DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 27 March 2026. After entry of the amendment claims 1-18 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “maltose;,” should be – maltose; – (i.e. the comma should be removed).
In claim 1, line 7, “glucose,” should be – glucose; – (i.e. the commas should be replaced with a semicolon).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-9, 11 and 16 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 5 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not the alkanolamines being referred to are triisopropanolamine or diethanolisopropanolamine or ethanoldiisopropanolamine which are recited in claim 1 or if they are in addition. Clarification is requested.
Claim 11 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 § 112(d)
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.
Claim 4-9 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. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 recites “formic acid” which is a carboxylic acid however applicant has deleted carboxylic acid in claim 1 and replaced with examples of carboxylic acids however formic acid is not one that is listed in claim 1. Therefore this claim fails to further limit claim 1.
Claim 5 fails to further limit as it refers to alkanolamines however claim 1 recites specific alkanolamines and therefore claim 5 is of a broader scope than that of claim 1.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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, 4, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brand et al “Stabilization of a Clayey Soil with Ladle Metallurgy”.
The reference teaches, on page 2, 2nd full paragraph, the addition of various hydration accelerators to steel furnace slag (SFS). The SFS includes basic oxygen furnace slag, electric arc furnace slag and ladle metallurgy slag (last paragraph of page 1 and 3rd full paragraph of page 2). Examples of the hydration accelerators include calcium chloride, sodium chloride, etc. (2nd full paragraph of page 2). The use of calcium chloride as a hydration accelerator for ladle slag is found in the 3rd full paragraph of page 2. See also section 3.6 of the reference.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches the hydration acceleration of a steel slag such as basic oxygen furnace slag, electric arc furnace slag and ladle metallurgy slag with a calcium chloride or sodium chloride accelerator which meet the mineral salts.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches basic oxygen furnace slag.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches calcium chloride.
As for claim 11, the reference teaches a composition comprising a steel slag such as basic oxygen furnace slag, electric arc furnace slag and ladle metallurgy slag and a calcium chloride or sodium chloride accelerator which meet the mineral salts.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches a composition comprising a steel slag such as basic oxygen furnace slag, electric arc furnace slag and ladle metallurgy slag and calcium chloride as an accelerator.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belhadj et al “Characterization and activation of basic oxygen furnace slag.”
The reference teaches, in section 4.1, the use of various accelerators such as calcium chloride dihydrate and sodium chloride for basic oxygen furnace slag. Table 5 shows that the amount of CaCl2 is 2 wt% and the amount of NaCl is 2 wt%. Section 4.2 teaches that steel slag pastes are made by mixing steel slag and water where the activators were added to the batching water. See also the conclusion.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches the use of CaCl2 and NaCl as accelerators for use in basic oxygen furnace slag.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches basic oxygen furnace slag.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches calcium chloride.
As for claim 10, the amount of the accelerators fall within the claimed range.
As for claim 11, the reference teaches a composition comprising basic oxygen furnace slag and CaCl2 and NaCl which meets the mineral salts.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches calcium chloride dihydrate. As for claim 16, Section 4.2 teaches a water/steel slag ratio of 0.25 which falls within the claimed range.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PCT International Publication No. WO 2021197866 A1.
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
The reference teaches, in claim 1, a method for controlling the volume expansion of a hydraulically setting composition comprising steel making slag, said method including a step of adding a silica source to said composition. Claims 12 recites a step of adding an additive selected from the group consisting of sodium chloride, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, lithium hydroxide, lithium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, sodium bi-carbonate, finely ground calcium carbonate, alkali metal nitrates, alkali metal nitrites, alkali metal thiocyanates, alkali metal salts or earth alkali metal salts of any of citric acid, formic acid, malonic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, malic acid, or succinic acid, alkali metal silicates, calcium silicate hydrates, sugars or sugar acids, alkanolamines, and mixtures thereof, preferably lithium carbonate, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, sodium bi carbonate, finely ground calcium carbonate, alkali metal nitrates, alkali metal nitrites, alkali metal salts or earth alkali metal salts of any of citric acid, formic acid, malonic acid, acetic acid, lactic acid, propionic acid, malic acid, or succinic acid, calcium silicate hydrates, glucose, fructose, lactose, mannose, sucrose, sodium gluconate, dimethylaminoethanol, diethylaminoethanol, N-methyldiethanolamine, triethanolamine (TEA), triisopropanolamine (TIPA), Diethanol-isopropanolamine (DEIPA), ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDI PA), N , N , N' , N'- tetrahydroxyethyl-ethylenediamine (THEED), and mixtures thereof, especially preferred magnesium chloride, alkali metal nitrates, alkali metal nitrites, potassium or calcium salts of any of citric acid, malonic acid, lactic acid, or malic acid, TEA, TIPA, DEIPA, EDIPA, glucose, fructose, sucrose, sodium gluconate, and mixtures thereof. Claim 13 recites that the additive is added in an amount of 0.05 - 10 wt.-%, preferably of 0.1 - 5 wt.-%, relative to the weight of steel making slag. The steel making slag is basic oxygen furnace slag (claim 14).
The instant claims are met by the reference
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a basic oxygen furnace slag mixed with an additive such as citric acid, lactic acid, triisopropanolamine (TIPA), diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA), ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDIPA), and water. Therefore as it teaches the mixing of the slag with one of these components, the claim is met.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches basic oxygen furnace slag.
As for claim 3, the amount of iron oxide meets the claimed range (see page 7, lines 11-15).
As for claim 4, the reference teaches at least citric acid and lactic acid.
As for claim 5, the reference suggests mixtures of triisopropanolamine (TIPA), diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA), and ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDIPA).
As for claim 6, the reference suggests mixtures of triisopropanolamine (TIPA), diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA), or ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDIPA) with citric acid or lactic acid and sodium chloride, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, or calcium chloride.
As for claim 7, the reference suggests mixtures of triisopropanolamine (TIPA), diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA), or ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDIPA) with glucose or fructose.
As for claim 8, the reference suggests mixtures of triisopropanolamine (TIPA), diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA), or ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDIPA) with citric acid or lactic acid.
As for claim 9, the reference suggests mixtures of triisopropanolamine (TIPA), diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA), or ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDIPA) with citric acid or lactic acid and glucose or fructose and sodium chloride, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, or calcium chloride.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches an amount that meets the claimed limitation.
As for claim 11, the reference teaches a basic oxygen furnace slag mixed with an additive such as glucose, citric acid, lactic acid, triisopropanolamine (TIPA), diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA), ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDIPA), and water. Therefore the claim is met.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches a basic oxygen furnace slag mixed with an additive such as glucose, citric acid, lactic acid, triisopropanolamine (TIPA), diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA), ethanoldiisopropanolamine (EDIPA), and water. Therefore the claim is met.
As for claim 16, this met by claim 18 of the reference.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al “Stabilization of a Clayey Soil with Ladle Metallurgy”.
The reference was discussed previously.
The instant claim is obvious over the reference,
As for claim 3, based on the stoichiometric formula of the dicalcium ferrite and the amount of this present in the slag, the amount of Fe2O3 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Specification No. CN 111868002 A.
The reference teaches, in the claims, a slag-based adhesive, comprising:
at least one slag;
A’, optionally, at least one mineral powder containing CO3;
optionally, at least one co-adhesive binder different from the binder A and different from the CO3 powder A’;
at least one activator for water/slag reaction;
C’ optionally, at least one co-activator C’ different from C;
at least one chelating agent and/or at least one chelating agent source, wherein the chelating agent is preferably antisludging agent; and
optionally at least one high-efficiency water reducing agent different from the chelating agent D.
Slag A is preferably blast furnace slag (page 5, lines 26+). The co-adhesive binder may be steel ladle slag (see claim 5). The co-activator C’ for water/slag reaction may be NaCl, CaCl2, KCl, Na2SO4, K2SO4,and CaSO4 (page 12, lines 21+). The chelating agent D may be citric acids, tartaric acids, gluconic acids, and amines, etc. (claim 10).
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference suggests the claimed method as it teaches that a composition may be formed from at least water, ladle slag (co-adhesive binder), NaCl, CaCl2, KCl, and CaSO4 (co-activator), and citric acids, tartaric acids, and gluconic acids (chelating agent). The co-activator and/or the chelating agent meets the claimed accelerator.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches gluconic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, CaCl2 and CaSO4.
As for claim 11, the reference teaches composition comprising at least water, ladle slag (co-adhesive binder), NaCl, CaCl2, KCl, and CaSO4 (co-activator), and citric acids, tartaric acids (chelating agent).
As for claim 12, the reference teaches composition comprising at least water, ladle slag (co-adhesive binder), CaCl2 and CaSO4 (co-activator), and gluconic acids, citric acids, tartaric acids (chelating agent).
As for claim 13, the reference teaches composition comprising at least water, ladle slag (co-adhesive binder), CaCl2 and CaSO4 (co-activator), and gluconic acids, citric acids, tartaric acids (chelating agent). The composition teaches 2 slags and the composition may further contain up to 97 wt% aggregate/fille (page 16, lines 14+). The water/binder ratio may be 0.1 ≤W/B≤1; 0.2 ≤ W/B ≤ 0.55; or 0.2 ≤W/B≤0.5 (page 16, lines 6+). The amounts of the components overlap the claimed range of amounts 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.
As for claim 14, a co-binder may be added to the composition. Examples include hydrated lime, calcium aluminate cements, calcium sulfoaluminate cements, Portland cements, Portland ground clinkers, pozzolanic binders, (classes F and/or C) natural & synthetic pozzolans, ladle slags, and mixes thereof. The co-binder B concentration—in % dry w/w with respect to A, to A&A′, to A&B or to A&A′&B-, is in the following ranges in an increasing order of preference: [0-50]; [0-20]; [0-15]; [0.1-7] (page 11, lines 15+). The amount therefore 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.
As for claim 15, based on the amounts of the co-binder and slag the ratio of the reference overlaps the claimed ratio and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 16, this is met by the ratios recited in the reference.
As for claim 17, based on the amounts, the reference teaches a ratio that overlaps the claimed ratio and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 18, this is met by the ratios recited in the reference.
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 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
April 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights