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 of Group I in the reply filed on 24 March 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 14, line 25, the word “power” should be written “powder.”
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.
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 34-40 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.
Claim 34 requires the combination of limitations, compared with limitations of Claim 14 in the table below. Since every method step of Claim 34 corresponds to an analogous method step of Claim 14, it is not clear whether Claim 34 further narrows the method of Claim 14, or if so, how. However, possible restatements of limitations of Claim 14 create confusion about what the claims require. For example, although Claim 14 requires first adding selected core particles with diameters in the range of 2-3 mm before coating THOSE core particles, Claim 34 recites a confused restatement, requiring “the encapsulated system comprising core particles formed from cement powder and having a diameter in the range of 0.5-10 mm, each core particle being surrounded by a shell comprising an external cement layer . . . the shell defining a coating around selected core particles having a diameter in the range of 2-4 mm to form coated particles configured . . . .” In the restatement, each core particle, (core particles having a diameter in the range of 0.5-10 mm) is surrounded by a shell comprising an external cement layer, while a coating around selected core particles have a diameter in the range of 2-4 mm. Thus, Claim 34 creates confusion about what particles must be coated, whether all the core particles with a diam. in the range of 0.5-10 mm are coated, while selected ones have a coating in the range of 2-4 mm or whether it is just a confused way of repeating the requirements of Claim 14 – that only those particles within the range of 2-4 mm are placed in the drum and coated. To facilitate compact prosecution, Examiner interprets Claim 34 to improperly depend from Claim 14 in order to reconcile the limitations required in Claim 34 with those required in Claim 14, which implies that only particles in the range of 2-4 mm are placed in a drum and coated; otherwise, Claim 34 would be viewed as improperly broadening Claim 14.
Claims 35-40 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 34.
Claim 34
Claim 14
the method produces an encapsulated system for self-healing of building materials including concrete, mortar, or render,
method of producing an encapsulated system for self-healing of building materials including concrete, mortar, or render
the encapsulated system comprising core particles formed from cement powder
core particles by the following steps:adding cement powder . . . thereby forming the core particles
having a diameter in the range of 0.5-10 mm
to provide the core particles with a diameter in the range of 0.5-10 mm
each core particle being surrounded by a shell comprising an external cement layer hardened by treatment
coating the prepared core particles with a shell by the following steps: . . . adding cement powder into the rotating drum to coat the core particles with an external cement layer and form a shell covering the core particles . . . spraying the core particles covered with the external cement layer with a sodium silicate water solution of 10 wt% or a setting accelerator water solution of 12wt % to cause the shell to become thickened and hardened
hardened by treatment with a sodium silicate water solution of about 10 wt% or a setting accelerator water solution of about 12 wt%
spraying the core particles covered with the external cement layer with a sodium silicate water solution of 10 wt% or a setting accelerator water solution of 12wt % to cause the shell to become thickened and hardened
the shell defining a coating around selected core particles having a diameter in the range of 2-4 mm to form coated particles
selecting those core particles with a diameter in the range of 2-4 mm;adding the selected core particles in the drum;wetting the core particles in the drum with water or a polyvinyl alcohol water solution of 10 wt%;rotating the drum containing the wetted core particles while supplying a continuous airflow at a temperature of 40-50 °C; adding cement powder into the rotating drum to coat the core particles with an external cement layer and form a shell covering the core particles
configured for incorporation into the building material to facilitate self-healing
method of producing an encapsulated system for self-healing of building materials including concrete, mortar, or render (i.e. configured for incorporation into the building material to facilitate self-healing by the method of Claim 14)
Claims 34-40 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. See the rejection of Claim 34 under 35 USC 112(b) and table above for an explanation. Claims 35-40 duplicate Claims 15-20 and depend from Claim 34, which fails to further limit Claim 14 and may improperly broaden it. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) 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.
Claim(s) 14-16, 34-36, 41-44, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamai et al. (JP 2005008464A) in view of Kishi et al. (JP 2013103849A).
Regarding Claims 14 and 34, Tamai et al. (JP’464) teach a method of producing an encapsulated system capable of being used for self-healing of building materials including concrete, mortar, or render, the method comprising: preparing core particles by the following steps: adding cement powder in a rotating drum of a mixer (e.g. drum and/ or pan-type mixer [0058,0006]); wetting the cement powder in the drum by spraying with “an appropriate amount of water” [0037,0084], including spraying “a wetting agent” in a ratio equal to 20 parts wetting agent to 55 parts cement [0084], 100 parts of wetting agent to 250 parts of cement [0075], 1.1 parts wetting agent to 6 parts of cement [0068], or 1.2 parts wetting agent to 8 parts cement [0093] by spraying carrier particles for 2 minutes, then adding cement and stirring for 2-3 minutes in a mixer [0068,0075,0084,0093]; and supplying an airflow [0055] at a temperature of 35 C [0056], thereby forming the core particles; and coating the prepared core particles with a shell. To coat prepared core particles with a shell, JP’464 teaches providing carriers with a diameter of 3 mm and total diameter of coated core in a range of 4-13 mm [0057];; wetting the core particles in the drum with water in “an appropriate amount” [0037], including for example 4.5 parts wetting agent to 12 parts cement, 5 parts wetting agent to 16 parts cement, 6.4 parts wetting agent to 20 parts of cement [0093-0094]; mixing the wetted core particles with cement while supplying an airflow at a temperature of 35 °C [0055]; adding cement powder into a mixer (e.g. drum and/ or pan-type mixer [0058,0006]) to coat the core particles with an external cement layer and form a shell covering the core particles [0084,0093-0094].
JP’464 fails to teach spraying the coated core particles with a hardening solution to thicken and harden the shell. JP’849 is analogous art in the field of producing encapsulated particles, including coating analogous core materials (e.g. cement-coated carrier material, including any of slag fine aggregate, blast furnace slag sand, FeNi slag fine aggregate, limestone sand, white clay crushed sand) [0083,0088] with a cement shell (e.g. second coating) by placing the core particles in a drum, including a pan-pelletizer (i.e. “pan coater”) [0008,0066,0088], wetting the core particles, rotating the drum while supplying airflow, adding cement powder to form an external cement layer covering the core particles [0059,0085], and spraying the coated core particles with a hardening solution to thicken and harden the shell [0086]. A shell coating can be applied three times (fourth coating) [0093-0094]. JP’849 teaches that the core-shell products, obviously similar to those of JP’464, are useful in an intended use for self-healing of building materials including concrete, mortar, or render [0004,0070]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of JP’464 by spraying the coated core particles with a setting solution to thicken and harden the shell, because JP’464 teaches hardening the shell and JP’849 suggests spraying the shell with a hardening accelerator to attach the cement shell to the core in a short amount of time [0022].
In addition, JP’464 fails to teach removing the formed core particles from the drum and drying the core particles in an oven at 40 °C for 24 hours to provide the core particles with a diameter in the range of 0.5-10 mm. However, both JP’464 and JP’849 suggest ranges of particle size substantially overlapping the recited range. For example, JP’464 teaches providing carriers with a diameter of 3 mm and total diameter of coated core in a range of 4-13 mm [0057]. JP’849 teaches a similar composition of core and shell and a granule carrier with a diameter in the range of 0.1-1 mm [0088] and a thickness of each coating layer of between 0.04 mm and 0.6 mm, which would increase the diameter of the carrier in a range of 0.08-1.2 mm. This suggests that with two coatings, a first coating would form a core with a diameter of between 0.18-2.2 mm for the second coating. Thus, the recited range of core diameter is obvious, since both JP’464 and JP’849 suggest diameters substantially overlapping the recited range. Moreover, JP’849 suggests curing a first layer of cement, which comprises the core particle to which a second+ coating is applied as a shell, for one day (i.e. 24 hours) after application at 20 C [0088], while US’464 suggests that an analogous core-shell cement particle can be cured at elevated temperature, including a range of 5 to 40 C [0023]. Additionally, it is known that temperature affects curing and drying efficiency. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of JP’464 and JP’849 by removing the core particles in order to cure them for a day in a conventional oven at a temperature of 40 C in order to accomplish or to accelerating curing and drying before adding them back to the mixer for further coating by a shell (second or more coatings). Moreover, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical.
