DETAILED ACTION
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted on 26 May 2025 has been entered. After entry of the amendment, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: .
Applicant needs to update the specification to include the patent number of the parent application as the application has since matured into a patent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 16 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 4, the term “diamine)” should be – diamine –.
In claim 16, line 8, the phrase “consisting of include” should be – consisting of –.
In claim 16, line 11, the term “and” should be deleted.
In claim 16, line 15, the term “diamine)” should be – diamine –.
In claim 20, the term “metakaolin)” should be – metakaolin –.
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 3, 9, and 15-17 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 3, it is unclear as to how “coarse limestone” can be considered to be a mineral fine as coarse limestone would appear to possess a size outside the scope of the term “fines”. Clarification is requested.
In claims 9 and 16, applicant refers to “other amines” however it is unclear as to the types of amines encompassed by this phrase.
In claim 15, the phrase “the mineral filler” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 17, the phrase “the mineral filler” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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 1-2, 4-7, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 105218027 A.
The reference teaches, in the examples, a coloring agent (toner) for concrete compositions comprising a mixture of quicklime, quartz powder and limestone powder.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the limestone powder meets the mineral fines. The quicklime meets the performance-enhancing additive. Note that claim 10 recites that calcium oxide is an example of a performance-enhancing additive and as quicklime is calcium oxide, this is met. No Portland cement or GGBFS needs to be present.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches limestone powder.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches quartz powder which meets the siliceous mineral.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches quicklime which meets the strength enhancer component.
As for claim 6, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a water reducer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 6.
As for claim 7, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a set retarder and retardant are not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 7.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches limestone powder that meets the non-pozzolanic minerals and the quicklime (also known as calcium oxide) meets the performance-enhancing additive.
As for claim 19, the limestone powder meets the ground limestone. The quicklime meets the performance-enhancing additive as it is a strength-enhancer.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PCT International Publication No. WO 2015/177795 A1.
The reference teaches, in claim 1, a dry mortar formulation comprising sand, limestone powder, a cementitious material, hydrated lime and nano crystalline cellulose. The cementitious material can be a hydraulic material, gypsum, lime, blast furnace cement or a trass cement (claims 4 and 5) and therefore no Portland cement needs to be present.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the limestone powder meets the mineral fines. The hydrated lime meets the performance-enhancing additive. Note that claim 10 recites that hydrated lime is an example of a performance-enhancing additive. The cementitious material can be a material other than a Portland cement. Note also that the gypsum can also meet the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS needs to be present.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches limestone powder.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches hydrated lime which meets the strength enhancer component.
As for claim 6, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a water reducer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 6.
As for claim 7, this claim is met as gypsum can be utilized as the cementitious material in the composition.
As for claim 8, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and an accelerator is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 8.
As for claim 9, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a strength enhancer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 9.
As for claim 10, the limestone powder meets the non-pozzolanic minerals. The hydrated lime meets the performance-enhancing additive.
As for claim 18, the reference teaches limestone powder that meets the mineral fines, hydrated lime that meets the supplemental lime component and gypsum that meets the set controller or set retarder component. No Portland cement or GGBFS is required to be present as other cementitious materials can be utilized.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches limestone powder that meets the mineral fines, hydrated lime that meets the strength-enhancer component and gypsum that meets the set controller or set retarder component. No Portland cement is required to be present as other cementitious materials can be utilized.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 104844111 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a composition which comprises 30-70 mass% basalt, 0-30 mass% sandstone, 18-22 mass% coal ash or coal gangue, 3-6 mass% gypsum, 5-10 mass% silicate cement clinker or sulfur aluminate cement clinker, and 0-15 mass% manganese slag or ore slag powder. Page 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom teaches that the basalt is basalt mine tailing having a size of 0 to 5 mm.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the basalt and/or the coal ash meets the mineral fines and the gypsum meets the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS needs to be present.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches basalt mine tailings and fly ash.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches basaltic minerals.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches gypsum which meets the set controller.
As for claim 6, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a water reducer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 6.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches gypsum.
As for claim 8, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and an accelerator is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 8.
As for claim 9, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a strength enhancer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 9.
Claims 1-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 101549964 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a low calcium Portland cement made from granite powder, comprises the following components by mass percentage: 50-65% limestone, 10-20% granite powder, 10-25% steel slag or iron slag, 2-5% aluminum profile surface treatment slag and 3-8% hemihydrate gypsum. The mixture is pulverized to a size of 200 mesh (see the examples).
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the granite powder meets the mineral fines and the hemihydrate gypsum meets the performance enhancing additive. The limestone can also meet the mineral fines as since the mixture is pulverized to a size of 200 mesh it can be considered to be a limestone powder. While the resulting product is a Portland cement, the composition used to produce it do not contain it. Further no GGBFS is required to be present.
As for claim 2, the limestone meets the limestone powder.
As for claim 3, the reference teaches granite powder.
As for claim 4, the granite powder is an example of an igneous mineral.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches hemihydrate gypsum which meets the set controller.
As for claim 6, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a water reducer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 6.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches hemihydrate gypsum which meets the calcium sulfate hemihydrate.
As for claim 8, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and an accelerator is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 8.
As for claim 9, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a strength enhancer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 9.
As for claim 19, the limestone meets the ground limestone component as the examples teach that the components are ground.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by France Patent Specification No. FR 3042380 A1.
This application is believed to be applicable prior art as it appears that applicant does not have complete support in the provisional applications for all of the claims before the publication date of this document.
The reference teaches, in the claims and page 3, paragraphs 10+, a hydraulic binder comprising Portland clinker, sulfoaluminous clinker, a magnesium binder or a calcium aluminate cement. The composition may further contain particulate material having a D90 of less than 200 µm. Examples include fly ash, pozzolanic materials, silica fume, blast furnace slags, calcined schists, calcareous additions and siliceous additions. Pozzolanic materials include fumed silica (microsilica), metakaolin, and natural pozzolan with volcanic, sedimentary or diagenic origins. Mineral additions include limestone. A water reducer (plasticizer) or a superplasticizer can be added.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches fly ash, pozzolanic materials, calcined schists, siliceous additions, metakaolin and natural pozzolan meets the mineral fines. The water reducer meets the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS needs to be present.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches fly ash, natural pozzolans, and metakaolin.
As for claim 3, the reference teaches limestone.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches siliceous additions.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches a water reducer.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches sulfonated naphthalene formaldehyde condensate (page 3, 2nd last paragraph).
As for claim 7, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a set retarder and retardant are not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 7.
As for claim 8, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and an accelerator is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 8.
As for claim 9, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a strength enhancer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 9.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korea Patent Specification No. KR 100561097 B1.
The reference teaches, in the abstract and the claims, 20.0 to 60.0% by weight of an ultrafine pozzolan based powder comprising at least one of silica fume, high-molecular powder slag and metakaolin; 30.0 to 70.0% by weight of Calcium Sulfo-aluminate (Calcium Sulfo-aluminate: CSA) -based expansion agent or calcium oxide (CaO) -based expandable inorganic mixture; 0.1 to 3.0% by weight of nonmetallic gas generator, 1.0 to 10.0% by weight of powder fluidizing agent, and 0.1 to 3.0% by weight of powder thickener. The composition may be added to Portland cement (see page 2, paragraph 13 as well as the text immediately preceding Tables 2 and 3).
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the metakaolin meets the mineral fines and the silica fume and/or the powder fluidizing agent and/or the powder thickener meets the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS is required to be present.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches metakaolin.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches silica fume which meets the siliceous mineral.
As for claim 5, the fluidizing agent meets the water reducer and the thickener meets the viscosity modifying agent.
As for claim 7, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a set retarder and retardant are not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 7.
As for claim 8, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and an accelerator is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 8.
As for claim 9, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a strength enhancer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 9.
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. 10The 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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over France Patent Specification No. FR 3042380 A1.
The reference was discussed previously above. This application is believed to be applicable prior art as it appears that applicant does not have complete support in the provisional applications for all of the claims before the publication date of this document.
As for claims 11-15, the reference teaches of size of the mineral additions of less than 200 µm and this overlaps the claimed ranges 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.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea Patent Specification No. KR 100561097 B1.
The reference was discussed previously, above.
As for claim 16, the reference teaches, a premix wherein the metakaolin meets the mineral fines and the silica fume and/or the powder fluidizing agent and/or the powder thickener meets the performance-enhancing additive. The references teaches that a CaO based expandable inorganic mixture can be added and this would render obvious the supplemental lime material. While the reference does provide examples of this material it is the position of the examiner that CaO is an example of a CaO based expandable inorganic mixture as it is a CaO based material. Further the hydrated lime and Type S lime materials would also be examples of a CaO based expandable inorganic mixture. The reference teaches that this composition may be added to Portland cement (see page 2, paragraph 13 as well as the text immediately preceding Tables 2 and 3). No Portland cement or GGBFS needs to be present in the pre-mix composition.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches that silica fume may be added.
As for claim 20, the reference teaches, a premix wherein the metakaolin meets the mineral fines and the silica fume and/or the powder fluidizing agent and/or the powder thickener meets the performance-enhancing additive. The composition may be added to Portland cement. As for the supplementary material the reference teaches that silica fume may be added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,151,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are encompassed by the claims of the copending application and are therefore rendered obvious by said claims.
The reference teaches, in claim 1, a composition comprising a hydraulic cement selected from the group consisting of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) having a d10 below about 3 μm and a d90 between about 35 μm and about 45 μm, alkali-activated cement, and geopolymer cement; at least one supplementary cementitious material selected from the group consisting of fine ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) having a D90 between about 15 μm and about 25 μm, fly ash, natural pozzolan, metakaolin, calcined clay, calcined shale, and ground glass; mineral fines having a D90 between about 50 μm and about 300 μm; coarse aggregate; fine aggregate; and water. Claim 2 recites that the composition further comprises at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate. Claim 3 recites that the composition further comprises at least one of a polycarboxylate ether superplasticizer, an amine activator, or a calcium nitrate activator. Claim 4 teaches that the mineral fines are selected from the group consisting of waste aggregate particles or fines, waste or manufactured limestone fines, shale flue dust from manufacturing lightweight calcined shale aggregates, granite fines, stone dust, rock dust, marble dust, mine tailings, pulverized bottom ashes, pulverized metallurgical slags, waste or pulverized shale from shale oil extraction, and waste or pulverized sand from tar sand extraction.
The instant claims are obvious over the claims of the prior patent.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising mineral fines and may further contain at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer which also meets the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS is required to be present as other components can be selected.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches the same mineral fines.
As for claim 3, the supplementary cementitious material meets the mineral fines recited in this claim.
As for claim 4, some of the recited materials are siliceous minerals such as stone dust, fly ash, etc.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches a superplasticizer. The reference further teaches at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which act as set controllers and retardants.
As for claim 6, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a water reducer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 6.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, and calcium sulfate dihydrate.
As for claim 8, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and an accelerator is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 8.
As for claim 9, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a strength enhancer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 9.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches various mineral fines that are non-pozzolanic such as waste aggregate particles or fines, waste or manufactured limestone fines, shale flue dust from manufacturing lightweight calcined shale aggregates, granite fines, stone dust, rock dust, marble dust, and mine tailings.
As for claim 11-12, the reference teaches mineral fines having a D90 between about 50 μm and about 300 μm and this overlaps the claimed range 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.
As for claim 13-14, the range recited in the claims falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 16, the reference the supplementary cementitious material in combination with the superplasticizer meets the performance-enhancing pre-mix. The composition further comprises calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, and Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which meets the additional component of the performance-enhancing additive. The composition can comprise Portland cement and GGBFS.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches the same supplementary cementitious materials.
As for claim 18, the reference teaches a composition comprising some of the same mineral fines and may further contain at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer which meets the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS is required to be present as other components can be selected.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,168,029 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are encompassed by the claims of the copending application and are therefore rendered obvious by said claims.
The reference teaches, in claim 1, a composition comprising hydraulic cement selected from the group consisting of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) having a d10 below about 3 μm and a d90 between about 35 μm and about 45 μm, alkali-activated cement, and geopolymer cement; at least one of fine ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) having a D90 between about 15 μm and about 25 μm, fly ash, or natural pozzolan; mineral fines having a D90 between about 40 μm and about 300 μm; coarse aggregate; fine aggregate; and water. Claim 2 recites that the composition further comprises at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, or Type S lime. Claim 3 recites that the composition further comprises at least one of added calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate. Claim 4 teaches that the composition comprises at least one of a polycarboxylate ether superplasticizer, an amine activator, or a calcium nitrate activator. Claim 5 recites that the mineral fines are selected from the group consisting of waste aggregate particles or fines, waste or manufactured limestone fines, shale flue dust from manufacturing lightweight calcined shale aggregates, granite fines, stone dust, rock dust, marble dust, mine tailings, pulverized bottom ashes, pulverized metallurgical slags, waste or pulverized shale from shale oil extraction, and waste or pulverized sand from tar sand extraction.
The instant claims are obvious over the claims of the prior patent.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising mineral fines and may further contain at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer or an activator which also meet the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS is required to be present as other components can be selected.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches some of the same mineral fines such as mine tailings. Further composition can comprise fly ash or a natural pozzolan which also meet the claimed mineral fines
As for claim 3, the reference teaches some of the same mineral fines recited in this claim such as stone dust, marble dust, pulverized bottom ash, etc.
As for claim 4, some of the recited materials are siliceous minerals such as stone dust, fly ash, etc.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches a superplasticizer. The reference further teaches at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which act as set controllers and retardants.
As for claim 6, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a water reducer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 6.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, and calcium sulfate dihydrate.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches that a calcium nitrate activator can be added which would meet the accelerator.
As for claim 9, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a strength enhancer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 9.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches various mineral fines that are non-pozzolanic such as stone dust, rock dust, marble dust, and mine tailings.
As for claim 11, the reference teaches mineral fines having a D90 between about 40 μm and about 300 μm and this overlaps the claimed range 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.
As for claim 12-14, the range recited in the claims falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 16, the reference the supplementary cementitious material in combination with the superplasticizer meets the performance-enhancing pre-mix. The composition further comprises calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, and Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which meets the additional component of the performance-enhancing additive. The composition can comprise Portland cement or GGBFS.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches the same supplementary cementitious materials (fly ash or natural pozzolans).
As for claim 18, the reference teaches a composition comprising some of the same mineral fines and may further contain at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer which meets the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS is required to be present as other components can be selected.
Claims 1-2, 4-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,737,980 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are encompassed by the claims of the copending application and are therefore rendered obvious by said claims.
The reference teaches, in claim 1, a composition comprising mixture products of: a hydraulic cement selected from the group consisting of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) having a d10 below about 3 μm and a d90 between about 35 μm and about 45 μm, alkali-activated cement, and geopolymer cement; at least one of fine ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) having a d90 between about 15 μm and about 25 μm or fly ash; quarry fines or limestone powder having a d90 between about 50 μm and about 200 μm; coarse aggregate; fine aggregate; and water. Claim 2 recites that the composition further comprises a natural pozzolan. Claim 3 recites that the composition further comprises at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, or Type S Lime. Claim 4 teaches that the composition further comprises at least one of added calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate. Claim 5 recites that the composition further comprises at least one of a polycarboxylate ether superplasticizer, an amine activator, or a calcium nitrate activator.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches fly ash, quarry fines and limestone powder which meets the mineral fines. The at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer which also meet the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS is required to be present as other components can be selected.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches fly ash, limestone powder and quarry fines.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches fly ash which meets the siliceous mineral.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches a superplasticizer. The reference further teaches at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate which act as set controllers and retardants.
As for claim 6, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a water reducer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 6.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, and calcium sulfate dihydrate.
As for claim 8, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and an accelerator is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 8.
As for claim 9, this claim is met as this claim depends on claim 5 and a strength enhancer is not required to be selected, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in claim 9.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches various mineral fines that are non-pozzolanic such as quarry fines or limestone powder.
As for claim 11-12, the reference teaches mineral fines having a D90 between about 50 μm and about 300 μm and this overlaps the claimed range 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.
As for claim 13-14, the range recited in the claims falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 16, the reference teaches fly ash which meets the mineral fines. The at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer which also meet the performance-enhancing additive. The composition may also comprise Portland cement and GGBFS.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches fly ash.
As for claim 18, the reference teaches fly ash, quarry fines and limestone powder which meets the mineral fines. The at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer which also meet the performance-enhancing additive. No Portland cement or GGBFS is required to be present as other components can be selected.
As for claim 19, the limestone powder renders obvious the ground limestone as limestone can be ground in order to form the powder. The at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer which also meet the performance-enhancing additive.
As for claim 20, the reference teaches quarry fines and limestone powder which meets the mineral fines. The at least one of added calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, Type S lime, calcium sulfate anhydrite, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, lithium sulfate, or calcium sulfate dihydrate meets the performance-enhancing additives as they act as set controllers and retardants. Further the composition can comprise a superplasticizer which also meet the performance-enhancing additive. Fly ash may be added which meets the at least one supplementary cementitious material.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable at this time.
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
April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights