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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 05/14/2026:
claims 1-2, 4-16 are currently pending;
claim 16 is withdrawn;
the 112(b) rejection to claims 5 and 15 are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims. New 112(b) rejection for claim 2 is outlined below;
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the narrowing amendment to the alkali metal compound in independent claim 1; however, new grounds of rejection are presented below; and
the nonstatutory double patenting rejection to claims 1-2, 6-9 and 12-15 is maintained for at least the reasons as set forth herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/26/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 02/18/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 2 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 2, the limitation "preferably" 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).
Examiner is treating claim 2 as requiring “wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension is a solidification accelerator and/or hardening accelerator for a composition comprising a mineral binder” as claimed.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either: i) remove the additional preferential limitation; ii) amend the claim so as to incorporate the narrower preferential as desired; or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 107986669 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Yang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method (see Yang at [0016] teaching a method for preparing… liquid alkali-free quick-setting agent),
for adjusting the viscosity of an aluminum sulfate suspension (based on specification at page 6 lines 22-28 disclosing what is meant more particularly by “adjusting the viscosity” in the present context that the viscosity of the aluminum sulfate suspension is controlled and/or adjusted by the soluble alkali metal compound… more particularly, the presence of the soluble alkali metal compound alters or reduces the viscosity of the aluminum sulfate suspension compared to that of an aluminum sulfate suspension that does not contain the soluble alkali metal compound but is otherwise of identical composition, see Yang at [0016]-[0018], see above and below, is taken to meet the claimed limitations because Yang teaches the presence of the soluble alkali metal compound that alters or reduces the viscosity of the aluminum sulfate suspension), comprising
a step of mixing at least one soluble alkali metal compound, aluminum sulfate, and water, wherein the alkali metal is selected from… sodium… and wherein the alkali metal compound is… an aluminate (see Yang at [0017]-[0018] teaching step A… weigh appropriate amounts of aluminum sulfate… sodium aluminate… and water… step B… add water to the reaction vessel, then add sodium aluminate to the water and stir to dissolve… then add aluminum sulfate to the solution in the reaction vessel and continue stirring until the aluminum sulfate is completely dissolved in the solution).
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Yang further teaches wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension is a solidification accelerator and/or hardening accelerator for a composition comprising a mineral binder (this recitation is not a step in the claimed method, and is being treated as being taught by Yang).
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Yang further teaches wherein the alkali metal compound is selected from… sodium aluminate (see Yang at [0017] teaching sodium aluminate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 7 and 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Yang further teaches wherein an amount of the at least one alkali metal compound is chosen such that the alkali metal ions, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, have a proportion of 0.02-5% by weight (see Yang at [0010] teaching by weight percentage… 0% to 4% sodium aluminate). Sodium is taken to meet the claimed “alkali metal ions” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Yang further teaches wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, contains 22-46% by weight of aluminum sulfate (Al2(SO4)3) (see Yang at [0010] teaching by weight percentage, 30% to 70% aluminum sulfate) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Yang further teaches wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension additionally contains 0.1-15% by weight, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, of an alkanolamine, wherein the alkanolamine used is advantageously… diethanolamine (see Yang at [0010] teaching by weight percentage… 0% to 10% alkanolamine, see Yang at [0014] teaching the alkanolamine is any one… of diethanolamine) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Yang further teaches wherein the alkali metal compound… during the production of the aluminum sulfate suspension… in powder form (see Yang at [0018] teaching step B… add water to the reaction vessel, then add sodium aluminate to the water and stir to dissolve… then add aluminum sulfate to the solution in the reaction vessel and continue stirring until the aluminum sulfate is completely dissolved in the solution, see Yang at [0021] teaching sodium aluminate is… industrial-grade solid sodium aluminate). The claimed “powder” is being treated as being taught by Yang because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed “powder” is critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Yang to choose an appropriate industrial-grade solid (or powder) sodium aluminate.
Claims 6, 9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schurch et al. (US 2010/0018440 A1) (“Schurch” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Yang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, has a proportion of sulfate (SO4) of 19-40% by weight, and wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, has a proportion of aluminum (Al) of 3.5-10% by weight (claim 6), and wherein a molar ratio of aluminum to sulfate in the aluminum sulfate suspension is less than or equal to 0.9 (claim 9). However, Yang teaches a further technical solution is that the aluminum sulfate is industrial aluminum sulfate or iron-free aluminum sulfate, wherein the Al2O3 content is greater than or equal to 15.6% of the total weight of aluminum sulfate, and the Fe content is less than or equal to 0.5% of the total weight of aluminum sulfate (see Yang at [0011]).
Like Yang, Schurch teaches an accelerator composition comprising aluminum sulfate (see Schurch at [0028] the accelerator… comprises from 17 to 35% by weight sulfate, from 3.2 to 9.5% by weight of aluminum), which overlaps with the claimed “wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, has a proportion of sulfate (SO4) of 19-40% by weight, and wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, has a proportion of aluminum (Al) of 3.5-10% by weight” (claim 6).
Schurch also teaches the molar ratio of aluminum to sulfate must in every case be less than 0.83 (see Schurch at [0035]), which overlaps with the claimed “wherein a molar ratio of aluminum to sulfate in the aluminum sulfate suspension is… less than… 0.9” (claim 9).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[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", and “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” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
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 from 17 to 35% by weight sulfate, from 3.2 to 9.5% by weight of aluminum, and molar ratio of aluminum to sulfate of less than 0.83 as taught by Schurch for the aluminum sulfate in the alkali-free quick-setting agent as taught by Yang because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amounts would be suitable.
Regarding claims 12-15, Angelskaar teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Angelskaar does not explicitly teach wherein the alkali metal compound is used for reducing viscosity in combination with a calcium compound or a magnesium compound (claim 12), wherein the calcium compound or magnesium compound is an oxide, hydroxide, carbonate, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, halide, formate, acetate and/or citrate (claim 13), wherein the calcium compound is calcium carbonate, calcium oxide and/or calcium hydroxide and the magnesium compound is magnesium carbonate, magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide (claim 14), and wherein an amount of the calcium compound or magnesium compound is chosen such that the calcium atoms or magnesium atoms, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, have a proportion of 0.001-4% by weight (claim 15).
However, please see claim 6 and 9 rejections based on Schurch as it applies here as well.
Additionally, Schurch teaches in order to obtain accelerators having a long shelf-life, magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2 is additionally used for the preparation, preferably in an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight… based on the total amount of the accelerator (see Schurch at [0041]), which is taken to meet the claimed wherein the alkali metal compound is used for reducing viscosity in combination with… a magnesium compound (claim 12), wherein the… magnesium compound is… hydroxide (claim 13), wherein… the magnesium compound is… magnesium hydroxide (claim 14), and wherein an amount of the… magnesium compound is chosen such that the… magnesium ions, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, have a proportion of 0.001-4% by weight (claim 15) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Magnesium oxide is expected to be capable of reducing viscosity in combination with the alkali metal compound as taught by Yang.
Additionally, MPEP states that "[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", and “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” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Schurch teaches that in order to obtain accelerators having a long shelf-life, an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight magnesium hydroxide is added, and seek those advantages by adding an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight magnesium hydroxide in the alkali-free quick-setting agent as taught by Yang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add magnesium hydroxide as taught by Schurch in the accelerator as taught by Yang in order to obtain accelerators having a long shelf-life, and to have selected an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight magnesium hydroxide as taught by Schurch in the alkali-free quick-setting agent as taught by Yang because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amounts would be suitable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angelskaar et al. (US 2006/0048685 A1) (“Angelskaar” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Yang further teaches the sodium aluminate… can react with aluminum sulfate in solutions, and the resulting active aluminum hydroxide can form a complex with aluminum sulfate (see Yang at [0032]). However, Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, contains 0.01-15% by weight of aluminum hydroxide.
Like Yang, Angelskaar teaches an accelerator comprising aluminum sulfate (see Angelskaar at [0005]-[0006] and [0009]-[0010] teaching an accelerator composition adapted to be used with sprayed cementitious compositions, which is a… dispersion of a blend of the essential components 1-3… component 1 – aluminium sulphate… optionally with at least one of components 4-7, with the proviso that at least one of… component 4… be present… component 4 – at least one of… sodium hydroxide).
Angelskaar further teaches component 6 – aluminium hydroxide (see Angelskaar at [0012])… component 6 – up to 15% (see Angelskaar at [0020]), which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the aluminum sulfate suspension, based on the total weight of the aluminum sulfate suspension, contains 0.01-15% by weight of aluminum hydroxide” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[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", and “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” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
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 up to 15wt % aluminium hydroxide as taught by Angelskaar in the alkali-free quick-setting agent as taught by Yang because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the amount disclosed would be suitable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 6-9 and 12-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12-14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12338174 (“’174” hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the pending application and ‘174 claim a method for adjusting the viscosity of an aluminum sulfate suspension comprising the step of mixing aluminum sulfate and soluble magnesium compound.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections based on Angelskaar have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection to claims 1-2, 6-9 and 12-15 is maintained, thus relevant arguments are addressed below.
Applicant discusses that the requirement for a magnesium compound in ‘174 does not suggest the use of lithium, sodium, or potassium aluminates or hydrogen carbonates, which is claimed in the current application (see Applicant’s arguments at page 7, section III).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that ‘174 employ the transitional term “comprising”, which is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (see MPEP 2111.03.I). Since the claims in ‘174 is open-ended, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate and is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights