weight of the hydraulic binder.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
A known problem for hydraulic compositions is the high emission level of carbon dioxide during production, mainly during the production of the Portland clinker. A known solution to the emission problem is to replace part of the Portland clinker in the hydraulic compositions by mineral additions. Consequently, the hydraulic compositions with low clinker content have a high C/K ratio, “C” being the quantity of binder (i.e., the quantity of clinker and mineral additions), and “K” being the quantity of clinker. One of the frequently-used mineral additions to replace part of the Portland clinker is fly ash (Martin; [0002]).
A known problem of hydraulic compositions having a high C/K ratio is the decrease of compressive strength measured 28 days after the hydraulic composition has been mixed (Martin; [0003]).
Unexpectedly, it is possible to use an alkali metal salt combined with a high fineness fly ash to improve the compressive strength, measured 28 days after the hydraulic composition having a high C/K ratio and comprising a fly ash has been mixed (Martin; [0009]).
The resulting hydraulic binders and hydraulic compositions have one or more of the following characteristics: reduced emissions of CO2 given that the quantity of clinker is less than that of ordinary concrete; a compressive strength, measured 28 days after the hydraulic composition has been mixed, equivalent to that of the composition before the quantity of Portland clinker was reduced (Martin; [0011-0013]).
The observed effect between the combination an alkali metal salt in certain proportions and the increase in fineness of the fly ash, makes it possible to substantially and unexpectedly increase the compressive strength measured 28 days after the hydraulic compositions having a high C/K ratio have been mixed (Martin; [0014]).
Preferably, the fly ash has a Dv97 less than or equal to 30µm (Martin; [0029]).
Fly ash having a Dv97 less than or equal to 30µm overlaps in scope with the claimed fly ash particles having a Dv50 of 30 to 60µm (claim 5), e.g., if 97% of the particles have a size of 30µm.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Martin is analogous art as it teaches hydraulic binders comprising Portland clinker and at least 50-60% by weight fly ash.
In light of the motivation provided by Martin to use an alkali metal salt combined with a high fineness fly ash in hydraulic binders comprising Portland clinker and substituted fly ash, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fly ash having a particle size as claimed, e.g. having Dv of 30µm, in combination with an alkali salt, in the hydraulic binder compositions of Sébastien in view of Rinaldi, in order to obtain a composition with a compressive strength measured at 28 days equivalent to that of the composition before the quantity of Portland clinker was reduced. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the proportion of fly ash in the compositions of Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin to within the range of 30-60%, based on the total weight of the hydraulic binder, which overlaps in scope with the scope with the claimed fly ash range pf at least 50% (claim 1) and at least 60% (claim 2), and in order to reduce CO2 emissions, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, because Martin teaches such fly ash ranges as achievable when using the combination of fly ash particle sizes and alkali metal salts in hydraulic binders compositions, those skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Regarding claims 3-4, Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin, taken in view of evidence by He, are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Claims 3-4 further limit the limestone, which is an optional embodiment of claim 1 (i.e. selected from the group consisting of limestone, fly ash and combinations thereof), and therefore not required. As such, claims 3-4 are rejected based on identical/substantially identical reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin, taken in view of evidence by He, are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The “up to 15% by weight” of an additional mineral component recited in claims 6 and 20 includes zero% by weight, and if therefore not required by the claims.
The term "up to" includes zero as a lower limit, In re Mochel, 470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974); and "a moisture content of not more than 70% by weight" reads on dry material, Ex parte Khusid, 174 USPQ 59 (Bd. App. 1971). See MPEP 2173.05(c).II.
Regarding claim 7, Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin, taken in view of evidence by He, are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sébastien exemplifies using a water to binder ratio of 0.63 (Sébastien; Table 1 in [0132]; Table 3 in [0141]; and Table 6 in [0161]).
Sébastien does not teach any specific water to binder ratio other than as exemplified. Sébastien does teach that the use of superplasticizers allow for increased fluidity with a reduction in water dosage (Sébastien; [0067]).
Rinaldi teaches that an increase in mixing water tends to reduce the compressive strength of the concrete after hardening (Rinaldi; [0003]). The use of water-reducing additives makes it possible to reduce the quantity of water by more than 12% (Rinaldi; [0028]).
Sébastien in view of Rinaldi do not teach wherein the water to binder ratio is between 0.18 and 0.30 as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Martin teaches that the hydraulic compositions have an effective water/binder ratio of 0.25 to 0.7 (Martin; [0063]). The effective water is the water required to hydrate a hydraulic binder to provide fluidity for a fresh hydraulic composition (Martin; [0064]).
A water/binder ratio of 0.25 to 0.7 overlaps in scope with the claimed water to hydraulic binder ratio of 0.18-0.3 (claim 7), and includes the ratios of 0.63 disclosed by Sébastien.
In light of the motivation provided by Martin to adjust the water/binder ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the water/hydraulic binder ratio to 0.25 to 0.7, in order to minimize the amount of water needed, provide fluidity for a fresh hydraulic composition, and obtain a concrete with good compressive strength. A water/binder ratio of 0.25 to 0.7 overlaps in scope with the claimed water to hydraulic binder ratio of 0.18-0.3.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin, taken in view of evidence by He, are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sébastien exemplifies using the cationic polymer in amounts of 1000ppm and 2000ppm by mass, relative to the cement (i.e., the hydraulic binder comprising cement and fly ash) (Sébastien; [0151-0512] and Table 5). 1000ppm and 2000ppm equals 0.1% by weight and 0.2% by weight, based on the weight of the binder. These weight percents fall within the claimed cationic polymer range of 0.0001% to 1% by weight of the binder (claim 10), and 0.001% to 0.5% by weight of the total weight of the binder (claim 21).
Regarding claim 14, Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin, taken in view of evidence by He, are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Sébastien exemplifies a dosage of “admixture” dry%/binder ranging from 0.1 to 0.3%, wherein the “admixture” may comprise a polyoxyalkylene diphosphonate superplasticizer/water reducer (Sébastien; [0067] and [0141], Table 3, Examples 12-13). Sébastien also exemplifies using 800ppm by mass (i.e., 0.08% by mass) admixture relative to the cement (i.e., hydraulic binder) (Sébastien; [0150]). These amounts fall within the claimed phosphonic amino-alkylene water-reducer range of from 0.01% to 2% by weight of the total binder.
Regarding claims 15 and 22, Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin, taken in view of evidence by He, are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Sébastien teaches that superplasticizers are used to fluidize the hydraulic compositions while reducing the dosage of water (Sébastien; [0067]).
Rinaldi teaches that the dosage of phosphonic amino-alkylene additives must be regulated to decrease costs and setting delay effects, while obtaining the effects of the concrete composition, i.e., reduced viscosity (Rinaldi; [0006]).
Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin do not explicitly teach a weight ratio of (water reducing agent comprising at least one phosphonic amino-alkylene group) / (cationic polymer) as claimed.
While Sébastien in view of Rinaldi and Martin do not explicitly disclose a weight ratio as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight ratio of (water reducing agent comprising at least one phosphonic amino-alkylene group) / (cationic polymer), including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain concrete compositions with reduced water dosages, optimized workability/fluidity, and good setting times, while optimizing costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guicquero et al, US 5,879,445, teaches fluidizing a hydraulic binder using one or more compounds (I), which are phosphonic amino-alkylenes as claimed (col. 2, line 51-col. 3, line 38.
Hubert, Jr. et al, US 4.240,952, teaches the use of fly ash as the major ingredient in cementitious material, wherein the compositions may further comprise a material added as a lubricant to help the handling of the concrete mix (Abstract and col. 6, lines 9-21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, 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.
/CDL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights