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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted on 12 October 2023 has been entered. After entry of the amendment claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 1 and 10 applicant recites the limitation “strictly less than”. The examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “less than”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 20, the term “0,05µm” should be – 0.05µm –.
In claim 10, line 23, the term “0,05µm” should be – 0.05µm –.
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.
Claims 1-15 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, the phrases "also known as” and “such as” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "also known as" and “such as”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim is vague and indefinite as it recites the trademarks “Mastersizer 2000” and “MALVERN”. If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became descriptive of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to identify or describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name (MPEP 2173.05(u)). Also these terms are considered indefinite since the relationship between a trademark and the product it identifies is sometimes indefinite, uncertain or arbitrary. The formula or characteristics of the product may change from time to time and yet it may be sold under the same trademark. In the claims, every element or ingredient of the composition should be set forth in positive, exact, intelligible language so that there will be no uncertainty as to what is meant. Arbitrary trademarks which are liable to mean different things at the pleasure of manufacturers do not constitute such language. See MPEP 608.01(v). Ex parte Kattwinkel 12 USPQ 11. The phrases “the MALVERN company” and “the humid way method” lack proper antecedent basis. Also it is unclear as to what is meant by the phrase “humid way method”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" 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).
Regarding claim 3, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation lower than or equal to 8 µm, and the claim also recites preferably lower than or equal to 3.5 µm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. the phrases "also known as” and “such as” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "preferably”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim is vague and indefinite as it recites the trademarks “Mastersizer 2000” and “MALVERN”. If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became descriptive of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to identify or describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name (MPEP 2173.05(u)). Also these terms are considered indefinite since the relationship between a trademark and the product it identifies is sometimes indefinite, uncertain or arbitrary. The formula or characteristics of the product may change from time to time and yet it may be sold under the same trademark. In the claims, every element or ingredient of the composition should be set forth in positive, exact, intelligible language so that there will be no uncertainty as to what is meant. Arbitrary trademarks which are liable to mean different things at the pleasure of manufacturers do not constitute such language. See MPEP 608.01(v). Ex parte Kattwinkel 12 USPQ 11.
In claim 4, iit is unclear as to what is meant by the phrase “sourcing from stone pit”.
In claim 5, it is unclear as to what is meant by the phrase “recycling gypse”.
In claim 11, the phrases "also known as” and “such as” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "also known as" and “such as”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim is vague and indefinite as it recites the trademarks “Mastersizer 2000” and “MALVERN”. If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became descriptive of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to identify or describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name (MPEP 2173.05(u)). Also these terms are considered indefinite since the relationship between a trademark and the product it identifies is sometimes indefinite, uncertain or arbitrary. The formula or characteristics of the product may change from time to time and yet it may be sold under the same trademark. In the claims, every element or ingredient of the composition should be set forth in positive, exact, intelligible language so that there will be no uncertainty as to what is meant. Arbitrary trademarks which are liable to mean different things at the pleasure of manufacturers do not constitute such language. See MPEP 608.01(v). Ex parte Kattwinkel 12 USPQ 11. The phrases “the MALVERN company”, “the humid way method”, and “the different components” lack proper antecedent basis. Also it is unclear as to what is meant by the phrase “humid way method”.
In claim 12, the phrase “the ratio water to binder composition” is confusing and therefore renders the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 13-15 are vague and indefinite because they merely recite a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. The attempt to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 USC 112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(q).
In claim 14, the phrase “the paste fresh state yield stress” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 15, the phrase “the paste fresh state viscosity” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a claim directed to “A use of” is not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
References Cited By The Examiner
Frouin et al (US Patent Publication No. US 2024/0190771 A1) which is applicant’s copending application, teaches a binder composition in dry weight percentage comprising a) between 1% and 30% of Portland cement, lime or a mixture thereof, b) between 1% and 40% of ground granulated blast furnace slag, c) between 20% and 50% of at least one pozzolanic material, d) between 20% and 65% of at least one filler, e) between 0.5% and 10%, relative to the total weight of components a, b, c, and d, of at least one activator, f) between 0.05% and 1.5%, relative to the total weight of components a, b, c and d, of at least one water reducer polymer, the filler being a mixture between 10% and 90% in weight of particles having a d50≥0.05 μm and <8 μm, and between 10% and 90% in weight of particles having a d50≥8 μm and <200 μm, the filler mixture weight percentages in respect to total weight of the filler.
The reference differs from the instant claims at least in that it fails to recite a ground granulated blast furnace slag component having the claimed d50 particle size and the claimed SO3 content.
Kuryatnyk et al (US Patent No. 9,656,918 B2) teaches a hydraulic binder comprising
a) at least 50% by weight, with respect to the weight of the hydraulic binder composition, of a ground granulated blast furnace slag,
( b) at least calcium sulphate,
c) at least one product chosen from a source of Portland clinker and lime,
d) at least one aluminium derivative chosen from an alumina having a BET specific surface ranging from 100 to 400 m2/g, a monocalcium aluminate and a calcium sulphoaluminate, and
e) at least one alkali metal or alkaline earth metal salt chosen from chloride salts, bromide salts, silicate salts, nitrate salts or carboxylic acid salts, such as C1-C4 monocarboxylic acid salts, the total content of calcium sulphate, expressed as SO3 equivalent content, being at least 5% by weight, with respect to the weight of the hydraulic binder composition, the sum of the contents of the products cited in points c) and e) being less than 10% by weight, with respect to the weight of the hydraulic binder composition. The ground granulated blast furnace slag particles exhibit a mean diameter d50 preferably of less than 10 μm and more preferably of less than 5.5 μm.
The reference differs from the instant claims at least in that it does not teach the addition of a filler having the claimed d50.
Raz et al (US Patent No. 9,890,079 B2) teaches a cementitious composition comprising: a binder containing: (a) 72-94%, by weight, of ground granular blast furnace slag (GGBFS); (b) at least 0.5% calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA), by weight; (c) 1.2-11% by weight, expressed as SO3, of at least one inorganic sulfate selected from the group of sulfates consisting of a calcium sulfate hemihydrate, an anhydrous calcium sulfate, a calcium sulfate dihydrate, a sodium sulfate, and a sodium calcium sulfate; and (d) a total sulfate content of at least 3%, and at most 11%, by weight, expressed as SO3; the cementitious composition comprising, at most, 3% natural lime; the cementitious composition comprising, at most, 3% alumina cement; the cementitious composition comprising, at most 5% of an Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC); the cementitious composition comprising, at most, 5% of said CSA; the contents of the composition being calculated on a dry, aggregateless basis.
The reference differs from the instant claims in at least that it does not recite a ground granulated blast furnace slag or a mixture of fillers having the claimed d50.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The differences between the art cited by the examiner and the instant claims was discussed above. The other closest prior art is Hesselbarth et al (US Patent No. 8,932,402 B2) which is the English language of PCT International Publication No. WO 2011/055063 A1 and which was cited in the search report. The reference teaches in Table 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
419
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The reference differs from the instant claims in at least that it fails to teach the use of a mixture of fillers having the claimed d50.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
January 28, 2026