DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/9/2023 and 10/4/2023 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 16-28 in the reply filed on 1/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the PCT authority did not restrict the inventions. This is not found persuasive because the actions of other bodies have no bearing on the findings of this office and the lack of a restriction requirement does not mean that unity of invention was present.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 29-30 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2004/0225093 A1) to Tomita et al. (hereinafter Tomita) in view of the teachings of (US 2020/0231499 A1) to Hesse et al. (hereinafter Hesse).
Tomita is directed toward a concrete composition. Tomita discloses at paragraph [0187] that the composition is produced using a dropping funnel, which would therefore be capable of being applied via a nozzle. Tomita discloses at paragraph [0162] that the cement is 1 to 99%, which reads on Applicants range of 15 to 90%. Tomita discloses at paragraph [0055] that the ettringite formation controller of a polycarboxylic acid is preferably not less than 1%, which reads on Applicants range of 0.2 to 3%. Tomita discloses at paragraph [0166] that a magnesium accelerator may be used. Tomita discloses at paragraph [0069] that a polyhydroxy compound of polyalcohols having a higher carbon to oxygen ratio of 1. Tomita discloses at paragraph [0159] that a Portland cement may be used. Tomita discloses at paragraph [0165] that a sugar alcohol may be used form compound A. Tomita discloses at paragraph [0166] that an accelerator that is alkaline or aluminum based is not required.
Hesse is directed toward a concrete composition. Tomita and Hesse are both directed toward a concrete composition and therefore are analogous art. Hesse teaches at paragraph [0179] that the cement includes the adduct of a glycolic acid. Hesse teaches at paragraph [0163] that the glycolic acid may be reacted with a sulfonate that reads on Applicants formula (I). Hesse teaches at paragraph [0121] that the compound may be reacted with a polyacrylamide. Hesse teaches at paragraph [0247] that the accelerator may be 0.1 to 4% of the composition that reads on Applicants range of 0.15% to 10% and may be a sodium carbonate. Hesse teaches at paragraph [0226] that a latent hydraulic binder may be used.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the disclosure of Tomita in view of the teachings of Hesse to provide the composition that forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 16-28.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
8. 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.
9. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights