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 .
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 1-24 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.
Instant claim 1 defines M as H+, an alkali metal ion, alkaline earth metal ion, bivalent or trivalent metal ion, ammonium ion or an organic ammonium group. Claim basically states that M can be hydrogen cation.
At the same time, on the bottom of page 8 of the instant specification as originally filed, the applicants state that the polycarboxylic acid of formula V (claimed formula I), is esterified with the corresponding alcohol (R1-OH) and then, if necessary neutralized or partially neutralized.
Here are couple of issues, if the claimed acid monomer is esterified, there is nothing to neutralize. Consequently, one cannot form claimed ionic compound.
With respect to the limitation of H+, acid before it is esterified is a stable compound which will not form hydrogen cation in composition as claimed. There are conditions that have to be met for the carboxylic acid to release H+. When H+ is released, it has to be stabilized by resonance (and possible electron withdrawing groups) then, the negative charge is delocalized between two oxygen atoms. Other factors include solvent and ph. Consequently, this can happen in a solution which is not even mentioned in the specification. The specification discloses aqueous solution or dispersion, however, in water H+ is not free as it is associated with the water molecules and hydronium ions (H3O+). As such instant specification as filed fails to define how the hydrogen cation is actually achieved in lieu of hydrogen atom alone. Specification further confuses the issue and the scope of the claim is indefinite.
The examiner suggests changing H+ to H or removing this limitation from the claims.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-10, 15, 16, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheung (US 2011/0306704) as evidenced in “Comprehensive Guide to Masonry Cement”. US 2011/0306704 is also patented under US 8,993,656).
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Cheung discloses an additive which is utilized in cementitious materials such as cements pozzolans, limestone stone and the like, wherein mixture of Portland cement with limestone pozzolans and sand is considered a mortar (Abstract).
The comb polymer of Cheung comprising two monomers having following structures [0023]:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 is a hydrogen or methyl group.
M is hydrogen, an alkali metal, or an alkaline earth metal cation, ammonium or organic amine.
Alk is C2-C10 alkylene group.
P is integer of 0 or 1, for the purpose of restriction p can be either one, because m in the instant formula 1 can also be zero.
Y is an integer of 0-300.
Z is an integer of 1-300.
Based on the definitions above integer y is an optional component and p is an optional component resulting in monomer of formula (II). Even if integer y is present, instant definition of Y in claim 1 states that Y contains ethylene oxide but does not limit the formula only to ethylene oxide. This encompasses alkylene oxides that are not ethylene oxide. In fact, in [0043] of Cheung states that the AlkO is comprised preferably of EO (preferably 100%) although small amounts of PO can be also utilized. The small amounts of PO not only meet instant claim 1 but also claim 3 because the minimum content in both instant invention and Cheung is 90%. Consequently, with instant alk being the ethylene and p being zero instant formula II is still achieved.
With respect to the molar ratio of the two monomers wherein monomer a being formula I and b being formula II, content of a is 30-90 and content of b is 10-70 [0042]. Specifically, Table 7 of Cheung discloses following a/b ratios: 75:25 = 3 (polymers 5 and 10).
The additive of Cheung also utilizes alkanol amines [0028] and defoamers [0029].
With respect to claim 2, Cheung does not disclose any other structures other than those of formulae I and II.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, as disclosed above, Cheung’s [0043] states that poly(alkyleneoxy) group, the alkylene is preferably 100% ethylene oxide, which meets instantly claimed “at least 90%”.
