DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 12/23/2025. Applicant filed a Response, amended claims 1 and 8, and added claims 11-16, on 02/23/2026.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected. Claims 7-10 and 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration.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 1-6, and newly added dependent claims 11-14, in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the common technical feature linking the groups of the claims as currently amended is non-obvious in view of Martin and Tarasov. This is not found persuasive because the common technical feature for unity of invention is based upon the claims as originally filed. Further, the common technical feature of the present claims does not provide a contribution over the prior art as explained in the below 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Applicant further argues that the groups are related as a product and process for its manufacture and thus the groups should be considered to have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because though the groups relating to each other as product and process for its manufacture shows unity a priori, that is before considering the prior art. Unity of invention still requires a common special technical feature that makes a contribution over the prior art (a posteriori), a requirement which is not met in this case as explained in the Restriction Requirement and below in the prior art rejections. See also PCT International Search Preliminary Examination (ISPE) Guidelines, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.21 (Example 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-10, and newly added dependent claims 15-16, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the polymer being free of pendant groups linked to the main carbon chain by ester groups” (emphasis added). Applicant points to the specification at page 5, lines 16-19, which discloses, “This polymer in particular allows more efficient fluidification of said cement composition than a comb polymer having pendant groups linked to the main carbon chain by ester groups” (emphasis added). There is no support to recite the polymer being free of pendant groups linked to the main carbon chain by ester groups, as presently claimed. Specifically, the polymer comprising formulas (I) and (II) in claim 1 is not inherently and necessarily "a comb polymer" as disclosed in the specification.
The cited phraseology clearly signifies a “negative” or “exclusionary” limitation for which the applicants have no support in the original disclosure. Negative limitations in a claim which do not appear in the specification as filed introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph, Ex Parte Grasselli, Suresh, and Miller, 231 USPQ 393, 394 (Bd. Pat. App. and Inter. 1983); 783 F. 2d 453.
Regarding dependent claims 2-6 and 11-14, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are 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.
Claim 2, line 8, claims that “q is an integer of 3 to 500” (emphasis added).
Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, claims that “q is an integer of 3 to 300” (emphasis added).
The value of “q” in dependent claim 2 is broader in scope (3-500) than the value of “q” in claim 1 (3-300), from which claim 2 depends. Therefore, claim 2 does not properly limit claim 1 with respect to the value of “q.”
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 13-14, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 2 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berodier et al, WO 2019/094060A1 (Berodier) in view of Cheung et al, US 8,993,656 B2 (Cheung).
Berodier was cited in the IDS filed 06/09/2023.
Regarding claims 1-3, 11 and 13, Berodier teaches a cementitious composition comprising a hydratable cement, limestone, or a mixture thereof, in an amount of 30-95% by weight, based on the dry weight of the composition; a calcined clay in an amount of 5 to 70% by weight, based on the dry weight of the cementitious composition; and at least one tertiary alkanolamine in an amount of 0.002 to 0.2% by weight, based on the dry weight of the cementitious composition (Berodier; [0013]).
“Calcined clay” means a clay thermally activated by heating to a temperature above 650oC, such as kaolinite becomes metakaolin after calcination (i.e., an activated clay as claimed) (Berodier; [0035]).
5 to 70% by weight activated clay, based on the dry weight of the cementitious composition, overlaps in scope with the claimed activated clay range of 5 to 60 weight%, based on the dry weight of the cement composition.
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).
Berodier teaches that Portland cement is prepared by sintering a mixture of components, including limestone and clay, wherein Portland cement clinkers are formed (Berodier; [0030-0031]). Berodier’s cementitious compositions comprise Portland cement (Berodier; [0051] and [0059-0061]). Therefore, it is clear that the compositions of Berodier which comprise hydratable Portland cement, limestone, or a mixture thereof, in an amount of 30-95% by weight based on the dry weight of the composition, overlap in scope with compositions which comprise 20 to 64 weight% clinker and from 0 to 35 weight% limestone, based on the dry weight of the cement composition, as claimed.
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).
Berodier teaches that the composition may further comprise at least one admixture chosen from plasticizers, otherwise known as water-reducing admixtures, e.g., polycarboxylate comb polymers (Berodier; [0049]). A preferred polycarboxylate comb polymer containing ether linkages is taught by Cheung et al, US Patent 8,993,656 (Cheung). Such polycarboxylate comb polymers with ether linkage groups provide sustained robustness for withstanding the hardness of the grinding mill operation and for conferring workability and strength-enhancing properties (Berodier; [0050], [0057] and claim 13).
Berodier does not explicitly teach an admixture comprising a polymer having a main carbon chain and units of formula (I) and (II), in a proportion of 0.001 to 5 weight% relative to the dry weight of the cement composition (claims 1 and 11), or comprising units of formula (I’) and (II’) (claims 2-3 and 13) as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Cheung teaches the use of comb polymers as grinding aids for preparations containing cement, and more particularly to the use of polycarboxylate comb polymers containing a carbon backbone and pendant polyoxyalkylene groups with ether (including vinyl ether) linkage groups for sustaining robustness during grinding, workability and strength-enhancing properties (Cheung; col. 1, lines 9-15). In contrast to the prior art comb polymers which contain, e.g. esters for linking oxyalkylene groups, the use of a polycarboxylate comb polymer containing a carbon backbone and pendant polyoxyalkylene groups with linkage groups comprising at least one ether group, sustains the robustness of the comb polymer during grinding, and confers workability and strength-enhancing properties (Cheung; col. 3, line 60-col. 4, line 2).
The comb polymer is introduced into a cementitious material before or during the grinding, in an amount of 0.002-0.4 percent based on dry weight of the cementitious material, the comb polymer having carbon-containing backbone and pendant groups represented by structures (I) and (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
220
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group; M represents hydrogen atom, an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal cation, ammonium or organic amine groups or a mixture thereof; p represents an integer of 0-1; Alk represents a C2-10 alkylene group; x represents an integer of 1-10; y represents a number of 0-300; z represents a number of 1-300; R2 represents a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group having 1-10 carbon atoms; and "a" and "b" are numerical values representing molar percentage of the polymer's structure, wherein "a" is 30-90 and "b" is 10-70 (Cheung; col. 4, lines 40-col. 5, line 5).
Most preferably, R2 in structure (II) represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group; x represents an integer of 1 to 4; y represents a number of 0; z represents a number of 40-200, and the polyoxyalkylene group (AlkO) consists of 100% EO groups (Cheung; col. 4, lines 23-26 and col. 5, lines 15-18).
The polymers of Cheung are free of pendant groups linked to the main carbon chain by ester groups as claimed.
0.002-0.4% of the polycarboxylate comb polymer, based on dry weight of the cementitious material, falls within the claimed range of 0.001-5 weight% polymer admixture, relative to the dry weight of the cement composition.
While the preferred polymers of Cheung having repeating units (I) and (II) overlap in scope with claimed polymers having repeating units of formula (II) and (I) respectively (claim 1), or repeating units of formula (II’) and (I’) respectively (claims 2-3), Cheung further exemplifies polycarboxylate comb polymers which fall within the scope of the polymers as claimed. See Example 8, Table 7, Polymers 5-7 and 9 (Cheung; col. 12, line 64-col. 13, line 48).
See, for example, Polymer 6 of Cheung which has the following values:
a:b = 80:20; which is equivalent to the claimed b = 0.2 (which falls within the claimed range of a = 0.05-0.25 of claims 1-2, and a = 0.05-0.2 of claims 3, 11 and 13), and a = 0.80 (which falls within the claimed range of b = 0.75-0.95 of claims 1-2, including the preferred range of b = 0.8-0.95 of claim 3);
R1 of formula (I) is H, which is equivalent to the claimed R12 = hydrogen. Further, formula (I) exemplified by Cheung is equivalent to the claimed formula (II) wherein R11=R13=hydrogen and M=hydrogen or a cation (claims 1-3) (Cheung; col. 4, lines 64-66 and col. 13, lines 5-10);
R1 of formula (II) of Cheung = methyl, which is equivalent to the claimed R2 of formula (II) = methyl (claims 1-2);
R2 = H, which is equivalent to the claimed R5 = OH (claims 1-3);
p = 0, y = 0 , and the AlkO unit = 100% EO units, which is equivalent to the R4 and R’4 group of claim 2;
x = 1, which is equivalent to the claimed p = 1 of claims 1-3, 11 and 13; and
z = 120, which falls within the claimed q = 3-300 (claim 1), q = 3-500 (claim 2) and q = 5-200 (claim 3).
The polymers provide excellent grinding efficiency when added to Portland cement clinker, and enhanced workability and good one-day compressive strength when added to cement samples (Cheung; col. 13, line 55-col. 15, line 62).
Cheung is analogous art as it teaches the addition of an admixture comprising a polymer comprising a main carbon chain and units of the formula (I) or (I’) and (II) or (II’) to cement compositions in amounts as claimed.
In light of the motivation provided by Cheung to add a polycarboxylate comb polymer containing a carbon backbone and pendant polyoxyalkylene groups with ether linkage groups, the polymers comprising units (I)/(I’) and (II)/(II’) as claimed, to cement compositions in the claimed amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a polymer as claimed in the claimed amounts to the cement compositions of Berodier in order to obtain a cement composition with excellent grinding efficiency, enhanced workability, and good compressive strength, thereby resulting in the claimed invention. Further, because Berodier explicitly teaches the addition of the polymers of Cheung to the compositions in order to obtain sustained robustness for withstanding the hardness of the grinding mill operation, improved workability, and strength-enhancing properties, those skilled in the art would have expected the improved results taught by Cheung when added to the compositions of Berodier.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 14, Berodier in view of Cheung are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above, which comprise polymers meeting the various claim limitations. Berodier teaches that at least one admixture may be introduced to the cement, limestone, or mixture thereof, wherein the admixture may be a retarder (i.e., a set retarding agent as claimed) (Berodier; [0049] and [0056]).
Given that Berodier in view of Cheung disclose cement compositions that overlap the presently claimed cement compositions, including cement compositions which comprise a set retarding agent, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a set retarding agent, which is both disclosed by Berodier and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berodier in view of Cheung as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bury et al, US 2004/0198873 A1 (Bury).
Regarding claim 5, Berodier in view of Cheung are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above, wherein the cement compositions may comprise a retarder. Retarders may be, e.g., sugars (Berodier; [0049]).
Berodier in view of Cheung do not explicitly teach wherein the set retarding agent is a gluconic acid in neutral form or slat thereof, a phosphonic acid in neutral form or salt thereof, or a mixture thereof as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Bury teaches a strength improvement admixture for cementitious compositions comprising a polycarboxylate dispersant, a set retarder, and a strength improvement additive (Bury; Abstract). Polycarboxylate dispersants include polymers with a carbon backbone with pedant side chains, wherein at least a portion of the side chains are attached to the backbone through a carboxyl group or an ether group (Bury; [0013]).
Set retarding admixtures are used to retard, delay, or slow the rate of setting of concrete. They can be added to the concrete mix upon initial batching or sometime after the hydration process has begun. Set retarders are used to offset the accelerating effect of hot weather on the setting of concrete, or delay the initial set of concrete or grout when difficult conditions of placement occur, or problems of delivery to the job site, or to allow time for special finishing processes. Most set retarders also act as low level water reducers and can also be used to entrain some air into concrete. Gluconic acid and its corresponding salts, phosphonates, and certain carbohydrates such as sugars and sugar-acids, and mixtures thereof, can be used as retarding admixtures (Bury; [0138]).
