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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on June 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 11 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 rejected because at no time can there be 90% by wt of the alkali activator or 90% by wt of the filler. The minimum amount of the aluminum source is 50 wt%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 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, 3-5, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103466986 (appears on the PTO-892) in view of McNulty (US 6,264,740-appears on the PTO-892).
CN teaches a cementitious composition comprising 45-60 parts Ca aluminate powder (Al source) and up to 1.5 parts additive (see abstract). The additive may be sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide (see para 0007). The calcium aluminate powder is 50-55% Al2O3 and 28-32% CaO (see para 0010). CN meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences set forth below.
CN does not specifically teach the fillers or the conductive particles. However, McNulty teaches these differences.
McNulty teaches inorganic cementitious material wherein the material may contain carbon (encompasses the conductive particle materials of present claim 10), metakaolin (filler)and slag (encompasses blast furnace slag) (see col. 1, lines 10-17; col. 2, lines 28-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the above materials to the cementitious material because McNulty teaches that these materials are added to enhance the final product.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103466986 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of XU (US 8,685,901-appears on PTO-892).
CN has been discussed above. CN does not specifically teach the use of transition metals. However, XU meets this limitation.
XU teaches set modifiers suitable for use with the CAC (calcium aluminate cementitious material) wherein the modifiers comprise a polyvalent cation-containing compound. The polyvalent cation-containing compound may function to increase the thickening time of the CAC and as such act as a set retarder. The polyvalent cation-containing compound comprises a salt containing a polyvalent cationic metal. Such polyvalent cationic metal containing salts are known to one of ordinary skill in the art and include for example and without limitation transition metal salts such as zirconium (IV) chloride, zirconium (IV) oxychloride, zirconium (IV) acetate, zirconium (IV) citrate, zirconium (IV) lactate and nickel (II) chloride; or combinations thereof (see col. 3, lines 50 through col. 4, lines 1-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a transition metal to the cementitious material because XU teaches that the transition metal compounds alter the time required for the composition to undergo the phase transition from a slurry to a set mass with appreciable compressive strength.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103466986 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Eckert (US 20120048466-appears on the PTO-892).
CN has been discussed above. CN does not specifically teach that the aluminum source is aluminum sulfate. However, Eckert teaches this difference.
Eckert teaches a cementitious composition comprising setting accelerators. Examples include 0.01-10% by wt of aluminum sulfate or lithium hydroxide (see abstract; para 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the lithium hydroxide setting accelerator of CN with aluminum sulfate because Eckert teaches that the two compounds are both recognized as accelerators and are art recognized equivalents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18432615/20260710
Prosecution Insights