In addition, JP’849 teaches spraying concrete powder with water [0066,0085]. The combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 fails to teach a water/cement ratio equal to 1/10 w/w. However, the suggestion in JP’464 to add an appropriate amount of water and the suggestion in JP’849 to spray with an adequate amount of water sufficient to attach the cement powder mixture to a carrier would have led to routine optimization to arrive at a concentration within the recited range. Moreover, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical.
In addition, JP’849 teaches a rotational speed of 40 rpm [0085]. The combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 fails to teach the recited rotational speed and temperature. However, 50-60 rpm is obviously close to 40 rpm, and 40 C is obviously close to 35 C. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references with a rotational speed and air temperature within the recited ranges to achieve adequate mixing and a desired speed and degree of curing and hardening.
Additionally, JP’464 teaches rotating the drum at a speed that may vary depending on type of granular material [0058] and an air temperature of about 35 C [0055-0056,0063], which depends on compressive strength and/ or hardening accelerators used [0055]. JP’849 teaches a rotational speed of 40 rpm [0085]. The combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 fails to teach the recited rotational speed and temperature. However, 50-60 rpm is obviously close to 40 rpm, and 40 C is obviously close to 35 C. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references with a rotational speed and air temperature within the recited ranges to achieve adequate mixing and a desired speed and degree of curing and hardening.
Regarding Claims 15 and 35, JP’464 teaches that during preparation of the core particles and the shell, the cement powder comprises Portland cement, which contains belite (calcium oxide) [0066]. JP’464 fails to teach that the cement powder is mixed with crystalline admixtures, and/or calcium oxide, and/or magnesium oxide, and/or a super plasticizer. JP’849 likewise teaches low- and moderate-heat Portland cements, which comprise belite, comprising calcium oxide, which has a slow hydration reaction, which can improve an inhibitory effect on a hydration reaction of diamide carbonate with cement [0041,0047]. JP’849 also teaches sulfoaluminate cement [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references with Portland cement or a combination of Portland cement and sulfoaluminate cement containing belite, because JP’849 suggests Portland cement and/ or sulfoaluminate cement as cements for the process, which would be obvious to combine to achieve partial benefits of each and to include belite (also calcium oxide) in the cement, because JP’849 suggests that it can improve an inhibitory effect on a hydration reaction of diamide carbonate with cement. Additionally, both JP’464 and JP’849 teach sieving, including sieving cement through a 32-mesh (corresponding to 540 micron) sieve (JP’464, [0075]) and sieving carrier particles to a particle size of 0.1- 1 mm [0030]. The combination of references fails to teach sieving the recited core (e.g. carrier particle and first coating). However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by sieving the particles to within desired particle size, because JP’464 and JP’849 suggests desirable total particle sizes, including the shells (JP’464, [0057]; JP’849, [0012,0018,0067]), and JP’849 provides evidence that sieving was a known method for characterizing and selecting desirable particle sizes.
Regarding Claims 16 and 36, JP’464 suggests spraying water for 2 minutes before applying (and wetting) additional cement powder and an additional 2-3 minutes to for mixing a cement mixture and carrier particles (See rejection of Claim 14 above for citations). JP’849 teaches spraying a cement mixture applied to a core (See rejection of Claim 14 above for citations), but does not state how long to perform the spraying. Amount of water sprayed is related to the amount of time to spray (rate*time = amount). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by spraying for the recited length of time through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success in applying an amount of water sufficient to attach a layer of cement powder to an underlying core and/ or shell.
Regarding Claim 41, (JP’464) teaches a method of producing an encapsulated system building materials including concrete, mortar, or render, the method comprising: preparing core particles from cement powder (e.g. by first or second coating of carrier) in a rotating drum (e.g. drum and/ or pan-type mixer [0058,0006]) by wetting the cement powder to form agglomerated core particles and curing the formed core particles [0036,0039,0068]; coating the prepared core particles with a shell (e.g. second or third coating) by placing the core particles in a mixer (e.g. drum and/ or pan-type mixer [0058,0006]); wetting the core particles [0036,0042]; rotating the drum while supplying airflow [0063,0085; adding cement powder to form an external cement layer covering the core particles [0019]; allowing the cement layer on the core particles to cure and harden [0068]; and drying the coated particles to form encapsulated particles [0063,0070,0095]. JP’464 further teaches adding curing accelerators to a wetting agent [0040,0051].
JP’464 teaches drying a coated core-shell product [0063,0070,0095]. JP’464 fails expressly to teach drying the formed core particles (i.e. before a second or third coating). However, it teaches that the formed core particles (e.g. combination of carrier and first coating, or second coating in the case a third coating is applied) must be fully hardened before applying a second (or third) coating [0038,0093]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of JP’464 by drying the core before applying an additional coating (shell) in order to thoroughly harden the coating as JP’464 suggests.
JP’464 fails to teach spraying the coated core particles with a hardening solution to thicken and harden the shell. JP’849 is analogous art in the field of producing encapsulated particles, including coating analogous core materials (e.g. cement-coated carrier material, including any of slag fine aggregate, blast furnace slag sand, FeNi slag fine aggregate, limestone sand, white clay crushed sand) [0083,0088] with a cement shell (e.g. second coating) by placing the core particles in a drum, including a pan-pelletizer (i.e. “pan coater”) [0008,0066,0088], wetting the core particles, rotating the drum while supplying airflow, adding cement powder to form an external cement layer covering the core particles [0059,0085], and spraying the coated core particles with a hardening solution to thicken and harden the shell [0086]. A shell coating can be applied three times (fourth coating) [0093-0094]. JP’849 teaches that the core-shell products, obviously similar to those of JP’464, are useful in an intended use for self-healing of building materials including concrete, mortar, or render [0004,0070]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of JP’464 by spraying the coated core particles with a solution to thicken and harden the shell, because JP’464 teaches hardening the shell and JP’849 suggests spraying the shell with a hardening accelerator to attach the cement shell to the core in a short amount of time [0022].
Regarding Claim 42, JP’464 teaches rotating the drum at a speed that may vary depending on type of granular material [0058] and an air temperature of about 35 C [0055-0056,0063], which depends on compressive strength and/ or hardening accelerators used [0055]. JP’849 teaches a rotational speed of 40 rpm [0085]. The combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 fails to teach the recited rotational speed and temperature. However, 50-60 rpm is obviously close to 40 rpm, and 40 C is obviously close to 35 C. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references with a rotational speed and air temperature within the recited ranges to achieve adequate mixing and a desired speed and degree of curing and hardening.
Regarding Claim 43, JP’464 teaches providing carriers with a diameter of 3 mm and total diameter of coated core in a range of 4-13 mm [0057]. JP’849 teaches a similar composition of core and shell and a granule carrier with a diameter in the range of 0.1-1 mm [0088] and a thickness of each coating layer of between 0.04 mm and 0.6 mm, which would increase the diameter of the carrier in a range of 0.08-1.2 mm. This suggests that with two coatings, a first coating would form a core with a diameter of between 0.18-2.2 mm for the second coating. Thus, the recited range of core diameter is obvious, since both JP’464 and JP’849 suggest diameters substantially overlapping the recited range.
JP’464 also teaches curing for 3 hours at 8 C, 10 C, 30 C, or 35 C [0034,0036,0055,0056]. JP’849 teaches curing at 20 C for one day (24 h), 28 days, or 91 days [0088,0093,0100]. JP’464 fails to teach the recited temperature of 40 degrees at 24 hours. However, 35 C in JP’464 is obviously close to 40 C, and curing/ hardening/ drying time is clearly a function of temperature, with increased temperature reducing time. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references to dry the core particles (carrier plus first coating, or second coating in the case a third coating is applied) in a conventional oven at the recited temperature for the recited period of time through routine optimization and the expectation of achieving a core-shell product capable of being used in applications for self-repair of concrete, mortar, or render.
Regarding Claim 44, JP’464 teaches that during preparation of the core particles, the cement powder comprises Portland cement, which contains belite (calcium oxide) [0066]. JP’464 fails to teach that the cement powder is mixed with crystalline admixtures, and/or calcium oxide, and/or magnesium oxide, and/or a super plasticizer. JP’849 likewise teaches low- and moderate-heat Portland cements, which comprise belite, comprising calcium oxide, which has a slow hydration reaction, which can improve an inhibitory effect on a hydration reaction of diamide carbonate with cement [0041,0047]. JP’849 also teaches sulfoaluminate cement [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references with Portland cement or a combination of Portland cement and sulfoaluminate cement containing belite, because JP’849 suggests Portland cement and/ or sulfoaluminate cement as cements for the process, which would be obvious to combine to achieve partial benefits of each and to include belite (also calcium oxide) in the cement, because JP’849 suggests that it can improve an inhibitory effect on a hydration reaction of diamide carbonate with cement.
Regarding Claim 46, JP’464 teaches a 2%, a 6%, and a 25% CaCl2 setting accelerator in water [0040,0065,0081-0083] and a range of 0-30% setting accelerator [0051]. Moreover, JP’849 teaches adding hardening accelerator in an aqueous solution of any concentration [0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by spraying a hardening solution, comprising 12 wt% setting accelerator in water, because JP’464 suggests a range overlapping the recited concentration, and JP’849 suggests any concentration of setting accelerator. Drying the coated particles at 40 C is obvious (see rejections of Claims 41 and 43 above) as is storing materials at room temperature, since it is generally convenient to store materials at room temperature for later use. Moreover, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
Claim(s) 17 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamai et al. (JP 2005008464A) in view of Kishi et al. (JP 2013103849A) as applied to Claims 14 and 34 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 103102112).
Regarding Claims 17 and 38, JP’464 teaches that during preparation of the core particles, the cement powder comprises Portland cement, which contains belite (calcium oxide) [0066]. JP’464 fails to teach that the cement powder is mixed with crystalline admixtures, and/or calcium oxide, and/or magnesium oxide, and/or a super plasticizer. JP’849 likewise teaches low- and moderate-heat Portland cements, which comprise belite, comprising calcium oxide, which has a slow hydration reaction, which can improve an inhibitory effect on a hydration reaction of diamide carbonate with cement [0041,0047]. JP’849 also teaches sulfoaluminate cement [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references with Portland cement or a combination of Portland cement and sulfoaluminate cement containing belite, because JP’849 suggests Portland cement and/ or sulfoaluminate cement as cements for the process, which would be obvious to combine to achieve partial benefits of each and to include belite (also calcium oxide) in the cement, because JP’849 suggests that it can improve an inhibitory effect on a hydration reaction of diamide carbonate with cement.
JP’464 fails to teach a cement powder particle size. JP’849 suggests that it is typical for cement particles to have a size less than a range of 100 to 300 micron [0055], and suggests a cementitious powder comprise particles (CaO) with a size in the range of 10 to 100 micron [0048]. Thus, particle size is not considered critical absent evidence. The combination of references in the rejections of Claims 14 and 34 above fails to teach a particle size of approximately 63 microns. Yang (CN’112) is analogous art in the field of cement and is pertinent to inventor’s problem of accelerating the hardening of a cement (Abstract) and suggests a method, including grinding a cementitious material to a particle size of 70 micron (approximately 63 microns), for producing cement which is especially suitable for waterproof work with good slurry stability and is fast hardening (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 by grinding cement to a particle size of approximately 63 microns, because JP’464 and JP’849 suggest that the recited size is within a typical size range for cement, and CN’112 suggests a size that is 70 microns (approximately 63 microns) and obviously close to the recited size for producing a cement which has good slurry stability and is fast hardening.
Claim(s) 18 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamai et al. (JP 2005008464A) in view of Kishi et al. (JP 2013103849A) as applied to Claims 15 and 35 above, and further in view of Dubey (US 2009/0011207).
The combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 fails to teach a plasticizer or polycarboxylate. Polycarboxylate is a conventional plasticizer for cement. For example, Dubey US’207, analogous art in the field of cement compositions, teaches polycarboxylate as a “superplasticizer,” which helps to reduce water demand [0096]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 by adding a conventional additive, including a polycarboxylate superplasticizer, to the cement, and it would have been obvious to add polycarboxylate superplasticizer, because US’207 suggests that a polycarboxylate is a superplasticizer that decreases water demand of dry cement mixtures.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamai et al. (JP 2005008464A) in view of Kishi et al. (JP 2013103849A) as applied to Claim 44 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 103102112) and Dubey (US 2009/0011207).
Regarding Claim 45, JP’464 fails to teach a cement particle size of 63 microns. JP’849 suggests that it is typical for cement particles to have a size less than a range of 100 to 300 micron [0055], and suggests a cementitious powder comprise particles (CaO) with a size in the range of 10 to 100 micron [0048]. Thus, particle size is not considered critical absent evidence. The combination of references in the rejection of Claim 41 above fails to teach a particle size of approximately 63 microns. Yang (CN’112) is analogous art in the field of cement and is pertinent to inventor’s problem of accelerating the hardening of a cement (Abstract) and suggests a method, including grinding a cementitious material to a particle size of 70 micron (approximately 63 microns), for producing cement which is especially suitable for waterproof work with good slurry stability and is fast hardening (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 by grinding cement to a particle size of approximately 63 microns, because JP’464 and JP’849 suggest that the recited size is within a typical size range for cement and CN’112 suggests a size that is 70 microns (approximately 63 microns) and obviously close to the recited size for producing a cement which has good slurry stability and is fast hardening.
The combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 and CN’112 fails to teach a plasticizer or polycarboxylate. Polycarboxylate is a conventional plasticizer for cement. For example, Dubey (CN’703), analogous art in the field of cement compositions, teaches polycarboxylate as a “superplasticizer,” which helps to reduce water demand [0096]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of JP’464 in view of JP’849 and CN’112 by adding a conventional additive, including a polycarboxylate superplasticizer, to the cement, and it would have been obvious to add polycarboxylate superplasticizer, because US’207 suggests that a polycarboxylate is a superplasticizer that decreases water demand of dry cement mixtures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 19-20, no prior art which teaches or fairly suggests every limitation, including spraying the core particles covered with the external cement layer with a sodium silicate or setting accelerator water solution; and further comprising spraying the dried coated particles with a sodium silicate or setting accelerator water solution and drying the sprayed coated particles at 40 °C for 4 hours before storing the dried coated particles at room temperature, has been identified as of the time of this Office Action.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nomachi et al. (US 5,236,501) (general art for producing powder cement)
Shao et al. (CN 111662050) ((self healing microcapsule, polycarboxylate superplasticizer, sulfoaluminate cement core for self-repairing concrete)
Voinitchi et al. (RO 134320) (concrete is intrinsically self-repairing)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights