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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 28 June 2026. After entry of the amendment claims 1-9 and 11-21 are currently pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 28 June 2069 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,151,974; 11,168,029; 10,737,980; and 10,131,575 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 7 is 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.
The claim is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as claim 1 excludes gypsum and calcium sulfate hemihydrate however these are listed as possible additives in claim 7.
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, 5-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 105417978 A.
The reference teaches, in example 1, a cement additive comprising 10% coagulant calcium formate, 10% oil absorbing particles, 15% microsilica powder, 15% activated carbon, 18% wood fiber, 15% fly ash, 17% crack resistant fiber. The components weighed are pulverized and uniformly mixed to obtain a cement additive.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a cement additive comprising at least calcium formate, oil absorbing particles, microsilica powder, activated carbon, wood fiber, fly ash, crack resistant fiber. The fly ash and microsilica powder (i.e. silica fume) meets the mineral fines. The calcium formate meets the performance enhancing additive as it functions as an accelerator.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches fly ash.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches calcium formate which functions as an accelerator.
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 controller 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, the reference teaches calcium formate with is an alkaline earth metal salts.
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 16, according to Example 1, , the reference teaches a cement additive comprising at least calcium formate, oil absorbing particles, microsilica powder, activated carbon, wood fiber, fly ash, crack resistant fiber. The fly ash and microsilica powder (i.e. silica fume) meets the mineral fines. The calcium formate meets the performance enhancing additive as it functions as an accelerator. The additive is added to Portland cement.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches fly ash and microsilica powder (silica fume).
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 103880318 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a powder for use in cement production comprising pink marble, granite powder and limestone desulfurization slag powder is obtained by mixing papermaking white mud and cement grinding material activation synergist comprising 15-20 wt.% additive, 70-80 wt.% activator and 20-30 wt.% modifier.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the pink marble and the granite powder meets the mineral fines. The cement grinding material activation synergist meets the performance enhancing additive.
As for claim 3, the reference teaches granite powder as well as pink marble.
As for claim 4, the granite fines would be non-cementitious and is igneous mineral.
Claims 1 3, 5-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 104556804 A.
The reference teaches, in embodiment 1, an additive for improving the performance of a cement mortar, the materials are divided by weight: 1% fly ash 45%, air entraining agent 1%, microcrystalline expansion agent 10%, alkaline activator 15%; Water retention agent 3%, calcium carbonate 10%, sodium alkyl sulfate 2%, hydroxymethyl cellulose 2%, polyvinyl alcohol 1%, slag micropowder 10%. The above materials are sequentially added to a mixer or a ball mill, and then uniformly mixed, and the mixing time is 10 to 50 minutes to obtain the product of the present invention.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the calcium carbonate and the fly ash meets the mineral fines. The air entraining agent, expansion agent, alkaline activator, water retention agent, sodium alkyl sulfate, hydroxymethyl cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol meets the performance enhancing agents.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches fly ash.
As for claim 3, the calcium carbonate meets the ground limestone as limestone is composed of calcium carbonate and the materials are milled and therefore it would be reduced in size.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches sodium alkyl sulfate which meets the set controller as well as hydroxymethyl cellulose which meets the viscosity enhancing agent.
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 sodium alkyl sulfate.
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 18, the calcium carbonate and the fly ash meets the mineral fines. The calcium carbonate meets the limestone powder component as limestone is made up of calcium carbonate and the materials are milled and therefore it would be reduced in size. The air entraining agent, expansion agent, alkaline activator, water retention agent, sodium alkyl sulfate, hydroxymethyl cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol meets the performance enhancing agents.
As for claim 19, the calcium carbonate and the fly ash meets the mineral fines. The calcium carbonate meets the ground limestone as limestone is made up of calcium carbonate and the materials are milled and therefore it would be reduced in size. The air entraining agent, expansion agent, alkaline activator, water retention agent, sodium alkyl sulfate, hydroxymethyl cellulose and polyvinyl alcohol meets the performance enhancing agents.
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. 103) 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 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 1, 5-6, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Specification No. CN 105198247 A.
The reference teaches, in the claims and the examples, a whole tailings cementing material prepared by sintering desulfurization ash, characterized in that it is mainly composed of the following raw materials of weight ratio: sintering desulfurization ash 17%~22%, cement clinker 2%~4 %, smelting water quenching slag 73% ~ 80.5% and 0.5% ~ 1.0% of admixture (industrial mirabilite).
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the cement clinker and the mirabilite meets the mineral fines. The sintering desulfurization ash works as a set controller.
As for claim 5, the sintering desulfurization ash works as a 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 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 11, the cement clinker has a D90 22.19 to 42.21 microns which 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, the cement clinker has a D90 22.19 to 42.21 microns which 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights