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 with traverse of Group I claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Patent Office alleges a posteriori lack of unity of invention on the basis of the teachings of Wang (CN 109704697). Applicant submits that the Restriction Requirement is improper and should be withdrawn. First, Group II (claims 18-20) is directed to a process specially adapted for manufacturing the elected product of Group I, and the product and process claims are technically linked by the same inventive concept, as the process steps are tailored to prepare the claimed composition and coating system recited in the elected claims, rather than being a generic mixing process. The claims of Groups I and II thus have unity of invention.
This is not found persuasive because the instant application is a national stage entry filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 and is therefore not subject to US restriction practice but rather subject to lack of unity practice, see MPEP 1893.03(d). It is noted that undue search burden is not a criterion in lack of unity analysis. The test is whether or not special technical features can be established. It is noted that inventions listed as Groups I and II do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features as set forth in paragraph 17-18 of the previous Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/22/2026.
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 1-17 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.
In claim 1, which recites, base layer comprising the ingredients in parts by weight, however it is not clear if the parts by weight is based on total weight of base layer or total weight of concrete material. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 113372075) in view of Zhu (CN 106220093), Noh et al. (KR 2017/100219) and Song et al. (CN 111592826).
Regarding claims 1-3, 12-13 Li discloses concrete based on 3D printing and preparation method thereof, 3D printing column template, relating to the field of building engineering, wherein the concrete is composed of the following raw materials in terms of parts by weight: common silicate cement 80-120 parts; 10-15 parts of silicon ash; 4-7 parts of quick hardening fast-hardening sulphoaluminate cement; 60-85 parts of quartz sand; water 30-50 parts; 1-2 parts of water reducing agent; 1-2 parts of expanding agent; 0.4 ~ 0.6 parts of antifoaming agent; 0.02 to 0.04 parts of air entraining agent; 0.04 to 0.06 parts of cellulose and so on (English abstract). Li discloses the outer surface of the 3D printing column template is coated with engineering cement-based composite material coating 4, wherein in FIG. 2, FIG. 3, the inner hole of the 3D printing column template is equipped with a reinforcing cage 5 and pouring the common concrete 6., where the composite coating 4 corresponds to superhydrophobic coating surface layer. The column concrete template corresponds to base layer.
However, Li fails to disclose that the column concrete template comprises defoamer, fiber, luminous powder, reflective powder, metakaolin, metal filler in claimed amount and fiber comprises polypropylene and polyvinyl alcohol in claimed mass ratio, the metal filler is Eu(DBM)3phen and luminous powder is claimed rare earth luminous powder.
Whereas, Zhu discloses concrete has excellent workability and mechanical property, wherein it is prepared from the following raw materials according to parts by weight comprises: 42.5 100-120 parts of cement, 4-8 parts of modified polypropylene fibre, 1-5 parts of polyvinyl alcohol. cellulose 2-5 parts, styrene-butadiene emulsion, 3-6 parts of borax, 2-5 parts of lime stone, 3-6 parts of river sand, 5-15 parts of nanometre composite material, 2-5 parts of magnesium aluminium carbonate hydrotalcite, 3-9 parts of fly ash, 2-4 parts of 1-4 parts of limestone powder, 3-6 parts of metakaolin, 2-5 parts of magnesium oxide, NUF-5 1-3 parts of high efficiency water reducing agent, 1-3 parts of antifoaming agent and 3-9 parts of water (English abstract).
Whereas, Noh discloses phosphorescent concrete structure, comprises (a) mixing 30-50 pts. wt. Portland cement or white cement, 30-60 pts. wt. silica sand and 10-35 pts. wt. water to obtain mortar, (b) mixing 3-20 pts. wt. acrylic emulsion, 1-30 pts. wt. phosphorescent pigment, 0.1-1 pts. wt. superplasticizer, 0.1-1 pts. wt. staining improver including polyethylene emulsion wax, paraffin wax and silicone water repellent, and 0-1 pts. wt. quick setting admixture with 100 pts. wt. mortar to obtain concrete composition, (c) adding the composition into a mold, molding, demolding and curing (abstract). The phosphorescent pigment is strontium aluminate phosphor-europium-dysprosium-yttrium (SrAl2O4Eu,Dy,Y) (see entire document).
Whereas, Song discloses self-adhesive flame-retardant waterproof asphalt coating, comprising the following components according to parts by weight by blending: emulsified asphalt 100 parts, modifier 30-50 parts by weight, auxiliary agent 2-10 parts by weight 2-10 parts by weight, 0.5-10 parts of reaction cross-linking agent, halogen-free flame retardant 3-15 parts by weight, flame retardant synergist 1-3 parts by weight, thickening agent 2-5 parts by weight and filler 5-40 parts by weight (English abstract). The reaction cross-linking agent is europium-doped dibenzoylmethane di (polyethylene glycol monopropyl ether) silane (page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include defoamer, fiber, reflective powder, metakaolin as taught by Zhu in the base layer of Li motivated by the desire to have excellent workability and mechanical property and to include luminous powder as taught by Noh in the base layer of Li motivated by the desire to have luminous characteristics and to include metal filler as taught by Song in the base layer of Li motivated by the desire to have improved luminescence properties.
With respect to parts by weight of all ingredients in base layer, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization motivated by the desire to have improved mechanical and physical properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 4-11, with respect to the polypropylene fiber has a length-to-diameter ratio and diameter limitation, Change in size and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
Regarding claim 14-15, with respect to the luminous powder having a particle size of 500-700 mesh, Change in size and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
Regarding claim 16-17, with respect to coating which is obtained by adding a fluorosilane material for fluorination during hydrolysis of tetraethyl orthosilicate. Any difference imparted by product by process limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made because where the examiner has found a substantially similar product as in the applied prior art the burden of proof is shifted to the applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct not the examiner to show the same process of making, see In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324, In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 and MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-6:30PM (FLEX).
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/RONAK C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights