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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “said particles” in line 4, which is considered legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to DE 2,757,329 C2 in Paragraph 0031, and WO 2013/021029 A1 in Paragraph 0041, is ineffective because pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.57(d), any material that is considered “essential” may only be incorporated by reference to a US patent or US patent application publication. “Essential material” is defined as material that is necessary to provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, to make and use the same; it also is defined as material that is necessary to describe the structure, material or acts that correspond to a claimed means. Paragraph 0031 of the specification recites the techniques used to form the claimed polyacrylic acid component, and cites a German patent as teaching the specific polymerization techniques used to arrive at suitable polyacrylic acids, which is considered essential to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention. Paragraph 0041 of the specification recites general descriptors of the claimed polycarboxylate ether comb polymers, and cites a WIPO patent as disclosing suitable species, which is considered essential to describing the structure that corresponds to a claimed means.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0031 and 0041: “Incorporation by reference” to a foreign patent is not permitted when the incorporation pertains to essential matter; and
Paragraph 0045, typographical error: “tetrahyroxyethylthylenediamine” is presumed to refer to “tetrahydroxyethylethylenediamine”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 10, 14, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 22, typographical error: “tetrahyroxyethylthylenediamine” is presumed to refer to “tetrahydroxyethylethylenediamine”;
Claim 8, typographical error: in the final line of the claim, “a” is in quotes, while b is not, and this should be corrected to be consistent with the preceding line, wherein “a” and “b” are both in quotes;
Claim 10, inconsistent antecedent terminology: Claim 10 refers to “structure (II)” even though parent claim 8 recites a “Formula (II)”; while “structure” and “formula” are sufficiently synonymous to overcome any potential indefiniteness, “structure (II)” should be replaced with “Formula (II)” to maintain clear antecedence between claims;
Claim 14, formatting errors: there is an extra paragraph break after line 2 that should be removed, and indents should be added for the different listings of Markush substituents (compare to claim 8, which also recites Markush structures, wherein each group of substituents is indented).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 18 each recite “whereby said particles are ground to have a finer average particle size”; “finer” is a relative term, but the claims subsequently recite the limitation wherein the ground particles have a higher PSI (pack-set index) than particles ground without polyacrylic acid, which is considered a sufficient metric to differentiate un-ground particles from “finer” particles.
Claims 1, 3, 15, 16, 18 and 24 each recite limitations regarding pack-set index. Since this metric is critical to understanding the metes and bounds of the claims, it is important that the specification describes PSI in sufficient detail. Paragraph 0057 describes the process of determining PSI in accordance with ASTM C1565. The process is notably purely mechanical, involving vibrating the sample to compact it, then using a jig to swing the sample until the compacted sample breaks apart. However, the data reported in Tables 1–4 reports PSI at 40, 50, and 52 volts, and it isn’t immediately clear why voltage is being reported based on the description provided in the specification. For clarity of the record, ASTM C1565 recites voltage as corresponding to the vibrations used to compact the powder; the vibrating table varies in vibration intensity according to the voltage it receives, and there is an ideal voltage needed to achieve maximum packing of a sample. Therefore, when Table 1 reports “PSI at 40 volts”, that refers to the PSI of a sample that achieved maximum compaction at 40 V-worth of vibrations.
Regarding claim 24, parent claim 1 does not explicitly recite a control test being performed without polyacrylic acid to assess PSI; it implies at least a qualitative comparison with and without polyacrylic acid, but dependent claim 3 is the claim that actually recites the PSI control test being carried out, and so claim 24 lacks clear antecedent basis. In the context of claim 1, the comparison of PSI with and without polyacrylic acid only dictates the composition with polyacrylic acid; in other words, the sample without polyacrylic acid can be any other type of grinding aid. Therefore, for purposes of examination, claim 24 will not be interpreted as actively requiring PSI to be measured for a sample ground without polyacrylic acid, but rather, claim 24 will be interpreted as requiring PSI to be reported in the prior art for any comparable sample ground with any grinding aid that does not comprise polyacrylic acid.
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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 18 and 19, the term “about” leads to indefiniteness because the specification gives it conflicting definitions. Paragraph 0011 states that “about” means ±15% of the numerical value, but then states that “about” can include traditional rounding according to significant figures of the numerical value. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “about” as ±15% of the numerical value, e.g., “about 0.1%” means “0.085–0.115%”.
Claims 2–17 and 24, being dependent on claim 1, inherit its deficiencies. Claims 19–23, being dependent on claim 18, inherit its deficiencies. Therefore, claims 2–17 and 19–24 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 18.
Regarding claim 8, the preamble recites the limitation “wherein the at least one polycarboxylate ether comb polymer has a structure represented by Formula (I) or Formula (II)” (emphasis added), but the claim subsequently states that “a” and “b” are numerical values representing molar percentage of the polymer’s structure (with “a” corresponding to Formula (I) and “b” corresponding to Formula (II)), wherein “a” is 30-90 and “b” is 10-70. This leads to indefiniteness because the preamble of the claim clearly presents Formula (I) and Formula (II) as alternatives with only one being required to satisfy the claim, but the body of the claim requires both structures to be present in a molar ratio. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the preamble as reciting “wherein at least two polycarboxylate ether comb polymers are present, and have structures represented by Formula (I) and Formula (II)”.
Regarding claim 9, “the AlkO” has unclear antecedent basis within the claim, because Formula (II) has two AlkO groups. It is therefore unclear if claim 9 is attempting to limit just one of the AlkO groups, or if it intends to limit both. For purposes of examination, because the first AlkO group (corresponding to variable “y”) can be considered optional (in parent claim 8, 0 is an acceptable value of “y”), the Examiner will herein treat claim 9 as referring to “at least the second AlkO group” (corresponding to variable “z”), which is not optional in the formula.
Regarding claim 12, parent claim 5 recites the inclusion of a sugar, while claim 12 includes gluconic acid as an acceptable species of sugar. Gluconic acid is not considered a sugar; it is considered a “sugar acid”, formed from the oxidation of glucose. This leads to indefiniteness because a person having ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the term “sugar” as encompassing “sugar derivatives”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will only consider the species of claim 12 that are considered sugars.
Regarding claim 14, 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). The phrase appears twice in the claim: in line 2 and in line 6.
Further regarding claim 14, in the list of acceptable functional groups for the hydrocarbon substituents of R4, “carboxylic acid ester and alcohol” in lines 8 and 9 is indefinite; while “carboxylic acid ester” is a recognized species, “carboxylic acid alcohol” is not. If the claim meant to recite “alcohol” independently of “carboxylic acid ester”, a comma should be added to clearly separate “alcohol” from “carboxylic acid ester”, and the previous recitation of “alcohol” as an acceptable species in line 7 should be removed.
Further regarding claim 14, in the list of acceptable functional groups for the hydrocarbon substituents of R4, “carbonate or mercaptan” in line 9 leads to indefiniteness because all other recited species are separated by commas, while these two are not, which implies that they are equivalent alternatives even though they are structurally different (R’–O–C(O)–O–R’’ vs R–SH). It is unclear if the claim would only encompass structures in which R4 comprises carbonate or mercaptan, or if R4 can include both carbonate and mercaptan substituents.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, parent claim 1 recites a pack-set index (PSI) for a sample ground with the grinding aid of claim 1, and suggests a comparison with a PSI for a sample that is not ground with the grinding aid of claim 1, so it is unclear which PSI is being limited by claims 15 and 16. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat claims 15 and 16 as limiting the PSI of the sample ground with polyacrylic acid.
Regarding claim 18, the first method step recites determining the PSI of cement powder ground without polyacrylic acid, and then with polyacrylic acid. However, the following method step recites introducing a grinding aid to a dry cement clinker composition, and the final method step recites grinding the cement clinker into a powder to have a PSI greater than clinker ground without polyacrylic acid. There is therefore a logical inconsistency in the claim: the method comprises determining the PSI with and without the grinding aid, then recites employing the grinding aid to determine the PSI; the first step cannot be carried out before the subsequent steps. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will herein treat the first method step as being recited as the final method step.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 9, parent claim 8 recites the “Alk” in “AlkO” as being a C2-C10 alkylene group (article “a” implies just one group), while claim 9 recites that AlkO represents ethylene oxide and propylene oxide in a molar ratio ranging from 90:10 to 100:0. Since the parent claim recites just one alkylene group, claim 9 cannot encompass both alkylene oxides in a molar ratio without being broader than the parent claim. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will rely on the “100:0” molar ratio, since that aligns with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the parent claim.
Regarding claim 12, parent claim 5 recites the inclusion of sugar, while claim 12 includes gluconic acid (a sugar acid) as an acceptable species of sugar. Claim 12 therefore recites a species that falls outside the scope of its parent claim, and therefore fails to further limit its parent.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung (WO 01/019523 A1, hereinafter “Cheung”), Pope (WO 98/21158 A1, hereinafter “Pope”), and Gibson (US 2019/0119170 A1, hereinafter “Gibson”).
Regarding claim 1, Cheung teaches a method for grinding cement clinker (see generally abstract) comprising:
introducing an aqueous grinding additive to a dry composition comprising cement clinker particles (see pg. 7, ll. 5–10 teaching an aqueous grinding additive; see pg. 4, ll. 11–18 teaching the grinding of clinker as producing a powder [i.e., dry, as opposed to an aqueous suspension or solution]), in a ball mill or roller mill (see pg. 4, ll. 25–28 teaching a roller mill), whereby said particles are ground to have a finer average particle size (see pg. 2, ll. 15–20 teaching the roller mill as pulverizing particles until they are small enough [i.e., fine enough] to be conveyed away), wherein the aqueous grinding additive composition comprises:
from about 0.1 to about 15% by weight of at least one polyacrylic acid or a salt thereof, wherein the polyacrylic acid has a weight average molecular weight of from 1,500 to 75,000 g/mol (see pg. 5, ll. 17–27 teaching 0.001–0.5 wt.% of a polymeric grinding aid having an average molecular weight between 50,000 and 500,000, wherein the polymer may comprise polyacrylic acid or salt thereof; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges, both in terms of the weight concentration and the molecular weight of the polymer); and
water (see pg. 7, ll. 5–10 teaching the polymer as being diluted in an aqueous solution; “aqueous” means “water-based”).
Cheung fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the method further comprises grinding the dry composition comprising the cement clinker particles and the aqueous grinding additive composition to product a cement product having a pack set index (PSI) greater than that obtained when the polyacrylic acid is not present in the grinding additive. Pope teaches an aqueous grinding aid comprising polyacrylates with molecular weights ranging from 3,000–4,000 (see pg. 7, ll. 22–25 teaching the molecular weight of the polyacrylate, and ll. 30–33 teaching the polyacrylate as aqueous), which falls within the claimed molecular weight range. Pope doesn’t assess the ground material for PSI, but does teach comparisons of ground material with and without a polyacrylate grinding aid (see pg. 10, ll. 9–13). This teaching would motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to conduct comparative tests of material ground with and without a polyacrylate grinding aid. The motivation to modify Cheung according to Pope most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (Cheung’s polyacrylic acid with molecular weight 50k–500k, and Pope’s polyacrylate with molecular weight 3k–4k, and Pope’s comparative testing of ground materials) according to known methods (both references teach the use of polyacrylate as a grinding aid, so the methods are known and described by Cheung and Pope) to yield predictable results (the polyacrylic acid functions as a grinding aid in both references, so the combined elements are still performing the same function as they do separately; the use of comparative testing does not affect the function of the combined material; the results of the proposed modification are therefore predictable to a person having ordinary skill in the art).
While Pope teaches comparative testing, neither Cheung nor Pope explicitly teach comparative testing of PSI. Gibson teaches liquid grinding aids for cement clinker (see generally abstract). Gibson explicitly teaches the importance of optimizing PSI, stating that the grinding aid decreases frictional coefficients and thus increasing efficiency of the particle grinding operation, as the coated surfaces more readily resist pack setting (see paragraph 0028). Gibson further teaches an optimized PSI as reducing the energy that might be necessary to initiate flow of the powder in a given direction, which is important when unloading the powder from storage bins and moving the powder during shipping and manufacturing operations (see paragraph 0028). Finally, Gibson teaches the comparison of PSI in material ground with and without a grinding aid, wherein the sample ground with a grinding aid has a higher PSI than a sample ground without a grinding aid (see Table 6, Sample A with a PSI of 11.9, and Sample Water with a PSI of 9.8). Cheung, as modified by Pope, teaches comparative tests for cement clinker ground with and without a polyacrylic acid grinding aid, and Gibson teaches the benefits of optimizing PSI, wherein the PSI of a sample ground with grinding aid is higher than the PSI of a sample ground without grinding aid. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that Cheung, as modified by Pope, can be further modified to assess and optimize PSI in ground clinker. The motivation supporting this further modification most closely aligns with KSR Rationale G, which states it is prima facie obvious for some teaching in the prior art (Gibson teaching the benefits of optimizing PSI to make it easier to move/unload ground material) that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (the proposed modification is merely an expansion of what is already encompassed by Cheung, as modified by Pope; comparative testing of ground clinker is already suggested, and Gibson provides the motivation to compare PSI of ground clinker).
Cheung, as modified by Pope and Gibson, teaches every limitation of claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Cheung, as modified by Pope and Gibson, teaches the method of claim 1. Gibson and Cheung further teach the limitation wherein the PSI of ground cement powder is determined after the cement powder was ground in the presence of a grinding aid that did not comprise a polyacrylic acid polymer and adding polyacrylic acid to the grinding aid in an amount effective to increase the PSI (see Gibson, Table 6 teaching the comparison of PSI in samples ground in the presence of monopropylene glycol [MPG] grinding aid; also see Cheung, pg. 7, ll. 10–13 teaching the spraying of polyacrylic grinding aid onto the re-circulating feed streams of the roller mill [wherein the re-circulated material is material that is still too coarse after being ground, as explained in pg. 5, ll. 5–11]). While the prior art doesn’t explicitly teach adding polyacrylic acid to a sample ground with a different grinding aid to improve PSI, this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Since Gibson teaches the importance of optimizing PSI, and since Cheung teaches the use of grinding aid towards particles that are still too coarse, it follows that the modified composition of Cheung, Pope, and Gibson can be applied towards any substandard composition to improve grinding efficiency and optimize PSI to the desired level. While interactions between the non-polyacrylic grinding aid and the polyacrylic acid may take place, Cheung teaches polyacrylic acid grinding aids as being compatible with glycol-based grinding aids (see pg. 6, ll. 16–20), so a person having ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success in applying polyacrylic acid grinding aid towards a material previously ground with glycol (or several other industry-standard) grinding aids.
Regarding claim 4, Cheung further teaches the limitation wherein the particles being ground comprise clinker and at least one of fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag, limestone, calcined clay, or natural pozzolan (see pg. 4, ll. 19–24).
Regarding claim 7, Cheung further teaches the limitation wherein the aqueous grinding additive composition further comprises a grinding additive selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, triethanolamine, triisopropanolamine, and diethanolisopropanolamine (see pg. 6, ll. 20–23; diethanolisopropanolamine is synonymous with N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-propanolamine).
Claims 2, 5, 6, and 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung, Pope and Gibson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Honert (US 2015/284291 A1, hereinafter “Honert”).
Regarding claim 2, Cheung, as modified by Pope and Gibson, teaches the method of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the aqueous grinding additive further comprises from about 0.5 to about 60% of at least one polycarboxylate ether comb polymer. Honert teaches an aqueous polymer grinding aid for cement (see generally abstract), wherein the polymer is a polycarboxylate ether comb polymer (see paragraph 0018) used in an amount of from 0.01–1.0 wt.% (see paragraph 0070; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). Additionally, Cheung teaches a grinding aid comprising two polymers in combination (see pg. 6, ll. 9–15), and Honert teaches the polycarboxylate ether comb polymer grinding aid as further comprising a polyacrylic acid (see paragraph 0072). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the polyacrylic acid grinding aid taught by Cheung, as modified by Pope and Gibson, can be further modified according to Honert to also include a polycarboxylate ether comb polymer. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (Cheung’s polyacrylic acid grinding aid and Honert’s polycarboxylate ether comb polymer grinding aid) according to known methods (Cheung teaches the combination of multiple polymers in prescribed molar ratios for use as grinding aids) to yield predictable results (both references teach compatibility with each other: Cheung teaches polyacrylic acid in combination with other polymers, and Honert teaches compatibility of polycarboxylate ether comb polymers with polyacrylic acid, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). This modification arrives at the claimed invention; therefore, claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Cheung and Honert both teach the limitation of claim 5 wherein the aqueous grinding additive further comprises at least one of a glycol, glycerol, a defoamer, sugar, salt, acetic acid, or an acetate salt (see Cheung, pg. 6, ll. 16–20 teaching a glycol and an acetate salt of a hydroxylamine; also see Honert, paragraph 0072 teaching saccharides and polysaccharides [simple and complex sugars], paragraph 0074 teaching glycols, and paragraph 0084 teaching defoamers). Cheung and Honert further teach the limitations of claim 6, wherein the glycol comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol (see Cheung, pg. 6, l. 18 teaching diethylene glycol; also see Honert, paragraph 0074 teaching monoethylene glycol and diethylene glycol).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Honert further teaches the limitation wherein the polycarboxylate ether comb polymer has a structure represented by Formula (I) and Formula (II) (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 8 regarding the use of the term “and” here instead of the claimed “or”; the claimed formulas are reproduced below):
PNG
media_image1.png
230
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Honert’s formula (I) (see paragraph 0020) encompasses the claimed Formula (I), and wherein Honert’s formula (II) (see paragraph 0021) encompasses the claimed Formula (II).
