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 .
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Canstantinou et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0035328.
Regarding claim 1, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising: about 15 wt% to about 75 wt% of calcium aluminate cement (paragraph 36), about 5 wt% to about 40 wt% of Portland cement (paragraph 35), about 10 wt% to about 50 wt% of gypsum (paragraph 37; paragraph 21), and about 1 wt% to about 8 wt% of slag (paragraph 39; 10% is about 8% on a 1-100% scale). Alternatively, should the applicant disagree that about 8% is disclosed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the weight can vary by up to 2% (to 10%) to allow for a margin of error on a user’s part as it is known in the art to include a safety factor, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 2, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% of calcium aluminate cement (paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 3, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 10 wt% to about 30 wt% of Portland cement (paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 4, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 25 wt% to about 50 wt% of gypsum (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 5, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 25 wt% to about 40 wt% of gypsum (paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 6, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising about 2 wt% to about 20 wt% of slag (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 7, Constantinou discloses a cementitious mixture comprising at least about 90 wt% of a total amount of the calcium aluminate cement, the Portland cement, the gypsum, and the slag (paragraphs 34-39).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canstantinou et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0035328 in view of Tsirigotis et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0018047.
Regarding claim 8, Canstantinou discloses a cementitious mixture but does not specifically disclose it is further comprising about 1 L/m3 to about 5 L/m3 of a superplasticizer. Tsirigotis teaches a mixture comprised of calcium aluminate cement, Portland cement, calcium sulfate/gypsum, and slag (paragraph 54) having a superplasticizer additive (paragraph 71). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to utilize a superplasticizer depending on the application of the concrete for a more durable concrete with increased strength. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the concrete with a superplasticizer additive within the given range depending on the strength desired and the application for which it is to be used, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that about 8% is not disclosed by the prior art, the examiner contends that 10% is about 8% when looking at a 0-100 range. Further, no criticality to having the specific 8% slag weight has been established, as the applicant’s own disclosure describes the slag can be up to 16% (paragraph 23). See rejection as set forth above.
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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights