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 .
The amendment dated 12/08/2025 has been considered and entered. The response was considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
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 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 111268935A)
In regards to claims 1 – 5, Gao teaches ultra-high position concrete admixture comprising 60 to 70% polycarboxylate superplasticizer, 15 to 25% of slump retaining agent, 5 to 15% of viscosity reduction agent such as glycol acrylate etc., which are water control agents of the claims [0006]. The polycarboxylate superplasticizer would be expected to have the same properties as recited in claim 5. While Gao does not particularly recite the presence of the other additives such as the powder and cement regulator, anti-sticking agent, strength enhancer or sustained release agent or their amounts in the composition, they are conventional additives for concretes and would be present in the minor amounts of the claims which makes the claimed limitations obvious.
For instance, Hu (CN 104016617A) teaches additives for concrete having 1 to 8% of triethanolamine (which are strength enhancing agents), 8 to 20% of modified starch (which are slump retaining agents), 4 to 15% of sodium lignin sulfonate (which are sustained release agents) which makes their use and amounts obvious for addition to the concrete additive mixture of Gao. Pegg et al. (US 2022/0135482) similarly teaches additives for concrete which can comprise mineral oils, siloxanes etc., which are known anti-sticking agents at amounts of 0.05 to 1.5% and gypsum which is a powder and cement regulator and present in amounts of up to 15% or up to 4% [0044, 0047].
Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were filed would have found it obvious to have used the conventional additives of Hu and/or Pegg in the recited amounts in the composition of Gao, as they are taught as conventional additives for use in the improvement of concrete.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the composition of the prior art addresses different problem from the composition of the claims and does not involve any consideration regarding recycled aggregates. The argument is not persuasive.
The prior art teaches composition having the claimed ingredients in amounts overlapping the claimed range and would be effective at providing similar properties as claimed.
Applicant argues that the claimed composition demonstrates improved and unexpected results. No specific inventive examples were cited. However, the examples in the specification were considered. The argument is not persuasive.
The inventive example was not commensurate in scope with the claims.
While the claims recite polycarboxylate superplasticizer at from 50 to 70 parts, 3 to 8 parts of water control agent, 5 to 15 parts of powder and cement regulator, 0.1 to 3 parts of anti-sticking agent, 5 to 20 parts of super slump retaining agent, 5 to 20 parts of strength enhancer, and 3 to 15 parts of sustained release agent, the inventive examples in Table 1 recites water, cement fly ash, slag powder and recycled aggregates which fail to recite the claimed ingredients or amounts.
Therefore, applicant fails to provide inventive examples that are commensurate in scope with the claims for demonstrating unexpected results sufficient to rebut the case of obviousness.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771