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 Amendment
The amendment submitted on 19 November 2025 has been entered. After entry of the amendment claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 19 November 2025 is acknowledged. Based on applicant’s amendment to claim 16 to make it dependent on claim 1, this claim is now included in the examined claims. Accordingly claims 1-16 will be examined while claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 15 June 2023 are deemed to be acceptable for examination by the examiner of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 13, the phrase “1 -about 20” should be changed to – 1 to about 20 --. 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 7, 12 and 15-16 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.
In claim 7, the phrase “(but not charged)” renders the claim vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the limitation is a required limitation or it is optional. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 12, 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).
Claim 15 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as it is unclear as to what is being claimed. The phrase appears to state that 100 g of the composition is based on 100 g of the amino acid. Clarification is requested.
In claim 16, the phrases “(metastable ACC, aragonite, and vaterite polymorphs)”, “I% by weight of the carbonated sample)”, “(based on critical pore diameter)” render the claim vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether these limitations are required limitations or if they are optional. Clarification is requested. Also in claim 16, the following phrases lack antecedent basis: “the amount of calcite and fully polymerized silica gel”, “the proportions of mCaCO3”, the amounts of CaCO3”, “the control batch”, “the same carbonation duration”, “the amounts of unreacted calcium silicate mineral”, and “the compressive and flexural strengths”.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 15, the examiner is interpreting the claim to mean that there is 3 to 8% by weight of amino acid per 100 grams of the composition.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 114230273 A as evidenced by Vnučec et al “Soy-based adhesives for wood-bonding – a review”.
China Patent Specification No. CN 114230273 A teaches various concrete compositions comprising amino acids:
Example 1 teaches:
A crack self-healing concrete which consists of the following raw materials:
80 parts by weight of Portland cement;
300 parts by weight of coarse aggregate, which is continuously graded crushed stone with a particle size of 10-25 mm;
100 parts by weight of fine aggregate, which is sand with a particle size of 0.5 to 4.5 mm;
35 parts by weight of water;
20 parts by weight of glutamic acid;
30 parts by weight of calcium chloride;
10 parts by weight of urea.
Example 2 teaches:
A crack self-healing concrete which consists of the following raw materials:
90 parts by weight of Portland cement;
170 parts by weight of coarse aggregate, which is continuously graded crushed stone with a particle size of 10-25 mm;
80 parts by weight of fine aggregate, which is sand with a particle size of 0.5 to 4.5 mm;
50 parts by weight of water;
40 parts by weight of aspartic acid;
50 parts by weight of calcium chloride;
30 parts by weight of urea;
20 parts by weight of casein.
Example 3 teaches:
A crack self-healing concrete which consists of the following raw materials:
100 parts by weight of Portland cement;
180 parts by weight of coarse aggregate, which is continuously graded crushed stone with a particle size of 10-25mm;
180 parts by weight of fine aggregate, which is sand with a particle size of 0.5 to 4.5 mm;
20 parts by weight of water;
10 parts by weight of glutamic acid;
10 parts by weight of calcium chloride;
35 parts by weight of urea;
20 parts by weight of polyvinyl alcohol fiber;
0.3 parts by weight of sodium sulfamate water reducing agent.
Example 4 teaches:
A crack self-healing concrete which consists of the following raw materials:
90 parts by weight of Portland cement;
210 parts by weight of coarse aggregate, which is continuously graded crushed stone with a particle size of 10-25 mm;
120 parts by weight of fine aggregate, which is sand with a particle size of 0.5 to 4.5 mm;
40 parts by weight of water;
50 parts by weight of lysine;
40 parts by weight of calcium chloride;
50 parts by weight of urea;
30 parts by weight of polypropylene fibers;
10 parts by weight of casein;
3 parts by weight of fly ash;
2 parts by weight of mineral powder;
5 parts by weight of silica fume.
Vnučec et al is relied on to provide examples of known hydrophilic, positively charged, and negatively charged amino acids which appear in the below rejection. See the table which appears below:
PNG
media_image1.png
648
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The instant claims are met by the China patent reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches concrete compositions comprising various amine acids. The reference teaches, for example, glutamic acid (example 1), aspartic acid (example 2) and lysine (example 4).
As for claim 2, glutamic acid, aspartic acid and lysine are all naturally occurring amino acids.
As for claim 3, the reference teaches glutamic acid, aspartic acid and lysine.
As for claim 4, glutamic acid and aspartic acid are hydrophilic amino acids.
As for claim 5, lysine is a positively charged amino acid.
As for claim 6, aspartic acid and glutamic acid are negatively charged amino acids.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches aspartic acid (Asp).
As for claim 9, the reference teaches Portland cement which is a hydraulic binder.
As for claim 11, this claim is met by the reference as this claim depends from claim 9 and a semi hydraulic binder is not required to be present just that if is present is must be selected from slag.
As for claim 12, the concrete is a solid material, or a powder before the addition of water.
As for claim 13, the amount of the amino acid falls within the claimed range in example 3 of the reference based on 100 parts of Portland cement (binder) and 10 parts of glutamic acid (amino acid).
As for claim 15, based on the claim interpretation which appears above and the amounts of the components in Example 2 and taking the total parts by weight of the composition as being 100 g, the amount of amino acid falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 16, based on the amount of amino acid found in Example 3 that falls within the claimed range and the use of the same type of amino acid it would appear that claim 16 is met by the reference as if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. Accordingly as the reference teaches the use of the same amino acid in the same amount it would possess the limitations recited in claim 16 absent evidence showing otherwise.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korea Patent Specification No. KR 10-2021001418 A as evidenced by Vnučec et al “Soy-based adhesives for wood-bonding – a review” and Budhi “Chem 2300 Introductory Organic Chemistry”.
Korea Patent Specification No. KR 2021001418 A teaches, in claims 1 and 3, a composition comprising gypsum, loess, charcoal powder, amino acid substances, ethanol, calcium carbonate, and water. The amino acids are a mixture of arginine, glycine, aspartic acid, and serine.
Vnučec et al is relied on to provide examples of known hydrophilic, positively charged, and negatively charged amino acids which appear in the below rejection. See the table which appears below:
PNG
media_image1.png
648
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Budhi “Chem 2300 Introductory Organic Chemistry”, Section 7.1 is relied on to show examples of amino acids with a polar uncharged group as well as negatively and positively charged amino acids. See the table below:
PNG
media_image2.png
881
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The instant claims are met by the Korea patent reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising a gypsum which meets the binder and a mixture of amino acids which meets the one or more amino acids.
As for claim 2, the recited amino acids are all naturally occurring.
As for claim 3, the reference teaches arginine, glycine, aspartic acid, and serine.
As for claim 4, the arginine, aspartic acid, and serine are hydrophilic amino acids as evidenced by Vnučec et al.
As for claim 5, the arginine is a positively charged amino acid (see the Vnučec et al and Budhi evidentiary articles).
As for claim 6, the aspartic acid is a negatively charged amino acid as evidenced by Vnučec et al and Budhi.
As for claim 7, the serine is a polar (uncharged) amino acid as evidenced by Budhi.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches Arginine, Aspartic Acid and Serine.
As for claim 9, the gypsum is a hydraulic binder.
As for claim 11, this claim is met by the reference as this claim depends from claim 9 and a semi hydraulic binder is not required to be present just that if is present is must be selected from slag.
As for claim 16, based on the amount of amino acids that can fall within the claimed range and the use of the same types of amino acid it would appear that claim 16 is met by the reference as if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. Accordingly as the reference teaches the use of the same amino acid in the same amount it would possess the limitations recited in claim 16 absent evidence showing otherwise.
Claims 1 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 110041766 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract and the claims, a decorative coating comprising 2-3 pts. wt. polyoxyethylene alkylated ether wetting agent, 8-10 pts. wt. propylene glycol, 6-8 pts. wt. OE300 film forming aid, 120-130 pts. wt. nano titanium dioxide powder, 170-180 pts. wt. diatomaceous earth, 40-45 pts. wt. wollastonite powder, 50-55 pts. wt. 4000 mesh calcined kaolin, 130-140 pts. wt. organic fluorine modified styrene-acrylic emulsion, 4-5 pts. wt. hydroxyethyl cellulose thickener, 70-80 pts. wt. white pulp, 8-10 pts. wt. gum arabic, 8-10 pts. wt. dextrin, 8-10 pts. wt. lactose, 8-10 pts. wt. amino acid, 300-350 pts. wt. deionized water, 2-3 pts. wt. polydimethylsiloxane defoamer, and 8-10 pts. wt. tripolyphosphate.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches wollastonite powder which meets the binder material as well as an amino acid.
As for claim 9, the reference teaches wollastonite which is a non-hydraulic binder.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches wollastonite.
As for claim 11, this claim is met by the reference as this claim depends from claim 9 and a semi hydraulic binder is not required to be present just that if is present is must be selected from slag.
Claims 1, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent No CN 108329082 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract and the claims, a soil heavy metal stabilizer which comprises 15-33 pts. wt. sodium dihydrogen phosphate, 20-31 pts. wt. bentonite, 14-31 pts. wt. potassium chloride, 11-21 pts. wt. polyvinyl alcohol, 14-31 pts. wt. diethylene-triaminepentaacetic acid, 8-40 pts. wt. carbide slag, 25-40 pts. wt. mushroom bacteria slag, 15-28 pts. wt. chitosan, 17-31 pts. wt. polyacrylamide, 7-11 pts. wt. calcium magnesium phosphate fertilizer, 28-33 pts. wt. calcium superphosphate, 13-23 pts. wt. boric acid, 28-37 pts. wt. zinc sulfate, 11-21 pts. wt. amino acid, 9-14 pts. wt. humic acid, 13-18 pts. wt. enzyme preparation, 4-6 pts. wt. slash pine needles, and 4-6 pts. wt. Pseudomonas fluorescens bacteria powder.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches carbide slag which meets the binder component and amino acid.
As for claim 9, the reference teaches carbide slag which meets the semi-hydraulic binder.
As for claim 11, the reference teaches carbide 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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea Patent Specification No. KR 10-2021001418 A.
The reference was discussed previously, above.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claims 13-14, the reference teaches an amount of amino acids that overlaps 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.
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 22, 2026