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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 18-20 canceled
Claims 1, 4-5, 8 are amended
Claims 1-17 are pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “wherein the surface of the cement-based object is free from moisture”, as claimed.
However, the specification disclose that the cement is moisture/hydrated calcium silicate (C-S-H) in [0015], [0016], [0019], [0030], [0069], [0073], [0089], [0090], [0101], contradicting the applicant’s amendment.
As the limitation “cement-based object is free from moisture” is a negative new matter, and the specification does not have a support for.
Claims 4-5 and 8 emended to states “calcium silicate”.
However, there is no support for ceramic comprises “calcium silicate”, without including “hydrate”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a 112 new matter rejection is found.
The previously applied 112b claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn. However, in light of the currently amended claims, new 112a claim rejection are now applied.
The applicant stated:
“Applicant respectfully notes that the C-S-H surface in the present application is chemically different from the hydrated C-S-H surface in the Hou reference which is saturated with water. Applicant respectfully points out that in the present application, the C-S-H surface is constructed by cleaving a tobermorite structure along a [001] direction, where a supercell is then built on the C-S-H surface as the subsequent interaction point with the epoxy resin, whereas in the Hou reference, the C-S-H surface is a mineral surface that is subject to water saturation to forma saturated C-S-H with a molecular formula of (CaO)1.69•(SiO2)•2H2O before cleaving along [001] direction”.
However, as described in the above 112 new matter rejection, there is not support for “free from moisture” as claimed. Additionally, the specification contradict the applicant’s arguments/new limitation, as the specification state that “The cement-based object includes hydrated calcium silicate (C-S-H) particles having one or more hydroxyl (-OH) groups” [0015], where the “H” in the “C-S-H” stands for “hydrated”, thus includes “moisture”.
Additionally, the specification includes specific types of ceramics; “In some further embodiments, the cement-based object is made by at least one of a tobermorite-type calcium silicate-based material, a jennite-type calcium silicate-based material, a xonotlite-type calcium silicate-based material, a foshagite-type calcium silicate-based material, and a hillebrandite-type calcium silicate-based material. In some more preferred embodiments, the cement-based object may optionally be made by at least one of a hydrogarnet material, a hydrogrossular material, a hydrotalcite material, a katoite material, and a tacharanite” [0073], as all of those ceramics are “hydrated calcium silicate”, as show in the attached NPLs.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
1136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
988
1204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1947
1207
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
988
1204
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
988
1204
media_image5.png
Greyscale
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718