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
Claims13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/23/2026
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 4/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that full examination has not been conducted. This is not found persuasive because full examination is not a requirement for establishing lack of unity. The lack of unity/restriction mailed 3/2/2026 establishes a special technical feature not shared by the groups. Said lack of unity/restriction also identifies a special technical feature and establishes that said feature does not provide a contribution over the cited prior art. The arguments for traverse are not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 e and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/16/2026, 3/18/2026, 10/14/2025 and 9/18/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 2 and 4 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.
Claims 2 recites “comprises or essentially consist of” these terms result in two different breadths of the claim one narrower and one broader. See MPEP 2111. 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 2 recites the broad recitation and the claim also recites the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are 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. It is unclear what would be excluded from “essentially consist of” as such this term is interpreted as comprising.
Claim 4 recites comprising or consisting of making the claim scope indefinite and it recites both a broad and narrow scope. It is unclear of the claim is “closed” by virtue of “consisting of language” not permitting additional materials or steps or if it is open “comprising” See MPEP 2111. The claim(s) are 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.
Claim 4 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
264
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is unclear what Ri references: is this a clerical error and meant to be Ri or a clerical error meant to be R1 Clarification is required.
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) 1 and 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juilland et al (WO 2020/109186A1) published June 4, 2020 (over one year prior to the instant application which has an effective filing date of June 8, 2021) as evidenced by or in the alternative further in view of EP2468696 also published as US 2013/0253097 citing to the US PGPub as English equivalent and for convenience
CLAIM INTERPRETATION AND INTRODUCTION:
The following claim interpretation and introduction is expressly incorporated into each and every rejection below as though fully set forth therein.
The prior art discloses at least one or one or more thereby rendering obvious the use of more than one of each chemical component as more fully below set forth. Further since the prior art teaches more than one chemical species to perform a particular function using them in combination is rendered obvious to one of ordinary art at the time of filing the invention. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
The prior art teaches ranges which overlap and encompass the claimed ranges and ratios of each component and/or combination thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Any and all claim interpretations set forth in the rejections under section 112 are incorporated herein.
Instantly claimed formula I and formula II encompass the same monomeric unit when formula (II) m=0, p=1 and R1=H
Juilland et al (WO 2020/109186A1) published June 4, 2020 (over one year prior to the instant application which has an effective filing date of June 8, 2021) as evidenced by or in the alternative further in view of EP2468696 also published as US 2013/0253097 citing to the US PGPub as English equivalent and for convenience
Juilland discloses a composition formed by providing clinker and cement and set retarder and complex agents and regulator and water and optional aggregate and optional additives and mixing in any given order (See claim 11 reference meeting the limitations of claim 1 for providing and admixing)
The composition of a cementitious mixture containing a combination of at least one set retarder and at least on regulator has increased compressive strength at early age (P10 L20-25) The composition controls hydration reaction (P3L30-P4L10) and prolongs open time to facilitate transport, mixing, pumping, placing, compacting, shaping of cement mixtures comprising clinkers and improves spread flow slump properties (P5 L1-19)
The cement binder comprises 0.01 – 2 wt.% of set retarder and 0.1 to 6 wt.% regulator (P20 L18-25)
The various compositional components are taught by Julliand as below set forth. The ranges taught will overlap and encompass the instantly claimed ranges/ratios.
The composition is inter-ground with clinker and admixed (P8 L1-10) and is an cementous mixture and/or binder composition (P7 L8-15) and (P8 L10-15)(meeting claim 1 for mineral binder composition and steps of providing and admixing and for powder)
REGARDING MINERAL BINDER OF CLAIM 1 a) AND CALIM 8 FOR PORTLAND CEMENT AND CALCIUM SULFOALUMINATE)
The composition comprises clinkers including Ye-elimite based clinkers and ordinary Portland cement (P7 L15-22) Ye elimite is a calcium sulfo aluminate Ca4Al6O12 (SO4) (P6 L14-20)
Ye elimite in the clinker is 3-95%. One or more other mineral other than ye Elimite are in a range of 97-5 % based on the dry weight of the clinker (P6 L27-P7L8)
REGARDGING CLAIM 1 b)
The composition including the clinker and cement binder are in the form of a powder(P20 L10-16) The composition includes a pre-mix in the form of a powder (P18 L1-8)
The composition comprises aggregates (P21) (i.e. powder) The cementitious mixture includes aggregates (P22 L1-8) which can be any material non-reactive in the hydration reaction of clinkers such as rock, crushed stone, gravel, slag, sand, quartz sand, recycled concrete etc. (P22 L1-9) the aggregates are typically used for cementitious binders (P22 L-5)(rendering obvious recycled concrete ground to a powder)(additional clinker component thereby overlapping the ratio of claim 3)
REGARDING CLAIM 1d)
The composition comprises water (P21 L15-22) Water/cement ratio of 0.1 to 2.0 (P21 L26-31)
REGARDING CLAIM 1 c), 5-7, and 9-12
The composition requires at least one set retarder form the group of sugar acids, sugars, sugar alcohols, (See claim 2 of reference) and at least one set retarder of gluconic acid or its salt such as sodium gluconate (See claims 3) The set retarder includes sugar acids, sugars sugar alcohols, and salts including gluconic acid such as sodium gluconate (P13 L10-27)
Sodium gluconate in an amount of at least 0.05 wt.% based on weight of clinker (P16 L5-9)
The composition comprises a superplasticizer such as poly carboxylic ethers (PCE) including poly carboxylic ethers comb polymers with poly carboxylic backbone and poly alkylene oxide side chains such as poly carboxylic ethers of EP 2468696 and in an amount of 0-10 wt.% (P22 L15-27) including acrylate/meth allyl backbone (Table 1)
Additional superplasticizers include lignosulphonate (P22 L27-30)
Superplasticizer in a range of 0-10 wt.% based on weight of total cement (P22 L20-30)(overlapping claim 9)
The composition comprises set retarders such a s calcium complexing agents and a regulator
Further Regarding Claim 8:
The composition comprises cement or cement binder (P7 L8-15) The binders include latent hydraulic binders pozzolanic binders such as fly ash, non-hydraulic binders such as gypsum plaster anhydrite or white lime (P7 L3-35)
The composition comprises cement improvers, grinding aid, strength improver, activators, accelerators, plasticizers and super plasticizers (P8 L4-10)
The composition comprises 5-99 wt.% clinker, 0.01- 2 wt.% set retarder (this includes the sugar, sugar alcohol, etc. (See claims 8-9 of reference – overlapping the claimed ranges and ratios) and 0.1- 6 wt.% regulator (P23 L1-10)
See Tables 3 and 5 for ratios as well
The ranges of each component overlap the instantly claimed ranges and ratios.
Regarding Claim 3:
Julliand discloses the limitations above set forth.
The amount of clinker other than Ye elimite clinker in the composition of cement is 0.5-85% (P7 L15-20)(overlapping the range / ratio of claim 3)
Regarding claim 4:
Julliand discloses the limitations above set forth.
Since the prior art incorporated the poly carboxylic superplasticizers of EP246896 at (P22 L15-27) the teachings of said reference render obvious the claimed formula of instant claim 4:
EP2468696 also published as US 2013/0253097 citing to US PGPub for convenience/English equivalent
EP 246896 discloses a comb polymer from malic acid or derivatives allyl ethers and vinyl acetate (Abstract)
The polymer has m mol % 20-85 [0008][0021] units of:
R1 and R2 are independently COO-M or COOR4 M is H making the group COOH encompassing instant structure (I)
PNG
media_image2.png
138
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
260
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reference formula (I) corresponds to instant formula (I) when instant Ru is H and the instant Rv is COOM and M=H corresponding to the reference formula (I) R1 and R2 are COOM and M=H
Reference formula (I) is in mol % of 20-85 [0008][0021]
Reference formula II corresponds to claimed formula (II) when claimed formula II m= 0 and p=0 and R1 of claimed formula is (CH2)z [YO]n-R4
And claimed formula R4 is (R5)p[AO}1 R6 and
R5 is C1-6 which overlaps and encompasses instant (CH2)z
A is C2-4 alkylene of reference corresponding to claimed Y
Reference R6 corresponds to Claimed R4 being a H or an alkyl with 1-20 carbons
Reference formula II is in an mol % amount of 10-50 % [0022] (overlapping the claimed ratio for example when the ration is 50:50 mol %)
PNG
media_image4.png
842
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juilland et al (WO 2020/109186A1) published June 4, 2020 (over one year prior to the instant application which has an effective filing date of June 8, 2021) as evidenced by or in the alternative further in view of EP2468696 also published as US 2013/0253097 citing to the US PGPub as English equivalent and for convenience as applied to claims 1 and 3-12 above further in view of Knopf (US 2001/0023655)
Regarding claim 2:
Juilland et al discloses the limitations above set forth. Juilland discloses the composition comprising additives which enhance strength and fibers (See claim 10 reference) Juilland does not expressly disclose the recycled powder to be fully carbonated cement.
Knopf discloses treating various waste products such as ash and cement slag with carbonation for a uniform carbonated cement product [0022] The cement is fully carbonated to adjust the pH to a neutral value allowing for reinforcement of the cement with polymer formers [0005] the calcium carbonate is in grains [0039] (i.e. powder)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to fully carbonate the cement such as in the form of grains / powder of Juiilland in order to improve compatibility with additives for strength such as fibers as taught by Knops.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 for prior art teaching compositions possessing the claimed components such as the polycarboxylate, binder, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights