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 .
This communication responds to the application and amended claim set filed July 26, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
This application is the national stage entry of PCT/CN2022/084951, filed April 04, 2022, which claims priority to CN202210206579.1, filed March 03,2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on July 26,3023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because a translation of the non-patent literature Water Conservancy Seicheng Construction Bai Ke Encyclopedia by Qi Jinyuan is missing and it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3,4,6,7 are 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In view of the instant specification, it is suggested that the phrase “polymer monomer” be replaced with “monomer” or “polymerizable monomer”.
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 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, lines 2-3 recites “wherein functional groups of the polymer monomer comprise a carbon-carbon double bond and a carboxyl group”. Claim 3 recites as examples of the polymer monomer: acrylamide monomer, acrylic polymer monomers, a butyl methacrylate monomer, and ethylene dimethacrylate monomer and a hydroxyethyl methacrylate monomer, which causes confusion as only certain acrylic monomers possess both double bonds and carboxyl groups (i.e.. acrylic acid or methacrylic acid). The functional groups of the remaining monomers differ from those of the acrylic monomers; because they contain double bond groups and a group that is hydrolysable into a carboxyl group.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A dual-scale toughened cement-based composite material, comprising:
a cementitious material,
a polymer monomer,
an initiator,
a crosslinking agent, and
fibers;
wherein functional groups of the polymer monomer comprise a carbon-carbon double bond and a carboxyl group; and
the fibers comprise steel fibers and/or synthetic fibers, the synthetic fibers comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol fibers, polypropylene fibers, glass fibers, and carbon fibers.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 111363077 (A) as listed on the IDS dated 7/26/2023; full English Machine translation incorporated herewith) in view of Liu et al. (CN105585294 A; full English Machine translation incorporated herewith).
Regarding claims 1, Li et al. teach a cement -based composite material comprising a cementitious material, an acrylic monomer, an initiator, a crosslinking agent (claims 1, 3-6 and 8), wherein the functional groups of the acrylic monomer are a carbon-carbon double bond and a carboxyl group. Li et al. further teach that fibers such as polypropylene fibers and polymers are often used as additives to enhance the flexural strength and toughness of cement-based materials ([0005]-[0006]).
Li et al. are silent on the steel fibers and/or synthetic fibers as recited in the instant claim.
However, Liu et al. teach a pavement concrete with high resistance and high toughness (title), comprising cement, sand, gravel, polyvinyl alcohol fiber, polyolefin fiber and water (claim 1)
Liu et al. offer the motivation of using the fibers due to its ability to increase the flexural toughness, impact resistance, and crack resistance of concrete [0021]. In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specified fibers on the cement-based composite material of Li et al., thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Referring to the dual-scale toughened property, Li et al. teach the in-situ polymerization of a specific monomer to add acrylate polymers to cement-based materials, which ensures the compatibility of the networks of both acrylate polymers and cement-based materials, which without reducing compressive strength, it significantly improves the flexural strength of the cement itself and greatly shortens the setting time [0061]. In view of the substantially identical cement-based composite material of Li et al. in view of Liu et al., the cement -based composite material of Li et al. in view of Liu et al. is expected to possess the properties of a dual-scale toughened cement based composite material. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. teach the acrylic monomer is neutralized with an alkaline solution to form an acrylate monomer, (i.e. -COONa) (claim 6), which reads on the monomer wherein the carboxy group is replaced with a group that is hydrolysable into a carboxyl group.
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. teach acrylic monomers (claims 1 and 6), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 4 ,9 and 20, Li et al. teach the cement -based composite material comprises 50-100 wt.% cement and 2-10 wt.% of acrylate (claims 2 and 8), which corresponds to a ratio of 5:1 to 50:1 ( 50 wt.%/10 wt.% =5/1 and 100 wt.%/2 wt.% = 50/1), which overlaps with the claimed ranges (100: (0.1-10) or 10 to 1000). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Li et al..
Li et al. are silent on the volume of the fibers as recited by the instant claim.
However, Liu et al. teach a pavement concrete with high resistance and high toughness (title), comprising 0.2-0.6 vol. % of polyvinyl alcohol fibers and 0.7-1.1 vol. % of polyolefin fibers based on the percentage of the total volume of the concrete composition (claim 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cement-based composite material according to Li et al. having a volume percentage of 0.9-1.7 vol.% of the fibers as Liu et al. demonstrate this volume content of the fibers in a similar application with the predictable result of increasing the flexural toughness, impact resistance, and crack resistance of concrete [0021], thereby arriving to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Li et al. in view of Liu et al. teach the polyvinyl alcohol fiber has a length of 8–14 mm and a diameter of 10–14 μm, as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 15-16, Li et al. teach the initiator includes a persulfate, such as at least one of potassium persulfate, sodium persulfate, and ammonium persulfate, and optionally a co-initiator including sulfites and/or bisulfites, such as at least one of sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite [0016]-[0019], as required by the instant claims 6 and 15-16, wherein the amount of initiator used is 1-5 wt.% and co-initiator is 0.5-2.5 wt.% of the acrylate monomer ([0018], [0021]). Thus the mass ratio of the monomer to initiator is in a range of 100: (1-5), as required by the instant claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Li et al. teach the crosslinking agent includes compounds such as N,N-methylenebisacrylamide and the amount of crosslinking agent used is 0.01-0.1 wt.% of the acrylate monomer (claim 5), which implies a mass ratio of the monomer to the crosslinking agent of 100: (0.01-0.1).
Li et al. in view of Liu et al. are silent on the specific mass ratio of the monomer to the crosslinking agent as recited in the instant claim.
However, Li et al. teach that crosslinking agents are used to form bridging bonds between polymer molecular chains, giving the polymer better properties, such as greater heat resistance and better mechanical strength [0066]. Increasing the crosslinking agent would increase the crosslinking density of the polymer network that results in improved flexural strength [0042]. Thus, the mass ratio of the monomer to the crosslinking agent would be considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed mass ratio of the monomer to the crosslinking agent cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the mass ratio of the monomer to the crosslinking agent present in the cement-based composite material of Li et al. to reach the desired flexural strength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.05(b).)
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. teach the crosslinking agent includes compounds such as N,N-methylenebisacrylamide (claim 5), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10-11 and 13, Li et al. teach the cement- based material contains sand or gravel [0077], thereby reading on the aggregate of instant claims 10 and 11. Li et al. further teach some embodiments comprises 50-100 wt.% cement and 0-50 wt.% of pozzolanic material including at least one of fly ash and silica fume, thereby reading on the admixture of instant claim 13 [0079].
Regarding claim 12, Li et al. are silent on the mass ratio of the cement to the aggregate.
However Liu et al. teach a concrete composition comprising 16.3% -18.4% of the total concrete weight, 24.7-26.1 wt.% of sand ([0010], claim 1), which implies a mass ratio of cement to sand of 0.624 to 0.745 ( i.e. 16.3/26.1=0.624 and 18.4/24.6=0.745), thereby reading on the claimed mass ratio of the cement to aggregate (sand) (0.33-1 or 1:1 to 1:3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the cement-based composite material according to Li et al. having a content of aggregate (sand) as Liu et al. demonstrate this content of aggregate in a similar application with the predictable result of improving mechanical properties, thereby arriving to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Li et al. further teach the cement-based material contains 50-100 wt.% cement and 0-50 wt.% of pozzolanic material including at least one of fly ash and silica fume (claim 8), which implies a mass ratio of the admixture to the cement of 0-1:1 (maximum cement of 100% and minimum admixture 0% ; maximum admixture of 50 wt.% and minimum cement 50%), as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 17-19, the organic peroxide-ferrous salt system, the multi-electron transfer hypervalent compound-sulphite system and the non-peroxide initiator are optional initiator systems in the Markush group of instant claim 6. Li et al. teach the persulfate and sulphite, as set forth above for claim 6. Li et al. are considered to meet the claims 17-19 since claims 17-19 are further limiting the optional initiator systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763