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 The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant needs to correct the headings for table 2 as some of the headings text are hard to read as individual letters of the words as well as the numerical values appear vertically in the column. Note that, in the above snippet the phrase “comparative embodiment 2” appears in the column with either 1 or 2 letters on each line and the value “217.69” appears with 1 or 2 numbers on each line. This renders the table hard to follow and it therefore needs to be corrected. The same holds true for Table 4 where the numerical values appear on separate lines in the column A ppropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 of the claim, the phrase “comprising following steps” should be – comprising the following steps –. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1- 7 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 the claims, in the phrase “low-cost” the term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ low ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In claim 1, the phrase “pretreated waste incineration fly ash” is vague and indefinite as it is unclear as to how the waste incineration fly ash is pretreated. Clarification is requested. References Cited By The Examiner China Patent Specification No. CN 104496388 A teaches a composition comprising building gy p sum which may be desulfurization gypsum, furnace bottom ash, common silicate cement, granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash and additives. US 9,834,479 B2 teaches a composition comprising a fly ash, a gelation enhancer such as at least of blast furnace slag, flue gas desulfurization gypsum, bottom ash etc. Korea Patent Specification No. KR 102306318 B1 teaches a composition comprising Portland cement, fine blast furnace slag powder, fly ash, bottom ash and desulfurized gypsum. Korea Patent Specification No. KR 101840470 B1 teaches a composition comprising circulating fluidized bed boiler ash, blast furnace slag fine powder, circulating fluidized bed boiler fly ash, and may further contain desulfurized gypsum. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art teaches similar compositions comprising blast furnace slag, bottom ash, fly ash and a desulfurized gypsum however these references fail to teach or suggest the use of the same types of these components in the claimed amounts. While the prior art teaches compositions that can comprise bottom ash and fly ash the prior art fails to teach the use of the same types of bottom ash (i.e. waste incineration bottom ash ) and the same type of fly ash (i.e. pretreated waste incineration fly ash ) and therefore the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the instant claims . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1367 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber R. Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 March 12, 2026