Bury is analogous art as it teaches cementitious compositions comprising a polycarboxylate polymer with a carbon backbone with pedant side chains linked to the carbon chain by ether groups, and set retarding agents comprising gluconates and phosphonates as claimed.
In light of the disclosure of Bury of the equivalence and interchangeability of using sugar retarding agents as disclosed in Berodier, with gluconate and phosphonates (i.e., the salts of gluconic acid and phosphonic acid) as presently claimed, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use gluconate and/or phosphonates as the retarder in Berodier in view of Cheung, in order to retard, delay, or slow the setting rate of concrete, offset the accelerating effect of hot weather, delay the initial set of concrete as required by special circumstances (e.g., difficult placement conditions, delivery problems, or special finishing), function as low level water reducers, and entrain air into the concrete, and thereby arrive claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arango Campo et al, WO 2020/208552 A1 (Arango Campo) in view of Cheung et al, US 8,993,656 B2 (Cheung).
The Examiner has provided the English language, U.S. equivalent to the WO Arango Campo publication, US 2022/0169570 A1. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the US publication.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 11-14, Arango Campo teaches an SCM (supplementary cementitious material), which allows for reduced clinker amount in cements and concretes while obtaining equal or superior performances, a lower energy consumption during production, among other technical advantages (Arango Campo; [0007]).
Arango Campo teaches a pozzolanic mixture useful as a SCM comprising 20-85wt% activated clay, 10-75wt% limestone, and 3-15wt% setting regulator (Arango Campo; [0008] and [0018]). Arango Campo teaches a cementitious composition comprising 20-65wt% of said pozzolanic mixture, 35-75wt% clinker, and 1-10wt% of a setting regulator (i.e., the set retarding agent of claims 5, 12 and 14) (Arango Campo; [0008] and [0042]). The cementitious composition decreases the clinker amount by as much as 20% to 55% in relation to Portland cement (Arango Campo; [0037]).
From the exemplified cementitious compositions, it is clear that the weight percentages are based upon the dry weight of the cement compositions, as is conventional in the cement art (Arango Campo; see, e.g., [0105], Table 9).
The clinker range of 35-75wt% of Arango Campo overlaps in scope with the claimed clinker range of 20-64 wt% clinker, based on the dry weight of the cement composition.
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).
The activated clay is in the cementitious compositions in an amount between 1 and 50%, with preferred ranges being 10-30%, 10-25%, 15-35%, 15-45% and 15-25% (Arango Campo; [0048]).
All of the preferred ranges of Arango Campo fall within the claimed activated clay range of from 5-60 wt%, based on the dry weight of the cement composition.
The limestone is present in the cementitious composition in an amount between 1 and 40%, with preferred ranges including 1-30%, 5-30%, 8-30% and 4-29% (Arango Campo).
The limestone weight percent ranges of Arango Campo overlap in scope with the claimed limestone range of from 0-35 wt% limestone, based on the dry weight of the cement composition.
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).
Arango Campo teaches that the cementitious compositions may comprise other additives, such as grinding additives to facilitate the material fluidity (Arango Campo; [0061]).
Given that Arango Campo discloses cementitious compositions that overlap the presently claimed cement admixtures, including cement compositions comprising a grinding additive in order to facilitate the material fluidity, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a grinding additive in the cementitious compositions of Arango Campo.
The cementitious composition is characterized in that it achieves mechanical compressive strengths at 1 day of between 9.0 and 18.0 MPa (Arango Campo; [0062]).
Arango Campo does not explicitly teach the addition of 0.001 to 5 weight%, relative to the dry weight of the cement composition, of an admixture comprising a polymer comprising a main carbon chain and units of formula (I) and (II) as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Cheung teaches the use of comb polymers as grinding aids for preparations containing cement, and more particularly to the use of polycarboxylate comb polymers containing a carbon backbone and pendant polyoxyalkylene groups with ether (including vinyl ether) linkage groups for sustaining robustness during grinding and workability and strength-enhancing properties (Cheung; col. 1, lines 9-15). In contrast to the prior art comb polymers which contain, e.g. esters for linking oxyalkylene groups, the use of a polycarboxylate comb polymer containing a carbon backbone and pendant polyoxyalkylene groups with linkage groups comprising at least one ether group, sustains the robustness of the comb polymer during grinding, and confers workability and strength-enhancing properties (Cheung; col. 3, line 60-col. 4, line 2).
The comb polymer is introduced into a cementitious material as an interground additive, before or during the grinding, in an amount of 0.002-0.4 percent based on dry weight of the cementitious material, the comb polymer having carbon-containing backbone and pendant groups represented by structures (I) and (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
220
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group; M represents hydrogen atom, an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal cation, ammonium or organic amine groups or a mixture thereof; p represents an integer of 0-1; Alk represents a C2-10 alkylene group; x represents an integer of 1-10; y represents a number of 0-300; z represents a number of 1-300; R2 represents a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group having 1-10 carbon atoms; and "a" and "b" are numerical values representing molar percentage of the polymer's structure, wherein "a" is 30-90 and "b" is 10-70 (Cheung; col. 4, lines 40-col. 5, line 5).
Most preferably, R2 in structure (II) represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group; x represents an integer of 1 to 4; y represents a number of 0; z represents a number of 40-200, and the polyoxyalkylene group (AlkO) consists of 100% EO groups (Cheung; col. 4, lines 23-26 and col. 5, lines 15-18).
The polymers of Cheung are free of pendant groups linked to the main carbon chain by ester groups as claimed.
0.002-0.4% of the polycarboxylate comb polymer, based on dry weight of the cementitious material, falls within the claimed range of 0.001-5 weight% polymer admixture, relative to the dry weight of the cement composition.
While the preferred polymers of Cheung having repeating units (I) and (II) overlap in scope with claimed polymers having repeating units of formula (II) and (I) respectively (claim 1), or repeating units of formula (II’) and (I’) respectively (claims 2-3), Cheung further exemplifies polycarboxylate comb polymers which fall within the scope of the polymers as claimed. See Example 8, Table 7, Polymers 5-7 and 9 (Cheung; col. 12, line 64-col. 13, line 48).
See, for example, Polymer 6 of Cheung which has the following values:
a:b = 80:20; which is equivalent to the claimed b = 0.2 (which falls within the claimed range of a = 0.05-0.25 of claims 1-2, and a = 0.05-0.2 of claims 3, 11 and 13), and a = 0.80 (which falls within the claimed range of b = 0.75-0.95 of claims 1-2, including the preferred range of b = 0.8-0.95 of claim 3);
R1 of formula (I) is H, which is equivalent to the claimed R12 = hydrogen. Further, formula (I) exemplified by Cheung is equivalent to the claimed formula (II) wherein R11=R13=hydrogen and M=hydrogen or a cation (claims 1-3) (Cheung; col. 4, lines 64-66 and col. 13, lines 5-10);
R1 of formula (II) of Cheung = methyl, which is equivalent to the claimed R2 of formula (II) = methyl (claims 1-2);
R2 = H, which is equivalent to the claimed R5 = OH (claims 1-3);
p = 0, y = 0 , and the AlkO unit = 100% EO units, which is equivalent to the R4 and R’4 group of claim 2;
x = 1, which is equivalent to the claimed p = 1 of claims 1-3, 11 and 13; and
z = 120, which falls within the claimed q = 3-300 (claim 1), q = 3-500 (claim 2) and q = 5-200 (claim 3).
The polymers provide excellent grinding efficiency when added to Portland cement clinker, and enhanced workability and good one-day compressive strength when added to cement samples (Cheung; col. 13, line 55-col. 15, line 62).
Cheung is analogous art as it teaches the addition of an admixture comprising a polymer comprising a main carbon chain and units of the formula (I) or (I’) and (II) or (II’) to cement compositions in amounts as claimed.
In light of the motivation provided by Cheung to add a polycarboxylate comb polymer containing a carbon backbone and pendant polyoxyalkylene groups with ether linkage groups, the polymers comprising units (I)/(I’) and (II)/(II’) as claimed, to a cement composition in the claimed amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a polymer as claimed in the claimed amounts as the grinding additive the compositions of Arango Campo in order to obtain a cement composition with excellent grinding efficiency, enhanced workability, and good one-day compressive strength, thereby resulting in the claimed invention. Further, because Arango Campo teaches the addition of the grinding additives in order to facilitate material fluidity and is concerned with one-day compressive strength, and because Cheung teaches that the claimed polymers improve the grinding operation, workability, and strength-enhancing properties of cement, those skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the claimed polymers in the cementitious compositions of Arango Campo, absent a showing otherwise.
Regarding claim 6, Arango Campo in view of Cheung are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Neither Arango Campo or Cheung require the presence of a tertiary alkanolamine in the cement compositions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arango Campo in view of Cheung as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Borgholm et al, US 5,584,926 (Borgholm).
Regarding claim 5, Arango Campo in view of Cheung are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the cementitious compositions comprise a setting regulator (Arango Campo; [0008]). Arango Campo teaches that the setting regulator may be, e.g., calcium sulfate; however, another useful setting regulator as understood by a person moderately skilled in the art may also be used (Arango Campo; [0041]).
Arango Campo also teaches that the cement composition may comprise an alkaline activator in order to increase the initial compressive mechanical strength (Arango Campo; [0058-0060]).
Arango Campo in view of Cheung do not explicitly teach wherein the set retarding agent is a gluconic acid in neutral form or salt thereof, a phosphonic acid in neutral form or salt thereof, or a mixture thereof as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Matthes teaches a hydraulic binder containing 25 to 85wt % of cement clinker, 0 to 7wt % of CaSO4, a mineral additive(s), and 1 to 10wt % of a dual setting control system that includes an activator and a retarder (Matthes; Abstract).
Cements based on Portland cement clinker contain calcium sulfate to control setting and curing (Matthes; [0003]). By adding various additives such as, e.g., calcined clays or ground limestone to Portland cement, the emission of CO2 will be reduced. The substitution of additives for Portland cement clinker in cement, however, involves a reduction in the early strength, such that measures have to be taken to achieve sufficient strengths despite the desired, reduced content of Portland cement clinker (Matthes; [0004]).
Matthes teaches that in terms of strength, in both the early and late phases of setting and curing, smaller portions of cement clinker can at least be compensated for by the use of the dual setting control system. The activator significantly accelerates the hydration reactions of both clinker and secondary cement materials. The combined addition of an activator and a retarder prevents the loss of late strength without influencing the effect in the early activation. In addition, the processability of the cement in mortar and concrete has been significantly improved (Matthes; [0009]).
The retarder preferably contains at least one compound selected from a group including phosphonates, and gluconic acid and salts thereof, wherein sodium gluconate is preferred (i.e., a salt of gluconic acid) (Matthes; [0014]).
Matthes is analogous art as it teaches cement compositions which may comprise reduced clinker content, calcined clay (i.e., activated clay), and a sodium gluconate retarder.
In light of the motivation provided by Matthes to add a dual setting control system to cement compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the dual setting control system of Matthes, which comprises the preferred gluconate setting retarder, to the cementitious compositions of Arango Campo in view of Cheung in order to obtain a cement composition achieving reduced CO2 emissions and improved processability, as well as decreased the loss of late strength despite early activation, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Further, because Arango Campo teaches that both setting regulators known by those in the art and alkaline activators may be added to the cement compositions, those skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding the dual setting control systems of Matthes to the cements of Arango Campo, absent a showing otherwise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita et al, US 2002/0050232; Bair et al, US 2007/0270547 A1; and Tan et al, CN 111961148A, teach polymers as claimed for user in cement compositions.
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