With respect to claim 5, while Cheung does not explicitly recite term “partial structure” such is an inherent property and are basic chemical principles. Instant specification does not explicitly state what the partial structure is attributed to, as such examiner will read it as partial bonds or resonance hybrids. For formula I, the partial structure as indicated in 112 rejections above is attributed to presence of cations, where the negative charge delocalized between two oxygen atoms. With polyalkylene oxide, charge delocalization is between lone pair of the oxygen and adjacent C-O bonds. The O atom in PEO is sp3 hybridized but have lone pairs in p orbital that can interact with adjacent σ* orbitals. This orbital overlap allows for charge delocalization. Since applicants have not provided how their partial structures are achieved, the delocalization of charges is viewed as meeting instant claims.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, alkanol amine includes triisopropanolamine, ethanol diisopropanol amine, triethanol amine and methyldiethanolamine [0047]. The content of the alkanol amine can be zero or higher. With respect to the comb polymer, the content of the comb polymer in the admixture is 30% (Table 6) 45% (example 9).
With respect to claim 8, the admixture of Cheung also utilizes defoamers [0048-0052], which include alkylene oxide (meets limitation of diols).
With respect to claim 10, claim 9 was already rejected above, the cement composition is based on Portland cement which is principal component of masonry cement. In addition to Portland cement, Cheung discloses limestone, pozzolanic material such as fly ash (abstract) all of which together make masonry cement, where Portland cement serves as binder, limestone serves as plasticizer, pozzolanic materials are utilized in improve durability. This is evidenced in a cited comprehensive guide to masonry cement.
With respect to claims 15, 16, 20 and 21, the content of comb polymer, when utilized in cementitious 0.0285 % (example 9). Additionally, range in which comb polymer can be utilized in 0.002-0.4 % [0023, 0042]. The content of polymer in ppm is as follow: 150 ppm is equivalent to 0.015 wt. % and 1400 ppm is 0.14 wt.% (prokon unit conversion, ppm = %x10,000, 1 ppm is 0.0001 wt.%.). Example 9 at 0.0285 wt.% is equivalent to 285 ppm.
With respect to claims 17 and 23, Cheung discloses use of clinkers [0041], wherein content of the clinker depends on the type of composition one seeks. For instance, in example 6, the clinker is utilized in amount of 27.7 wt.%.
With respect to claim 19, the comb polymer is utilized during grinding of the cementitious composition [0001, 0016-0018, 0038, 0039] see also examples.
Claims 9-14, 17-19, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berodier (US 2019/0144334) as evidenced by Cheung (US 8,993,656) or it’s PG Pub (US 2011/0306704). PG Pub is utilized for ease in of using paragraphs. Evidence provided in A Comprehensive Guide to Masonry Cement.
Note: in [0050] and [0057] Berodier discloses that a preferred polycarboxylate comb polymer is that disclosed by Cheung (US 8,993,656) (PG Pub 2011/0306704) as the patented polymer has common assignee. Consequently, the comb polymer of Cheung is exactly the same as the comb polymer disclosed in Berodier.
Discussion of the polymer utilized in Berodier from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference, meeting instant claims directed to admixture and cement composition, claims 1-10, 15, 16, 19-21 and 23 also used as grinding or milling operation.
With respect to claim 9, Berodier discloses composition comprising comb polymer utilized in a cement composition. It should be noted that the basic cement composition of Berodier is a masonry cement, which comprises a blend of Portland Cement with plasticizing material such as a limestone, thereby meeting the limitation of instant claim 10.
The inventive component of Berodier is clay mainly comprising alumina and silica [0011], which meets requirement of instant claim 11.
With respect to claims 12-14 and 24, the composition comprises Portland cement is hydratable cement in mixture with limestone, clay, alkanol amine and comb polymer (claim 23 of Berodier) [0028-0029] such that:
Ratio of limestone to clay is 3:1 to 1:5, preferably 2:1 to 1:2 [0041], which meets instant claim 14.
Ratio of cement to clay is 2:1 to 1:4, preferably 1:1 to 1:4 [0039-0040] which meets instant claim 12.
Ratio of cement to limestone is 1.15:1 (Table 1) which meets instant claims 13 and 18. Wherein content of limestone at 55 parts further meets the limitation of the instant claim 24. The content is almost equal.
It should also be noted that the ratio of cement to lime stone is not only limited to the particular example. Specifically, clay is utilized in amount of 5-70 wt.% (claim 23) and the ratio of limestone to clay is 2:1 to 1:2, wherein content of the lime stone can also be in a range of 5-70 wt. % (1:1 ratio).
With respect to claims 17 and 23, while Berodier discusses clinker, its content is not disclosed or exemplified. Consequently, the examiner will presume its content to be 0 wt.% which meets the limitation of less than 70 wt.%.
With respect to claim 19, Berodier clearly states that the comb polymer is utilized as not only plasticizer but also a grinding additive [0050, 0057] which is added to the cement.
With respect to claim 22, the cement composition is a combination of Portland cement, limestone and clay.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berodier (US 2019/0144334) in view of Cheung (US 2011/0306704) and as evidenced by A Comprehensive Guide to Masonry Cement.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, Berodier discloses cementitious composition comprising a grinding additive which is added to the cement composition for grinding in a mill. Berodier clearly states that the grinding additive is a comb polymer disclosed by Cheung in commonly assigned US 8,993,656. PG Pub utilized in the for paragraph is a PG Pub of the ‘656 patent to Cheung, utilized only because it is easier to utilize paragraphs of the PG pub.
Cheung discloses an additive which is utilized in cementitious materials such as cements pozzolans, limestone stone and the like, wherein mixture of Portland cement with limestone pozzolans and sand is considered a mortar (Abstract).
The comb polymer of Cheung comprising two monomers having following structures [0023]:
PNG
media_image1.png
220
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 is a hydrogen or methyl group.
M is hydrogen, an alkali metal, or an alkaline earth metal cation, ammonium or organic amine.
Alk is C2-C10 alkylene group.
P is integer of 0 or 1, for the purpose of restriction p can be either one, because m in the instant formula 1 can also be zero.
Y is an integer of 0-300.
Z is an integer of 1-300.
Based on the definitions above integer y is an optional component and p is an optional component resulting in monomer of formula (II). Even if integer y is present, instant definition of Y in claim 1 states that Y contains ethylene oxide but does not limit the formula only to ethylene oxide. This encompasses alkylene oxides that are not ethylene oxide. In fact, in [0043] of Cheung states that the AlkO is comprised preferably of EO (preferably 100%) although small amounts of PO can be also utilized. The small amounts of PO not only meet instant claim 1 but also claim 3 because the minimum content in both instant invention and Cheung is 90%. Consequently, with instant alk being the ethylene and p being zero instant formula II is still achieved.
With respect to the molar ratio of the two monomers wherein monomer a being formula I and b being formula II, content of a is 30-90 and content of b is 10-70 [0042]. Specifically, Table 7 of Cheung discloses following a/b ratios: 75:25 = 3 (polymers 5 and 10).
The additive of Cheung also utilizes alkanol amines [0028] and defoamers [0029].
With respect to claim 2, Cheung does not disclose any other structures other than those of formulae I and II.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, as disclosed above, Cheung’s [0043] states that poly(alkyleneoxy) group, the alkylene is preferably 100% ethylene oxide, which meets instantly claimed “at least 90%”.
With respect to claim 5, while Cheung does not explicitly recite term “partial structure” such is an inherent property and are basic chemical principles. Instant specification does not explicitly state what the partial structure is attributed to, as such examiner will read it as partial bonds or resonance hybrids. For formula I, the partial structure as indicated in 112 rejections above is attributed to presence of cations, where the negative charge delocalized between two oxygen atoms. With polyalkylene oxide, charge delocalization is between lone pair of the oxygen and adjacent C-O bonds. The O atom in PEO is sp3 hybridized but have lone pairs in p orbital that can interact with adjacent σ* orbitals. This orbital overlap allows for charge delocalization. Since applicants have not provided how their partial structures are achieved, the delocalization of charges is viewed as meeting instant claims.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, alkanol amine includes triisopropanolamine, ethanol diisopropanol amine, triethanol amine and methyldiethanolamine [0047]. The content of the alkanol amine can be zero or higher. With respect to the comb polymer, the content of the comb polymer in the admixture is 30% (Table 6) 45% (example 9).
With respect to claim 8, the admixture of Cheung also utilizes defoamers [0048-0052], which include alkylene oxide (meets limitation of diols).
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the comb polymer of Cheung in suggested amounts as grinding additive at least two reasons. First, Berodier explicitly states that the comb polymers of Berodier are exactly the polymers utilized in his teachings. Second, the ether linkages as disclosed in both references withstand the harshness of the grinding mill operation and confers workability and strength-enhancing properties [0050] of Berodier. Cheung further supplements this position by indicating that the comb polymer disclosed therein resist degradation (Abstract) also [0017-0019].
With respect to claim 9, Berodier discloses composition comprising comb polymer utilized in a cement composition. It should be noted that the basic cement composition of Berodier is a masonry cement, which comprises a blend of Portland Cement with plasticizing material such as a limestone, thereby meeting the limitation of instant claim 10.
The inventive component of Berodier is clay mainly comprising alumina and silica [0011], which meets requirement of instant claim 11.
With respect to claims 12-14 and 24, the composition comprises Portland cement is hydratable cement in mixture with limestone, clay, alkanol amine and comb polymer (claim 23 of Berodier) [0028-0029] such that:
Ratio of limestone to clay is 3:1 to 1:5, preferably 2:1 to 1:2 [0041], which meets instant claim 14.
Ratio of cement to clay is 2:1 to 1:4, preferably 1:1 to 1:4 [0039-0040] which meets instant claim 12.
Ratio of cement to limestone is 1.15:1 (Table 1) which meets instant claims 13 and 18. Wherein content of limestone at 55 parts further meets the limitation of the instant claim 24. The content is almost equal.
It should also be noted that the ratio of cement to lime stone is not only limited to the particular example. Specifically, clay is utilized in amount of 5-70 wt.% (claim 23) and the ratio of limestone to clay is 2:1 to 1:2, wherein content of the lime stone can also be in a range of 5-70 wt. % (1:1 ratio).
While Berodier discloses comb polymers of Cheung as grinding additives, the focus is on the clay and its content, consequently Cheung will prove guide as to the content of the comb polymer that should be used in the grinding operation.
With respect to claims 15, 16, 20 and 21, Cheung discloses the content of comb polymer, when utilized in cementitious 0.0285 % (example 9). Additionally, range in which comb polymer can be utilized in 0.002-0.4 % [0023, 0042]. The content of polymer in ppm is as follow: 150 ppm is equivalent to 0.015 wt. % and 1400 ppm is 0.14 wt.% (prokon unit conversion, ppm = %x10,000, 1 ppm is 0.0001 wt.%.). Example 9 at 0.0285 wt.% is equivalent to 285 ppm.
Cheung discloses that when utilized in disclosed range the cement exhibits enhanced retention of workability and 1-day compressive strength [0061]. Additionally, when utilizing polymers 5 and 10 (according to claimed molar ratio of the monomers) [0080 and 0082] also result in excellent properties due to robustness of the polyether groups.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize the comb polymer in an amount taught by Cheung in the teachings of Berodier. The comb polymers utilized in ranges taught by Cheung, as shown in the experimental data, especially for polymers 5 and 10 result in cement composition that maintains good mechanical properties, because the comb polymers of Berodier do not decompose during milling operation.
With respect to claims 17 and 23, while Berodier discusses clinker, its content is not disclosed or exemplified. Consequently, the examiner will presume its content to be 0 wt.% which meets the limitation of less than 70 wt.%.
With respect to claim 19, Berodier clearly states that the comb polymer is utilized as not only plasticizer but also a grinding additive [0050, 0057] which is added to the cement.
With respect to claim 22, the cement composition is a combination of Portland cement, limestone and clay.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights