DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 August 2026 has been entered.
After entry, claims 1-3, 6-7, and 10-18 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 13-14 and 17-18 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 13 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite due to the use of the phrase "comprising or consisting of" as the term "comprising" is open terminology and the term "consisting of" is closed terminology. Therefore it is unclear as to the exact scope of the claim. Is it open to the addition of other components or closed to the addition of other components. Clarification is requested.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan Patent Specification No. JP 2000169212 A.
The reference teaches, in paragraph [0008], the addition of an aqueous solution containing a chelating agent to a steelmaking slag. The chelating agent promotes the hydration reaction. The chelating agent includes triethanolamine or triisopropanolamine (paragraph [0010]). Paragraph [0013] teaches that examples of the slag include converter slag, electric furnace slag, and mixed pigment furnace slag. See also example 1.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches the addition of triisopropanolamine to a steelmaking slag such as electric furnace slag or converter slag. The triisopropanolamine promote hydration and therefore it acts as an accelerating agent.
As for claim 2, converter slag is also known as basic oxygen furnace slag.
As for claim 11, the reference teaches the addition of triisopropanolamine to a steelmaking slag such as electric furnace slag or converter slag. The triisopropanolamine promote hydration and therefore it acts as an accelerating agent.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches the addition of triisopropanolamine to a steelmaking slag such as electric furnace slag or converter slag. The triisopropanolamine promote hydration and therefore it acts as an accelerating agent.
As for claim 13, the reference teaches the addition of triisopropanolamine to a steelmaking slag such as electric furnace slag or converter slag. The triisopropanolamine promote hydration and therefore it acts as an accelerating agent. Example 1 teaches a ratio of converter slag, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and aqueous solution and based on this the amount of the slag based binder and aggregate falls within the claimed range.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 112661433 A.
The reference teaches, in the claims, a low-activity converter heat steel slag gel active excitant, wherein it comprises the following components: composite alcohol amine, organic alcohol amine hydrochloride, amino carboxylate, inorganic electrolyte and polyol. Examples of the composite alcohol amine is selected from triethanolamine, diethanol monoisopropanol-amine, mono-ethanol diisopropanol amine and triisopropanolamine. Examples of the amino carboxylate is selected from one or two of methyl glycine diacetic acid sodium and glutamic acid diacetic acid tetrasodium. The excitant is added to a steel slag such as a converter slag (see the examples). See especially embodiment 4.4
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches the addition of an excitant comprising composite alcohol amine (such as triisopropanolamine or diethanol monoisopropanol-amine), organic alcohol amine hydrochloride, amino carboxylate (such as methyl glycine diacetic acid sodium and glutamic acid diacetic acid tetrasodium), inorganic electrolyte and polyol. The excitant is mixed with water and added to a converter slag (basic oxygen furnace slag). As it is an excitant it would therefore act as an accelerator as it would kick start the reaction.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches converter slag which is also known as basic oxygen furnace slag.
As for claim 11, the reference teaches the addition of an excitant comprising composite alcohol amine (such as triisopropanolamine or diethanol monoisopropanol-amine), organic alcohol amine hydrochloride, amino carboxylate (such as methyl glycine diacetic acid sodium and glutamic acid diacetic acid tetrasodium), inorganic electrolyte and polyol. The excitant is mixed with water and added to a converter slag (basic oxygen furnace slag).
As for claim 12, the reference teaches the addition of an excitant comprising composite alcohol amine (such as triisopropanolamine or diethanol monoisopropanol-amine), organic alcohol amine hydrochloride, amino carboxylate (such as methyl glycine diacetic acid sodium and glutamic acid diacetic acid tetrasodium), inorganic electrolyte and polyol. The excitant is mixed with water and added to a converter slag (basic oxygen furnace slag).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Patent Specification No. JP 2000169212 A.
The reference was discussed previously, above. Further the reference teaches an amount of chelating agent of 0.0005% or more (paragraph [0011]).
The instant claim is obvious over the reference.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches an amount of 0.0005% or more and this overlaps the claimed range and 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), see MPEP 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-7, and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 14 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten or amended 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.
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
October 8, 2026