It is noted that Honert’s formula (II) has a carbonyl moiety (–[C(=O)]p–) in the chain that is absent from the claimed Formula (II), but Honert teaches the value of p as 0 or 1 (see paragraph 0029), meaning it is not required. Similarly, claimed Formula (II) includes an ether (–[O]p–) and a first alkoxy moiety (–[AlkO]y–) in the chain that are not present in Honert’s formula (II), but claim 8 teaches the values of p and y as including 0, meaning they are also not required for the structure. Honert’s formula (II) will therefore be considered to encompass the claimed Formula (II), with the claimed Formula (II) having a chain comprising –[CH2]x–O–[AlkO]z–R2, and Honert’s formula (II) having a chain comprising –[CH2]m–O–R1.
Honert further teaches the limitations wherein:
each R1 independently represents a hydrogen atom or a methyl group (see paragraph 0026 teaching Ru, which is in the same position as the claimed R1, as independently being a methyl group or a hydrogen);
wherein M represents a hydrogen atom, an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal cation, or ammonium (see paragraph 0025 teaching the same substituents as M);
wherein Alk represents a C2–C10 alkylene group (see paragraphs 0030 and 0031 teaching R1, which is in the same position as the claimed Alk group, as comprising --[AO]n--R4, wherein A=C2 to C4 alkylene);
wherein p represents an integer of 0 or 1 (see paragraph 0021, where the ether corresponding to variable p in the claimed structure is absent, equivalent to a p-value of 0);
wherein x represents an integer of 1–10 (see paragraph 0028 teaching the value of m, analogous to the x in the claimed structure, as being an integer of 0, 1, or 2);
wherein y represents a number of 0–300 (see paragraph 0021, where the alkoxy group corresponding to variable y in the claimed structure is absent, equivalent to a y-value of 0);
wherein z represents a number of 1–300 (z in the claimed structure corresponds to an alkoxy group; see paragraph 0030 teaching R1, which is in the same position as the claimed alkoxy group, as comprising –[AO]n–R4, wherein A is an alkylene [and O is just oxygen, making it an alkoxy group]; also see paragraph 0032 teaching n=2–250, wherein n corresponds to the alkoxy group, and is therefore analogous to z in the claimed structure);
R2 represents a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group having 1–10 carbon atoms (see paragraph 0030 teaching R1 as comprising –[AO]n–R4, wherein R4 is analogous to the claimed R1; also see paragraph 0031 teaching R4 as hydrogen or a C1 to C20 alkyl group); and
wherein “a” and “b” in the claimed structures are numerical values representing molar percentage of the polymer’s structure, wherein “a” is 30–90 and “b” is 10–70 (see paragraphs 20–23 teaching formulas I–IV as being represented by a–d, respectively, wherein a–d represent mole fractions of each formula in the overall composition; also see paragraph 0041 teaching the molar ratio a/b/c/d as (0.1–0.9)/(0.1–0.9)/(0–0.8)/(0–0.8); since “c” and “d” are allowed to have a molar amount of 0 in the ratio, they can be excluded from the ratio; the molar ratio between “a” and “b” is therefore (0.1–0.9):(0.1–0.9), or (10–90):(10–90), which overlaps with the claimed ratio; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Honert’s formula (II) further meets the limitations of claim 9, wherein the AlkO represents an ethylene oxide (see the above 112(d) rejection of claim 9 regarding the exclusion of propylene oxide from the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation; see paragraphs 0030 and 0031 teaching R1, which is in the same position as the claimed alkoxy group, as comprising –[AO]n–R4, wherein A is a C2 to C4 alkylene; a C2 alkylene, in combination with the oxygen in the AO, is ethylene oxide).
Honert’s formula (II) further meets the limitations of claim 10, wherein R2 in the claimed Formula (II) represents a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group having 1–4 carbon atoms (see paragraphs 0030 and 0031 teaching R1, which is in the same position as the claimed alkoxy group, as comprising –[AO]n–R4, wherein R4, which is in the same position as the claimed R2 group, stands for hydrogen or a C1 to C20 alkyl group, which overlaps with the claimed range of carbon atoms; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges), wherein x represents an integer of 1–4 (see paragraph 0028 teaching m, which corresponds to x in the claimed structure, as being 0, 1 or 2), wherein y represents a number of 0 (see paragraph 0021, wherein Honert’s formula (II) lacks the alkoxy group corresponding to variable y in the claimed structure, equivalent to a y value of 0), and wherein z represents a number of 5–300 (see paragraphs 0030 and 0032 teaching R1, which is in the same position as the alkoxy group corresponding to the variable z in the claimed structure, as comprising –[AO]n–R4, wherein n is 2–250; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Claims 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung, Pope, Gibson and Honert as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Detellis (US 2021/0122675 A1, hereinafter “Detellis”).
Regarding claim 11, Cheung, as modified by Pope, Gibson and Honert, teaches the method of claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the aqueous grinding additive comprises sugar, salt, defoamer and acetic acid or acetate at the claimed concentrations. Detellis teaches an additive for grinding cement clinker (see paragraph 0015) comprising several known grinding aids (see paragraphs 0015 and 0062), and further comprising sugar at a concentration of 0.001–0.06 wt.%, salt at 0.001–0.2 wt.%, defoamer at 0.0001–0.002 wt.%, and acetate salt at 0.005–0.1 wt.% (see paragraph 0126 teaching sugar as component (C), salt as component (D), and acetate salts as component (E); see paragraph 0214 teaching defoamer [referred to as ADA, which paragraph 185 teaches to be interchangeable with the term “defoamer”]). Of these recited compositions, Detellis teaches lower concentrations of sugar and defoamer than what is claimed (0.001–0.06 wt.% sugar, vs the claimed range of 0.1–50 wt.%; 0.0001–0.002 wt.% defoamer, vs the claimed range of 0.05–10 wt.%). However, absent any evidence of criticality of the claimed ranges, a person having ordinary skill in the art can reasonably arrive at the claimed ranges through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05(II.A) teaching differences in concentration as not supporting the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical). The concentrations of sugar and defoamer taught by Detellis are therefore considered sufficient to render the corresponding limitations obvious, and the concentrations of salt and acetate overlap with the claimed ranges, which is sufficient to render the corresponding limitations obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be obvious that Cheung, as modified by Pope, Gibson and Honert, can be further modified by Detellis to utilize the concentrations of each component disclosed. Cheung teaches the use of additives including acetates (see pg. 6, l. 19), and Honert teaches the use of additives including sugars and defoamers (see paragraph 0072 teaching saccharides [sugars] and paragraph 0084 teaching defoamer), but neither reference discloses the exact concentration of such additives. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (the modified composition according to Cheung, Pope, Gibson, and Honert, with the composition comprising the prescribed concentrations of sugar, salt, defoamer and acetate taught by Detellis) according to known methods (the inclusion of these additives is already disclosed in the methods of at least Cheung and Honert) to yield predictable results (the modified composition is already taught to be compatible with most of the components disclosed by Detellis, and Detellis teaches a combination of all the claimed additives, which indicates they are compatible with each other, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). Claim 11 is therefore rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Detellis further teaches the limitation wherein sugar is present in the aqueous grinding additive, and the sugar is at least one selected from the group consisting of sucrose, corn syrup and molasses (see paragraph 0076; while “gluconic acid and salts thereof” is excluded from the interpretation of this claim [see the above 112(b) and (d) rejections], paragraph 0076 does also teach gluconate salts).
Regarding claim 17, Detellis further teaches the limitation wherein the defoamer is present and is triisobutyl phosphate (see paragraph 0186 teaching triisobutyl phosphate).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung, Pope, Gibson and Honert as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Pellerin (FR 3002162 A1, hereinafter “Pellerin”).
Regarding claim 13, Cheung, as modified by Pope, Gibson, and Honert, teaches the method of claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein salt is present and is at least one selected from the claimed group. Pellerin teaches an aqueous grinding additive for cement (see paragraph 0001; also see paragraph 0009 teaching the additive as aqueous), specifically for grinding cement clinker (see paragraph 0012). Pellerin further teaches the inclusion of calcium chloride as a setting accelerator (see paragraph 0009 at the top of pg. 6), which is one of the claimed salts. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that Cheung, as modified by Pope, Gibson and Honert, can be further modified to use calcium chloride as a setting accelerator, as taught by Pellerin. The benefit of using a set accelerator is self-evident: it enables the cement to set faster, improving the early strength by speeding up the hydration reactions taking place once cement is mixed. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale C, which states it is prima facie obvious to use a known technique (adding a set accelerator, such as calcium chloride, as taught by Pellerin) to improve similar products (the modified composition taught by Cheung, Pope, Gibson and Honert) in the same way (improving the initial set time, which is a usage-dependent property of ground cement for which set accelerators are frequently implemented, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). This modification arrives at the claimed invention, thus rendering claim 13 prima facie obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung, Pope, Gibson and Honert as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Desseroir (US 2015/148455 A1, hereinafter “Desseroir”).
PNG
media_image2.png
143
275
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Cheung, as modified by Pope, Gibson and Honert, teaches the method of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the at least one polycarboxylate ether comb polymer comprises a hydrocarbon-containing main chain carrying carboxylic groups and polyalkyl chains and 0.01 to 4% by weight of antioxidant groups having the following structural Formula (III):
Desseroir teaches polymer plasticizers for aqueous suspensions of hydraulic binders (see paragraph 0001), specifically a polycarboxylate ether comb polymer (see paragraph 0054) employed during the milling of cement (see paragraph 0043). Desseroir further teaches the limitation wherein the at least one polycarboxylate ether comb polymer comprises a hydrocarbon-containing main chain carrying carboxylic acid groups and polyalkyl chains and 0.01 to 4% by weight of anti-oxidant groups grafted to the main chain (see paragraph 0018 and paragraph 0020 teaching the exact claimed structure).
Desseroir further teaches the limitation wherein R3 is any of the claimed substituents (see paragraph 0022 teaching R1, which is in the same position as R3 in the claimed structure, as being selected from the same substituents as claimed, verbatim);
R4 is independent of each other selected from any of the claimed substituents (see paragraph 0023 teaching R2, which is in the same positions as R4 in the claimed structure, as being independently of each other selected from the same substituents); and
F is selected from any of the claimed functional groups linked to the aromatic ring optionally by the claimed hydrocarbon chain (see paragraph 0024 teaching the same functional groups as being optionally linked to the aromatic ring by the same hydrocarbon chain as claimed).
Desseroir therefore teaches each and every limitation set forth in claim 14. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the modified composition of Cheung, Pope, Gibson and Honert can be further modified to include the polycarboxylate ether comb polymer with grafted antioxidant groups according to Desseroir. Honert already teaches the use of polycarboxylate ether comb polymers as a grinding aid for cement clinker, and teaches their compatibility with polyacrylic acid grinding aids (see abstract and paragraph 0072). The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (Cheung’s polyacrylic acid grinding aid and Desseroir’s polycarboxylate ether comb polymer grinding aid) according to known methods (Cheung teaches the combination of multiple polymers in prescribed molar ratios for use as grinding aids, and Honert teaches the combination of polycarboxylate ether comb polymers with polyacrylic acid) to yield predictable results (Cheung teaches polyacrylic acid in combination with other polymers, and Honert teaches compatibility of polycarboxylate ether comb polymers with polyacrylic acid, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). This modification arrives at the claimed invention; therefore, claim 14 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Cheung, Pope, and Gibson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pellerin.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Cheung, as modified by Pope and Gibson, teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the cement product has a PSI of from 5 to 8 (as claimed in claim 15), or from 5 to 7 (as claimed in claim 16). Gibson does teach the measurement of PSI (see Table 6), but it is the PSI of limestone ground in the presence of an aliphatic fatty acid-based grinding aid, not a polyacrylic acid, so the values reported in Table 6 cannot be applied to claims 15 and 16. Pellerin teaches an aqueous grinding additive for cement (see paragraph 0001; also see paragraph 0009 teaching the additive as aqueous), specifically for grinding cement clinker (see paragraph 0012). Pellerin further teaches the measurement of PSI of ground material, and states that PSI values between 1 and 10 are particularly sought (see paragraph 0013). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been sufficiently motivated to apply Pellerin’s guidance towards the modified composition taught by Cheung, Pope, and Gibson, especially because Gibson teaches the importance of optimizing the PSI in ground materials including cements (see paragraph 0028), but fails to teach any specific PSI values for ground cement. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale G, which states it is prima facie obvious for some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art (Pellerin’s disclosed PSI range for ground cement) to lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (the modified composition of Cheung, Pope and Gibson) to arrive at the claimed invention, if there is a reasonable expectation of success (the modified composition already suggests measuring and optimizing PSI of ground cement, and Pellerin is merely cited as evidence of what the “target” PSI should be, so one of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success).
It is noted that none of the cited references explicitly teach a PSI that falls within the ranges claimed in claims 15 and 16. However, the performance of the modified composition cannot be assumed from the performance of any of the individual references cited herein. Different grinding aids, in different concentrations, with different additives, and applied towards different materials are all variables that make it impossible to assume any sort of inherent performance of the composition produced from the combination of references. However, as established by Gibson and Pellerin, PSI is a parameter that can be optimized, making it a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), and Pellerin provides explicit guidance as to what the PSI of ground cement should be, which is sufficient for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the composition until the PSI of ground cement is between 1 and 10, as taught by Pellerin. This range overlaps with the PSI ranges claimed in claims 15 and 16 (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges), thus rendering claims 15 and 16 prima facie obvious.
Claims 18 and 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope, Sun (CN 107601954 A, hereinafter “Sun”), Gibson and Cheung.
Regarding claim 18, Pope teaches a method for grinding cement clinker particles (see the above 112(b) rejection of claim 18 regarding the interpretation of the order of steps), comprising:
introducing an aqueous grinding additive to a dry composition (see abstract teaching the addition of a grinding additive to a dry composition of clays; also see pg. 8, ll. 4–13 teaching the grinding aid as either being purchased in aqueous form or dispersed in water), in a ball mill or roller mill (see pg. 9, ll. 1–8 teaching the use of a ball mill), whereby said particles are ground to have a finer average particle size (see pg. 8, ll. 25–29 teaching the milling process as resulting in a substantial particle size reduction), wherein the aqueous grinding composition comprises:
at least one polyacrylic acid or a salt thereof, wherein the polyacrylic acid has a weight average molecular weight of from 1,500 to 25,000 g/mol (see pg. 7, ll. 22–25 teaching several polyacrylate salts with number average molecular weights ranging from about 3,000 to about 4,000; there can be a difference between weight average molecular weight and number average molecular weight, but in this case, Pope also explicitly teaches an ammonium polyacrylate grinding aid with a weight average molecular weight of 3,400 [see pg. 5, ll. 10–15], which falls within the claimed range); and
water (see pg. 8, ll. 4–13 teaching the grinding aid as either being purchased in aqueous form or dispersed in water).
Pope fails to explicitly teach the limitations wherein (1) the dry composition to be ground is cement clinker; (2) the at least one polyacrylic acid is present in an amount of from about 3 to about 5% by weight; (3) the dry composition comprising the cement clinker particles is ground to produce a cement product having a PSI greater than that obtained when the polyacrylic acid is not present in the grinding additive; and (4) the PSI of ground cement powder is determined after the cement powder was ground in the presence of a grinding aid that did not comprise a polyacrylic acid polymer and adding a polyacrylic acid to the grinding aid in an amount effective to increase the PSI greater than that obtained when the polyacrylic acid is not present.
Regarding (1) and (2), Sun teaches a grinding aid for cement clinker (see paragraphs 0002 and 0049), wherein the grinding aid comprises 2–8 wt.% sodium polyacrylate (see paragraph 0008; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the composition of Pope can be applied towards cement clinker and modified to use 2–8 wt.% sodium polyacrylate, as taught by Sun. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale B, which states it is prima facie obvious to simply substitute one known element (Pope’s polyacrylate grinding aid) for another (Sun’s 2–8 wt.% polyacrylate grinding aid used for cement clinker) to obtain predictable results (both references teach a polyacrylate grinding aid, and Sun merely provides a working concentration when it is applied towards cement clinker, which Sun already teaches to be successful, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable).
Regarding (3), Gibson teaches liquid grinding aids for cement clinker (see generally abstract), wherein PSI is taught to be an optimizable parameter (see paragraph 0028 teaching the benefits of optimizing pack setting; while Gibson specifically refers to reducing pack setting and the claim limitation refers to increasing pack setting, it should be recognized that Gibson teaches a different type of grinding additive directed primarily towards calcium carbonate, and any “ideal” pack set index is material-specific; the concept of optimizing PSI is universal, but the exact value to which it should be optimized will depend on how the material normally compacts, how resistant that packing is to breaking, and the associated difficulties in moving, unloading, and pouring the material). Gibson further teaches the measurement of PSI for samples ground in the presence of a specific grinding additive compared to samples ground in the presence of other grinding aids (see Table 6, wherein Sample MPG is monopropylene glycol [a common grinding aid], and Sample A is Gibson’s potassium sorbate-based grinding aid).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be sufficiently motivated to modify Pope according to Gibson, arriving at a polyacrylate-based grinding aid composition applicable towards cement clinker wherein PSI is measured and optimized relative to a sample ground with other, industry-standard grinding aids. Further supporting this combination is Pope’s disclosure of comparing the effects of polyacrylate grinding aids against materials ground without polyacrylate grinding aids (see pg. 10, ll. 9–16), and Gibson’s disclosure of using polyacrylates with the polysorbate grinding aid (see paragraph 0026), which suggests to a person having ordinary skill in the art that polyacrylates are at least compatible with grinding aids for cement clinker. This also supports the compatibility of Gibson with Sun, as both teach a grinding aid applied towards cement clinker, and Sun already teaches a polyacrylate-based grinding aid applied towards cement clinker. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (Pope’s polyacrylate grinding aids and comparative testing, and Gibson’s grinding aids for cement clinker and optimization of PSI) according to known methods (the methods simply involve measuring and optimizing PSI according to Gibson; the prior art elements themselves don’t require any specific method to be combined) to yield predictable results (Pope teaches a grinding aid which Gibson teaches as at least being compatible with cement clinker, further supported by Sun’s teaching of a polyacrylate-based grinding aid [like Pope’s] being used to grind cement clinker, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable).
Regarding (4), Cheung teaches an aqueous polyacrylate-based grinding aid for cement clinker (see pg. 7, ll. 5–10 teaching an aqueous grinding additive; see pg. 4, ll. 11–18 teaching the grinding of clinker; also see pg. 5, ll. 17–27 teaching the grinding aid as comprising a polyacrylic acid or salt thereof). Gibson and Cheung further teach the limitation wherein the PSI of ground cement powder after the cement powder was ground in the presence of a grinding aid that did not comprise a polyacrylic acid polymer and adding polyacrylic acid to the grinding aid in an amount effective to increase the PSI (see Gibson, Table 6 teaching the comparison of PSI in samples ground in the presence of monopropylene glycol [MPG] grinding aid; also see Cheung, pg. 7, ll. 10–13 teaching the spraying of polyacrylic grinding aid onto the re-circulating feed streams of the roller mill [wherein the re-circulated material is material that is still too coarse after being ground, as explained in pg. 5, ll. 5–11]). While the prior art doesn’t explicitly teach adding polyacrylic acid to a sample ground with a different grinding aid to improve PSI, this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Since Gibson teaches the importance of optimizing PSI, and since Cheung teaches the use of grinding aid towards particles that are still too coarse, it follows that the modified composition of Pope, Sun and Gibson can be applied towards any substandard composition to improve grinding efficiency and optimize PSI to the desired level. While interactions between the non-polyacrylic grinding aid and the polyacrylic acid may take place, Cheung teaches polyacrylic acid grinding aids as being compatible with glycol-based grinding aids (see pg. 6, ll. 16–20), so a person having ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success in applying polyacrylic acid grinding aid towards a material previously ground with glycol (or several other industry-standard) grinding aids.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the composition of Pope, Sun and Gibson can be further modified according to Cheung. The modified composition thus far is already comparable to Cheung, as both teach an aqueous polyacrylate-based grinding aid applied towards cement clinker. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale G, which states it is prima facie obvious for some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art (Cheung’s application of grinding aid toward re-circulated clinker particles that are still too coarse) to lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings (the modified composition of Pope, Sun and Gibson) to arrive at the claimed invention, if there is a reasonable expectation of success (Cheung’s composition is very similar to the modified composition thus far, and the proposed modification deals with an application of the grinding aid rather than a compositional change, and Cheung already demonstrates the applicability of this type of grinding aid towards re-circulated clinker, so one of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success).
The proposed modifications arrive at the invention of claim 18. Claim 18 is therefore rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Pope, as modified by Sun, Gibson and Cheung, teaches the method according to claim 18. Cheung further teaches the limitation wherein the aqueous grinding additive composition further comprises at least one from, inter alia, a glycol and an acetate salt (see pg. 6, ll. 16–20 teaching a glycol and an acetate salt of a hydroxylamine). This also meets the limitation of claim 21, wherein the glycol comprises at least of selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, diethylene glycol (see pg. 6, l. 18).
Regarding claim 22, Cheung further teaches the limitation wherein the aqueous grinding additive further comprises a grinding additive selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, triethanolamine, triisopropanolamine, and diethanolisopropanolamine (see pg. 6, ll. 20–23; diethanolisopropanolamine is synonymous with N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-propanolamine).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope, Sun, Gibson and Cheung as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Honert and Desseroir.
Regarding claim 19, Pope, as modified by Sun, Gibson and Cheung, teaches the method according to claim 18, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the aqueous grinding additive further comprises from about 0.5 to about 60% of at least one polycarboxylate ether comb polymer. Honert teaches an aqueous polymer grinding aid for cement (see generally abstract), wherein the polymer is a polycarboxylate ether comb polymer (see paragraph 0018) used in an amount of from 0.01–1.0 wt.% (see paragraph 0070; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). Additionally, Cheung teaches a grinding aid comprising two polymers in combination (see pg. 6, ll. 9–15), and Honert teaches the polycarboxylate ether comb polymer grinding aid as further comprising a polyacrylic acid (see paragraph 0072). Further, Desseroir teaches polymer plasticizers for aqueous suspensions of hydraulic binders (see paragraph 0001), specifically a polycarboxylate ether comb polymer (see paragraph 0054) employed during the milling of cement (see paragraph 0043), wherein the concentration of the polymer is 10–50 wt.% in solution (see paragraph 0040).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the modified composition of Pope, Sun, Gibson and Cheung can be further modified to include 0.01–1.0 wt.% of the polymer taught by Honert, and 10–50 wt.% of the polymer taught by Desseroir. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (the polycarboxylate ether comb polymer-based grinding aids taught by Honert and Desseroir, and the polyacrylate-based grinding aid taught by Pope, Sun, Gibson and Cheung) according to known methods (Cheung teaches a method incorporating two different types of polymers as a grinding aid) to yield predictable results (Honert explicitly teaches the compatibility of polycarboxylate ether comb polymers with polyacrylates as grinding aids, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope, Sun, Gibson and Cheung as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Detellis.
Regarding claim 23, Pope, as modified by Sun, Gibson and Cheung, teaches the method according to claim 18, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein sugar, salt, defoamer and acetic acid or acetate are present at the claimed concentrations. Detellis teaches an additive for grinding cement clinker (see paragraph 0015) comprising several known grinding aids (see paragraphs 0015 and 0062), and further comprising sugar at a concentration of 0.001–0.06 wt.%, salt at 0.001–0.2 wt.%, defoamer at 0.0001–0.002 wt.%, and acetate salt at 0.005–0.1 wt.% (see paragraph 0126 teaching sugar as component (C), salt as component (D), and acetate salts as component (E); see paragraph 0214 teaching defoamer [referred to as ADA, which paragraph 185 teaches to be interchangeable with the term “defoamer”]). Of these recited compositions, Detellis teaches lower concentrations of sugar and defoamer than what is claimed (0.001–0.06 wt.% sugar, vs the claimed range of 0.1–50 wt.%; 0.0001–0.002 wt.% defoamer, vs the claimed range of 0.05–10 wt.%). However, absent any evidence of criticality of the claimed ranges, a person having ordinary skill in the art can reasonably arrive at the claimed ranges through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05(II.A) teaching differences in concentration as not supporting the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical). The concentrations of sugar and defoamer taught by Detellis are therefore considered sufficient to render the corresponding limitations obvious, and the concentrations of salt and acetate overlap with the claimed ranges, which is sufficient to render the corresponding limitations obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to be obvious that Pope, as modified by Sun, Gibson and Cheung, can be further modified by Detellis to utilize the concentrations of each component disclosed. Cheung teaches the use of additives including acetates (see pg. 6, l. 19), and the other additives are commonly employed as admixtures for cements (sugars and salts are used as set-modifying admixtures, and defoamers are used to reduce air pockets in the mixed cement), which would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (the modified composition according to Pope, Sun, Gibson and Cheung, with the composition comprising the prescribed concentrations of sugar, salt, defoamer and acetate taught by Detellis) according to known methods (the inclusion of acetates is already disclosed in the methods of at least Cheung, and the other additives are well-understood to be common admixtures for cement) to yield predictable results (Detellis teaches a combination of all the claimed additives, which indicates they are compatible with each other, and the additives are known by those of ordinary skill in the art to be used as admixtures in cement products, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). Claim 23 is therefore rendered prima facie obvious.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung, Pope and Gibson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Serafin (US 3,443,975 A, hereinafter “Serafin”).
Regarding claim 24, Cheung, as modified by Pope and Gibson, teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the PSI obtained when the polyacrylic acid is not present in the grinding additive is less than 3. As discussed in the above Claim Interpretation section, the limitation of claim 24 is interpreted as only requiring the PSI of ground cement clinker to be reported as less than 3 in the prior art, based on grinding with any grinding aid that is not polyacrylic acid-based. Serafin teaches a vinyl acetate grinding aid for cement clinker (see generally abstract), wherein the PSI of cement ground in the presence of the grinding aid is 0.9 (see Table 1, sample with 0.04% additive). Claim 24 is therefore rendered prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, W, F after 5:30 PM and Th from 8 AM to 6 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, Amber 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights