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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/5/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 4, 6-8, 12, 14-15, 16-17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al (EP 3225609A1) alternatively further in view of Sasaki et al JP 2017007931A published 1/12/2017 (the effective filing date of the instant application is 1/5/2018 – the reference does not appear to have any common assignees or inventors with the instant application) and alternatively further in view of Dietrich (US 2017/0226011 A1)(“Dietrich” hereinafter)
Regarding Claims 1-3, 4, 6-8, 12, 14-15, 16-17 and 18:
Gibson et al (EP 3225609A1) discloses additives for grinding milling carbonate materials such as limestone and cement clinker (meeting claim 1, 4 and 8 for cement clinker and limestone) using griding additives which are VOC free and food grade or food contact approved to resist the humectant behavior of the ground particles (Abstract)[0001] using a roller mill [0010] (meeting claim 1 for roller mill)
The carbonate includes lime cement clinker and limestone [0037](meeting claim 1 for cement clinker claim 4 for supplemental cement and claim 8 for limestone)
The additive is a liquid additive composition which can be sprayed onto the carbonate material to be ground using pressured nozzles and or pumps and is sprayable form into the material to be ground [0020] (meeting claim 1 for water spray) The additive comprises water of 5-90 wt.% of the liquid additive (See claim 1 reference) (meeting claims 1, 16 and 18 for a water spray)
The grinding additive includes a fatty acid compound or salt thereof in an amount of 10-60 wt.% and water of 5-90 wt.% [0013] The grinding composition preferably also comprises tripropylene glycol 0.1 to 88 wt.% where the boiling point of tri propylene glycol is 265 C so is VOC free The amount of tri propylene glycol and/or polypropylene glycol is suitably from 0.1 to 88 wt. %, more preferably from 5 to 75 wt. % and most preferably from 10 to 60 wt. %, based upon the weight of the grinding aid composition. [0031] the additive preferably also comprises an alkanolamine such as triethanolamine which is food grade and not VOC 0.1 to 70 % The amount of triethanolamine and/or tri iso propanol amine (meeting claim 17)is suitably from 0.1 to 70 wt.%, more preferably from 5 to 60 wt. % and most preferably from 10 to 50 wt.%, based upon the weight of the grinding aid composition [0032] (meeting claim 1 for TEA and TPG and overlapping the claimed ranges thereof)
The composition is a liquid additive formulation and is used at a minimum dosage of 0.01 wt.% /100 ppm based on the dry material and may be used in dry grinding of calcium carbonate materials [0040] (0.1 TPG/0.01+ thereby overlapping the claimed range of claims 1 et seq) and TEA 0.1/0.01+ wt.% overlapping the claimed range of claims 1 et seq)
With respect to the claimed ranges above, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05 I).
The composition may further comprise amino acids such as glycine [0033]
The composition may comprise glycerin [0038] 0-90 % [0042] (overlapping claim 6 (A))
The composition may comprise sodium acetate [0038] (meeting claim 6 (D))
The composition may comprise polypropylene glycol in addition to tri propylene glycol [0031] (overlapping tetra propylene glycol of claim 12)
The composition may comprise ascorbic acid or salt [0034] and benzoic acid or salts [0035] The grinding aid may also comprise a sugar alcohol such as ribose, [0036]
In the examples a ball mill which is commercially available including planetary ball mill and roller mills including open and closed circuit design [0048]
The mill includes a roll crusher to reduce particle size [0046] the grinding is conducted in a roller mill (See reference claim 1)
Regarding pre hydration level of cement composition of claims 1-3, 8 and 16:
The method and composition enhances grinding and resist moisture absorption by the resultant ground particles in a manner that is described as anti-humectant [0011] and improves flow transport and efficiency of the grinding process [0007] and improve efficiency of the grinding [0016] (blocks humidity/moisture absorption leaving low moisture)
The grinding aid compositions used in the method of the invention can provide a ground material, wherein the amount of moisture absorbed by the ground material is reduced, compared the ground materials prepared using conventional grinding aids. Typically the ground inorganic material that results from the method of the invention absorbs less than 1.6mg/g (mg of water absorbed per g of ground inorganic material), more preferably less than 1.4mg/g. (i.e. 0.14 %) [0023]
Typically the ground inorganic material that results from the method of the invention absorbs about the same amount of water as ground inorganic material that has been produced in a method wherein no grinding aid composition is used or absorbs less water, e.g. not greater than 150wt% of the amount of water absorbed by ground inorganic material produced without a grinding aid, preferably not greater than 105wt% and most preferably around 100wt% or less. [0023]
(thereby overlapping the claimed ranges of pre hydration levels and spray level as compared to grinding without he additive)
The composition is a liquid additive formulation and is used at a minimum dosage of 0.01 wt.% /100 ppm based on the dry material and may be used in dry grinding of calcium carbonate materials [0040] (thereby overlapping the claimed ranges of pre hydration levels and spray level as compared to grinding without he additive)
The reference teaches reduction of water/moisture resistance and teaches the claimed compositional components in overlapping ranges treated by a roll mill, the product produced will necessarily possess the claimed pre hydration and reduced water spray levels in ranges which meet and or overlap the claimed ranges. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Assuming arguendo the reference does not render obvious a pe hydration level of the cement composition of equal to or less than 1.5 %, less than 0.5 % less than 0.3 wt.%
Assuming arguendo the reference does not render obvious the water spray level is reduced by 5 to 80 wt.% compared to grinding without the grinding stabilizing additive
While the reference teaches roller mills it does not expressly disclosed a “vertical” roller mill.
Sasaki et al JP 2017007931A published 1/12/2017 (the effective filing date of the instant application is 1/5/2018 – the reference does not appear to have any common assignees or inventors with the instant application)
JP 2017 teaches a cement clinker with reduced environmental load a composition and method of making same [0001] the composition meets quality standards for heat of hydration, strength fluidity of Portland cement with little waste using clinker materials and lime stone [004] and the method reduces waste and by products such as CO.sub.2 to produce an environmentally load reducing clinker for cement [0006] the composition may comprise fly ash [0008]
The material is pulverized [0014] using a pulverization aid and/or water the aid is 1 part by mass or less with respect to 100 pbm of the clinker and water is 0.5 to 5 pbm and results in excellent strength of the product [0016]
Grinding aids include diethylene glycol and triethanolamine and organic grinding aids may be used with water or alone [0056] the grinding aid is 0 to 1.0 pbm with respect to 100 pbm of the cement clinker [0057] water content is 0.5 to 5 pbm per 100 pbm of the cement clinker to balance slurry fluidity and strength development [0058]
Weathering of the composition is improved and measured by thermogravimetric weight loss where the weight loss from 20-115C is 0.2 5to 1 % and from 200 to 350 C is 1.0 percent or less [0018] (overlapping and/or meeting the instantly claimed ranges of pe hydration level) See also [0060]
(JP 2017 teaches measuring the properties by thermogravimetric analysis which is consistent with Applicant’s definition of pre-hydration (see Applicant’s Specification at [00317] teaching pre-hydration is quantified for the present purposes as the parameter Wk, defined as the percentage mass loss of a cement sample as it is heated)
Pulverization is conducted in a vertical roller mill [0054]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use a vertical roll mill of JP 2017 to pulverize the clinker composition with grinding aids in the process of Gibson as it is a known roll mill type used for grinding clinker. Using the vertical roll mill of JP 2017 amounts to nothing more than use of a known apparatus (vertical roll mill) in a known process (pulverization) to achieve an entirely expected result (pulverized clinker) with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the composition with the pre hydration levels and reduced water spray level as taught by JP 2017 in the process of Gibson in order to form a composition with improved weathering, fluidity and strength with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the alternative:
Assuming Gibson and Gibson in view of JP 2017 does not render obvious the water spray level is reduced by 5 to 80 wt.% compared to grinding without the grinding stabilizing additive
Dietrich (US 2017/0226011 A1)(“Dietrich” hereinafter)
Dietrich teaches the use of at least one glycol compound as grinding aid of a clinker (see Dietrich at [0015] teaching use of at least one glycol compound as grinding aid in the grinding of at least one solid, more particularly of an inorganic and/or mineral solid, in a roller mill, and see Dietrich at [0019] teaching the term “grinding” or “grinding operation” refers… to a process in which an average particle size of a solid or of a mixture of different solids is reduced… this takes place presently in a roller mill in the grinding of clinker). Dietrich also teaches that the term “roller mill” presently includes… “vertical roller mills” featured in the list (see Dietrich at [0024]), thus meeting the claimed grinding of the clinker in a vertical roller mill (VRM). Furthermore, Dietrich teaches that it is possible to reduce or eliminate entirely the jetted introduction of water that is necessary for grinding bed stabilization (see Dietrich at [0038]), wherein the phrase it is possible to reduce the jetted introduction of water is taken to meet the claimed under a water spray.
Additionally, it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this instant case, it is known to use vertical roller mill with jetted water in the method of grinding a clinker.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Dietrich teaches the use of a vertical roller mill with jetted water, and seek those advantages by in the cement production taught by Gibson because it is a known method of grinding a clinker.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use of a vertical roller mill with jetted water as taught by Dietrich in the cement production taught Gibson because it is a known method of grinding a clinker.
Regarding Claim 6-7:
Claim 6 (A)
Modified Gibson teaches the limitations above set forth. Gibson teaches the composition comprising glycerin, 0-90 % sodium acetate potassium sorbate useful for dry grinding [0038] [0042-0043][0068-0069] in overlapping ranges
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Gibson teaches the limitations above set forth. Gibson teaches the composition comprises polypropylene glycol and tri propylene glycol (i.e. poly would be 4 and above) 0.1 to 88 wt.5 of the grinding aid [0031] thereby overlapping encompassing and rendering obvious tetra propylene glycol of instant clam 12) where the polypropylene glycol may have a boiling point of 287.6 C [0031] (the boiling point of tetra propylene glycol is 269-349C)
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al (EP 3225609A1) alternatively further in view of Sasaki et al JP 2017007931A published 1/12/2017 (the effective filing date of the instant application is 1/5/2018 – the reference does not appear to have any common assignees or inventors with the instant application) and alternatively further in view of Dietrich (US 2017/0226011 A1)(“Dietrich” hereinafter) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 6-8, 12, 14-15, 16-17 and 18 above further in view of Jardine Cheung (WO 2012 / 047450A1)
Regarding Claims 9-11 and 13:
Modified Gibson teaches the limitations above set forth. Gibson does not expressly disclose the composition comprising gluconate salt molasses sucrose corn syrup chloride salt sodium chloride or tri isobutyl phosphate. However Jardine which also teaches a cement clinker griding aid with alkanolamines and glycols teaches this to be known additives in grinding aids.
Jardine teaches storage stable cement additive composition with a defoamer and method for detraining air in cement with the composition (P2 L1-7) the composition is produced by pulverizing clinker and cementious materials (P3 L10-15) such as limestone (P3 L15-18)
Jardine Cheung teaches grinding additive composition including at least one amine additive such as alkanol amines such as tri isopropanol amine, diethanol iso propenal amine etc. in amounts such as 1 to 99 wt.% based on weight of grinding additive (P4 L7-22) and includes triethanolamines (P6 L25-P7L7) (meeting claim 13 in overlapping ranges)
The composition includes tri iso butyl phosphate in amounts of 0.05 to 5 wt.% based on weight the additive which may provide defoaming (P4 L22-35)
The composition comprises glycols to impart strength enhancement which combined with the tri iso butyl phosphate [0019]
The cement grinding additive composition provides storage stability and resists separation of the components due to the TIBP (P5 L5-14)
The composition may comprise conventional grinding additives for examples glycols, (P5 L4-12) and acetate salts such as sodium chloride and sodium gluconate and sugars such as corn syrup, molasses and sucrose in amounts known by those of ordinary skill int eh art (P6 L14-25) (meeting claims 9-11)
The grinding is accomplished with vertical rollers (P 3 L1-10)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add the conventional grinding additives taught by Jardine such as sodium chloride and sodium gluconate and sugars such as corn syrup, molasses and sucrose as swell as the tri iso butyl phosphate defoamer of Jardine the rages taught therein to the composition and method of modified Gibson to impart improved properties such as defoaming, and storage stability to the composition and method of modified Gibson.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson et al (EP 3225609A1) alternatively further in view of Sasaki et al JP 2017007931A published 1/12/2017 (the effective filing date of the instant application is 1/5/2018 – the reference does not appear to have any common assignees or inventors with the instant application) and alternatively further in view of Dietrich (US 2017/0226011 A1)(“Dietrich” hereinafter) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 6-8, 12, 14-15, 16-17 and 18 above further in view of Jeknavorian et al. (US 5,641,352)
Regarding Claim 5:
Modified Gibson teaches the limitations above set forth. Gibson teaches the composition comprising an amino acid or salt such as glycine in 0.1 to 10 wt.% of the grinding aid [0033] but does not teach the glycine to be ethanol diglycine.
Jeknavorian et al. (US 5,641,352) Jeknavorian teaches an aid used in cements as a strength enhancing component (Abstract) Jeknavorian also teaches a nitrogenous compound of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
266
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Jeknavorian at C1 L56-67), and R5=C1-C10 alkylene… at least one of R2 and R3 is R5A (see Jeknavorian at C2 L9 and L11). Jeknavorian further teaches that in the above formula R5… are advantageously C2 to C5… good results are obtained when A = –COOH (see Jeknavorian at C3 L34-36).
When the nitrogenous compound formula is R1 = R2 = R5A, and wherein R5 = C2 and A = –COOH, and R3 = R5OH, wherein R5 = C2, it is taken to meet the claimed ethanol diglycine (EDG).
Jeknavorian further teaches the amount of the… nitrogenous strength enhancing compound used in cement compositions… is generally at least 0.001 weight percent… and usually in the range of 0.005 to 5… weight percent, based on the weight of hydraulic cement binder in the composition (see Jeknavorian at C3 L51-56), wherein the weight percent is taken to meet the claimed % and the binder is taken to meet the claimed solid being ground. Thus, the range of 0.005 to 5 wt.% is overlaps with the claimed present in an amount of 0.001-0.04% based on dry weight of solid being ground.
Furthermore, Jeknavorian teaches that certain nitrogenous compounds which, when added to cement compositions, enhance the early strength of the hardened cement (see Jeknavorian at C2 L58-60).
Additionally, it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, nitrogenous compounds (i.e. ethanol diglycine (EDG)) is a known additive for cements and is suitable for its intended use.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Jeknavorian teaches a known cement additive suitable for its intended use, that is nitrogenous compounds (i.e. ethanol diglycine (EDG)) that enhances the early strength of the hardened cement, and seek those advantages by adding the ethanol diglycine as an additive in the grinding of cement clinker as taught by Gibson.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a nitrogenous compound (i.e. ethanol diglycine (EDG)) taught by Jeknavorian during the grinding of cement clinker in the amounts taught therein to the method and composition of Gibson so as to enhance the early strength of the hardened cement and it is a known cement additive suitable for its intended use.
The below rejections are those previously raised in the office action for now abandoned application 16959627 which recited many identical claims to those of the instant application. The below rejection and cited prior art are therefore also relevant to the instant application as claimed. See Below:
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller et al. (US 2016/0176758 A1,)(“Muller” hereinafter) in view of Dietrich (US 2017/0226011 A1, cited by the applicant, 10/09/2020 )(“Dietrich” hereinafter) and Theisen et al. (Prehydration and Strength Development of Portland Cement, American Ceramic Society, cited by the applicant, 10/09/2020 and in the previous office action)(“Theisen” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1-3, 16 and 18:
Muller teaches a method of manufacturing a cement composition (see Muller at [0017] teaching increased cement production if the clinker is ground to cement in the presence of the grinding aid, and see Muller at [0094] teaching a method for producing a component from a composition comprising cement with accelerated cement hydration, thus Muller teaches a method of manufacturing a cement composition), comprising:
grinding a solid comprising a cement clinker in the presence of a grinding stabilizing additive, thereby preparing the cement composition (see Muller at [0017] teaching increased cement production if the clinker is ground to cement in the presence of the grinding aid, wherein the grinding aid is taken to meet the claimed grinding aid stabilizing additive, also see Muller at [0094]-[0095] teaching a method… comprising, a) grinding clinker to cement, and optionally adding admixtures, additives and/or aggregates to the cement in order to obtain a composition comprising a cement, and see Muller at [0101] teaching it is preferred for the grinding aid to be added to the clinker, in order for the clinker to be ground to the cement in the presence of the grinding aid),
wherein the grinding stabilizing additive of comprises:
(a) tripropylene glycol (TPG) (see Muller at [0028]-[0029] teaching the grinding aid further comprises one or more glycols… examples of suitable glycols… wherein tripropylene glycol is featured in the list); (instant claims 1, 16, 18 a)
in the amount of 0.001%-0.1% based on the dry weight of the solid being ground (see Muller at [0092] teaching the amount of the grinding aid… may vary within wide ranges… the grinding aid is metered… in an amount such that the fraction of the grinding aid is in the range of 0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.%... based on the cement weight, and see Muller at [0031] teaching the grinding aid comprises… if used, 2 to 25 wt.% of at least one glycol).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine that the amount of glycol based on the cement weight is 2x10-5 % (2% of 0.001%) to 0.25% (25% of 1.0%). 2x10-5 wt.% to 0.25% overlaps with the claimed in the amount of 0.001%-0.1% based on the dry weight of the solid being ground;
(b) triethanolamine (TEA) (see Muller at [0020] teaching the grinding aid comprises at least one amino alcohol, and see Muller at [0022] teaching examples of suitable amino acid alcohols are… wherein triethanolamine (TEA) is featured in the list,
in the amount of 0.0025% - 0.020% based on dry weight of the solid being ground (see Muller at [0092] teaching the amount of the grinding aid… may vary within wide ranges… the grinding aid is metered… in an amount such that the fraction of the grinding aid is in the range of 0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.%... based on the cement weight, and see Muller at [0031] teaching the grinding aid comprises… 2 to 30 wt.% of one or more amino alcohols, preferably triethanolamine).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine that the amount of triethanolamine (TEA) based on the cement weight is 2x10-5 % (2% of 0.001%) to 0.30% (30% of 1.0%). 2x10-5 wt.% to 0.30% overlaps with the claimed in the amount of 0.0025% - 0.020% based on dry weight of the solid being ground.
With respect to the claimed ranges above, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Muller does not explicitly teach i) the grinding of the clinker in a vertical roller mill (VRM) under a water spray, and ii) wherein the pre-hydration level of the cement composition (Wk) is equal to or less than 1.5%.
Regarding i), like Muller, Dietrich teaches the use of at least one glycol compound as grinding aid of a clinker (see Dietrich at [0015] teaching use of at least one glycol compound as grinding aid in the grinding of at least one solid, more particularly of an inorganic and/or mineral solid, in a roller mill, and see Dietrich at [0019] teaching the term “grinding” or “grinding operation” refers… to a process in which an average particle size of a solid or of a mixture of different solids is reduced… this takes place presently in a roller mill in the grinding of clinker). Dietrich also teaches that the term “roller mill” presently includes… “vertical roller mills” featured in the list (see Dietrich at [0024]), thus meeting the claimed grinding of the clinker in a vertical roller mill (VRM). Furthermore, Dietrich teaches that it is possible to reduce or eliminate entirely the jetted introduction of water that is necessary for grinding bed stabilization (see Dietrich at [0038]), wherein the phrase it is possible to reduce the jetted introduction of water is taken to meet the claimed under a water spray.
Additionally, it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this instant case, it is known to use vertical roller mill with jetted water in the method of grinding a clinker.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Dietrich teaches the use of a vertical roller mill with jetted water, and seek those advantages by in the cement production taught by Mueller because it is a known method of grinding a clinker.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use of a vertical roller mill with jetted water as taught by Dietrich in the cement production taught Mueller because it is a known method of grinding a clinker.
Regarding ii), as mentioned Muller does not explicitly teach wherein the pre-hydration level of the cement composition (Wk) is equal to or less than 1.5%, 0.5 or 0.3 % of claims 1-3, 16 and 18
Like Muller, Theisen teaches cement production (see Theisen at page 787, left column, paragraph 1, last sentence teaching prehydration of the cement during the manufacturing processes may seriously retard or deteriorate strength development). Theisen also teaches that cement is exposed to a humid atmosphere, during grinding in the cement mill, and later during storage and transportation… the reaction between the water vapor and the clinker minerals is called prehydration (see Theisen at page 787, left column, paragraph 2), and as a measure of prehydration... the so-called “corrected loss on ignition Wk is calculated… this is the weight that the sample loses up to 500 oC, which is not due to dehydration of gypsum and Ca(OH)2… Wk thus represents the amount of water combined with clinker minerals… normally in commercial cements Wk is ~0.15 to 0.30% when the cement leaves the cement mill (see Theisen at page 787, left column, paragraph 9), thus meeting the claimed pre-hydration level of the cement composition (Wk) and overlaps with the claimed range of equal to or less than 1.5%.
The prehydration definition taught by Theisen is consistent with Applicant’s definition of pre-hydration (see Applicant’s Specification at [00317] teaching pre-hydration is quantified for the present purposes as the parameter Wk, defined as the percentage mass loss of a cement sample as it is heated).
Theisen further teaches that experiments have shown that by knowing the degree of prehydration, it is possible to predict, to a certain extent, the changes in strength development for a given cement (see Theisen at page 787, left column, paragraph 5). And, Theisen teaches that experiments have shown that the effect of prehydration on strength development of cement is quite significant even though the amount of hydration of product is <0.5% measured as combined water (see Theisen at last page, left column, paragraph 2), and for some cements there seems to be a critical value for Wk of ~0.35% and only when Wk exceeds that value the strength will deteriorate… for other cements on the early strength is affected for Wk less than ~0.4 to 0.5%, when Wk exceeds that value the late strength is also decreased (see Theisen at last page, left column, paragraph 5). Furthermore, Theisen teaches that the knowledge of prehydration, easily measured by calculating Wk from the thermogravimetric curve, makes it possible to estimate a parameter which is of great importance to the cement quality (see Theisen at last page, right column, paragraph 2).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Theisen teaches that for some cements the strength will deteriorate when prehydration Wk exceeds ~0.35% and for other cements the early strength is affected when prehydration Wk is less than ~0.4 to 0.5%, when Wk exceeds that value the late strength is also decreased, and seek those advantages by optimizing the Wk value and measuring Wk from the thermogravimetric curve in the cement production taught by Muller so as to estimate cement strength development which is of great importance to the cement quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a prehydration Wk value of ~0.35% and ~0.4 to 0.5% as taught by Theisen in the cement production of Muller so as to so as to estimate cement strength development which is of great importance to the cement quality.
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Theisen further teaches experiments have shown that the effect of prehydration on strength development of cement is quite significant even though the amount of hydration of product is <0.5% measured as combined water (see Theisen at last page, left column, paragraph 2), and for some cements there seems to be a critical value for Wk of ~0.35% and only when Wk exceeds that value the strength will deteriorate… for other cements on the early strength is affected for Wk less than ~0.4 to 0.5%, when Wk exceeds that value the late strength is also decreased (see Theisen at last page, left column, paragraph 5 teaching), which overlaps with the claimed wherein Wk is equal to or less than 0.5% (claim 5); and wherein Wk is equal to or less than 0.3% (claim 6).
With regard to the above ranges, it has been held that ‘where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP § 2144.05 I).
(meeting / overlapping claims 1-3, 16, 18)
Further Regarding Claims 14-15 and claim 16/in the alternative:
As above set forth since the prior art teaches the claimed process with the claimed compositional components in overlapping ranges it will necessarily possess and perform as claimed in ranges which meet and or overlap the claimed ranges including but not limited to reduced spray level requirements as compared to grinding without the additive.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Further Regarding Claims 4 and 8:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches wherein in the grinding of the solid, the solid further comprises one or more gypsum, a supplemental cementitious matter, or a mixture thereof (see Muller at [0079] teaching cement is an inorganic binder with a hydraulic action… for the preparation of cement, clinker, or cement clinker, is finely ground either alone or with further constituents… to regulate solidification, furthermore, calcium sulfate (gypsum and/or anhydrite) is added, and see Muller at [0081] teaching as further principal constituents and/or secondary constituents for the production of the cement, latent hydraulic binders, pozzolanic binders and/or inert materials may be added… examples are… wherein fly ash is featured in the list). The calcium sulfate (gypsum and/or anhydrite) is taken to meet the claimed one gypsum, and fly ash is taken to meet the claimed a supplemental cementitious matter. (meeting instant claims 4 and 8)
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches wherein the grinding stabilizing additive further comprises dipropylene glycol (see Muller at [0028]-[0029] teaching the grinding aid further comprises one or more glycols… examples of suitable glycols… wherein dipropylene glycol is featured in the list). Examiner notes that Muller’s teaching encompasses more than one glycol in the additive mixture.
Muller further teaches that the amount of the grinding aid… may vary within wide ranges… the grinding aid is metered… in an amount such that the fraction of the grinding aid is in the range of 0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.%... based on the cement weight (see Muller at [0092]), and Muller teaches that the grinding aid comprises… 2 to 25 wt.% of at least one glycol (see Muller at [0030]). Thus, the amount of glycol based on the cement weight is 2x10-5 % (2% of 0.001%) to 0.25% (25% of 1.0%), which overlaps with the claimed in the amount of 0.001%-0.1% based on the dry weight of the solid being ground.
With regard to the above range, it has been held that ‘where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Further regarding claims 6 c and 10-11:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches wherein the grinding of the solid further comprises grinding in the presence of at least one supplemental additive chosen from:
(C) a set accelerating agent chosen from a thiocyanate salt (see Muller at [0024] teaching the grinding aid further comprises one or more cement hydration accelerators selected from… wherein thiocyanates is featured in the list… the cement hydration accelerator is preferably a metal salt), thus meeting the claimed thiocyanate salt.
Muller further teaches that the amount of the grinding aid… may vary within wide ranges… the grinding aid is metered… in an amount such that the fraction of the grinding aid is in the range of 0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.%... based on the cement weight (see Muller at [0092]), and Muller teaches that the grinding aid comprises… 10 to 40 wt.% of at least one cement hydration accelerator selected from… wherein thiocyanates is featured in the list… preferably… alkali or alkaline earth thiocyanates (see Muller at [0030]). Thus, the amount of thiocyanate slat based on the cement weight is 1x10-4 % (10% of 0.001%) to 0.4% (40% of 1.0%), which overlaps with the claimed in the amount of 0.001%-0.2% based on the dry weight of the solid being ground.
With regard to the above range, it has been held that ‘where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Further Regarding claims 8
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches wherein the grinding of the solid further comprises grinding a supplemental cementitious material chosen from fly ash (see Muller at [0079] teaching cement is an inorganic binder with a hydraulic action… for the preparation of cement, clinker, or cement clinker, is finely ground either alone or with further constituents, and see Muller at [0081] teaching as further principal constituents and/or secondary constituents for the production of the cement, latent hydraulic binders, pozzolanic binders and/or inert materials may be added… examples are… wherein fly ash is featured in the list).
Further Regarding Claim 12:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches wherein, in the grinding of the solid, the grinding stabilizing additive further comprises tetrapropylene glycol (see Muller at [0028] teaching the grinding aid further comprises one or more glycols… more particularly glycols of the formula OH–(CH2–CH2O)n–CH2CH2–OH with n=0-20, more particularly 0, 1, 2 or 3… particularly preferred glycols are… polyglycols of… propylene). The propylene glycol formula wherein n is 3 is taken to meet the claimed tetrapropylene glycol. Examiner notes that Muller’s teaching encompasses more than one glycol in the additive mixture.
In the alternative, Further Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 16:
As above set forth since the prior art teaches the claimed process with the claimed compositional components in overlapping ranges it will necessarily possess and perform as claimed in ranges which meet and or overlap the claimed ranges including but not limited to reduced spray level requirements as compared to grinding without the additive. Assuming arguendo it is not obvious that the method of Muller will possess the reduced water needs of instant claim 16:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and as mentioned Muller teaches that it is preferred for the grinding aid to be added to the clinker, in order for the clinker to be ground to the cement in the presence of the grinding aid (see Muller at [0101]). And, Muller teaches the grinding aid further comprises one or more glycols (see Muller at [0028]-[0029]).
Furthermore, Dietrich teaches at least one glycol compound may preferably also be used for reducing vibration or oscillation of the roller mill… the at least one glycol compound may equally be used advantageously for stabilizing the grinding bed of the roller mill as well (see Dietrich at [0034]). Furthermore, Dietrich teaches that vibrations occur in roller mills especially when the grinding stock is unevenly distributed on the grinding plate, when unusually hard contaminant reach the grinding plate, or when the amount of grinding stock is too great… the “grinding bed” refers to grinding stock lying on the grinding plate (see Dietrich at [0035]).
Dietrich also teaches stabilization of the grinding bed… means, in particular, the optimization of the grinding stock distribution or of the grinding bed on the grinding plate, to achieve an optimum grinding effect… this is a beneficial factor in reducing unwanted vibration… water has to date usually been used for this purpose… using water, however, particularly when grinding hydraulic or cementitious binders, has the drawback that some of the grinding stock reacts with water during grinding, to form hydrate phases, and no longer acts as a settable hydraulic or cementitious binder (see Dietrich at [0037]). Additionally, Dietrich teaches that if, on the other hand, a glycol compound of the disclosure is used, it is possible to reduce or eliminate entirely the jetted introduction of water that is necessary for grinding bed stabilization… this allows an improvement in grinding stock quality to be obtained… and this is achievable in particular without the risk of hydration reactions with hydraulic or cementitious binders… the physical properties of the solid are therefore improved directly (see Dietrich at [0038]).
In summary, Dietrich teaches that to achieve an optimum grinding effect, it is preferable to reduce the vibration or oscillation of the roller mill and to stabilize the grinding bed, which was usually done by adding water. However, the addition of water causes some reaction that forms hydrated phases that leads the cement to no longer act as a settable hydraulic or cementitious binder. Thus, to reduce or eliminate the jetted introduction of water during grinding, addition of a glycol compound is necessary for grinding bed stabilization and reduction of vibration.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a grinding aid comprising a glycol is important in reducing or eliminating the jetted introduction of water during grinding of cement clinkers as taught by Dietrich, and recognize that the claimed wherein the water spray level is reduced by 5% to 80% compared to grinding without the grinding stabilizing additive (claim 55), and wherein the water spray level is reduced by at least 20% compared to grinding without the grinding stabilizing additive (claim 56) is a result-effective variable together with the grinding aid comprising a glycol because it would allow the reduction or elimination of the jetted introduction of water during grinding and would reduce the vibration of the roller mill and stabilize the grinding bed without the risk of hydration reactions with hydraulic or cementitious binders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the water-spray level (or the jetted water introduction) together with the grinding additive comprising a glycol are appreciated as a result-effective variables in the grinding of cement clinkers and would have been obvious to optimize to achieve the reduction or elimination of the jetted introduction of water during grinding so as to reduce the vibration of the roller mill and stabilize the grinding bed without the risk of hydration reactions with hydraulic or cementitious binders.
Muller teaches a method of manufacturing a cement composition (see Muller at [0017] teaching increased cement production if the clinker is ground to cement in the presence of the grinding aid, and see Muller at [0094] teaching a method for producing a component from a composition comprising cement with accelerated cement hydration, thus Muller teaches a method of manufacturing a cement composition), comprising:
grinding a solid comprising a cement clinker in the presence of a grinding stabilizing additive, thereby preparing the cement composition (see Muller at [0017] teaching increased cement production if the clinker is ground to cement in the presence of the grinding aid, wherein the grinding aid is taken to meet the claimed grinding stabilizing additive, also see Muller at [0094]-[0095] teaching a method… comprising, a) grinding clinker to cement, and optionally adding admixtures, additives and/or aggregates to the cement in order to obtain a composition comprising a cement, and see Muller at [0101] teaching it is preferred for the grinding aid to be added to the clinker, in order for the clinker to be ground to the cement in the presence of the grinding aid),
wherein the grinding stabilizing additive of comprises:
(a) tripropylene glycol (TPG) (see Muller at [0028]-[0029] teaching the grinding aid further comprises one or more glycols… examples of suitable glycols… wherein tripropylene glycol is featured in the list);
in the amount of 0.001%-0.1% based on the dry weight of the solid being ground (see Muller at [0092] teaching the amount of the grinding aid… may vary within wide ranges… the grinding aid is metered… in an amount such that the fraction of the grinding aid is in the range of 0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.%... based on the cement weight, and see Muller at [0030] teaching the grinding aid comprises… if used, 2 to 25 wt.% of at least one glycol).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine that the amount of glycol based on the cement weight is 2x10-5 % (2% of 0.001%) to 0.25% (25% of 1.0%). 2x10-5 wt.% to 0.25% overlaps with the claimed in the amount of 0.001%-0.1% based on the dry weight of the solid being ground;
(b) triethanolamine (TEA) (see Muller at [0020] teaching the grinding aid comprises at least one amino alcohol, and see Muller at [0022] teaching examples of suitable amino acid alcohols are… wherein triethanolamine (TEA) is featured in the list,
in the amount of 0.0025% - 0.020% based on dry weight of the solid being ground (see Muller at [0092] teaching the amount of the grinding aid… may vary within wide ranges… the grinding aid is metered… in an amount such that the fraction of the grinding aid is in the range of 0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.%... based on the cement weight, and see Muller at [0030] teaching the grinding aid comprises… 2 to 30 wt.% of one or more amino alcohols, preferably triethanolamine).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine that the amount of triethanolamine (TEA) based on the cement weight is 2x10-5 % (2% of 0.001%) to 0.30% (30% of 1.0%). 2x10-5 wt.% to 0.30% overlaps with the claimed in the amount of 0.0025% - 0.020% based on dry weight of the solid being ground.
With respect to the claimed ranges above, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Muller does not explicitly teach i) the grinding of the clinker in a vertical roller mill (VRM) under a water spray, ii) wherein the pre-hydration level of the cement composition (Wk) is equal to or less than 1.5%, and iii) wherein the water spray level is reduced by 5% to 80% compared to grinding without the grinding stabilizing additive.
Regarding i), like Muller, Dietrich teaches the use of at least one glycol compound as grinding aid of a clinker (see Dietrich at [0015] teaching use of at least one glycol compound as grinding aid in the grinding of at least one solid, more particularly of an inorganic and/or mineral solid, in a roller mill, and see Dietrich at [0019] teaching the term “grinding” or “grinding operation” refers… to a process in which an average particle size of a solid or of a mixture of different solids is reduced… this takes place presently in a roller mill in the grinding of clinker). Dietrich also teaches that the term “roller mill” presently includes… “vertical roller mills” featured in the list (see Dietrich at [0024]), thus meeting the claimed grinding of the clinker in a vertical roller mill (VRM). Furthermore, Dietrich teaches that it is possible to reduce or eliminate entirely the jetted introduction of water that is necessary for grinding bed stabilization (see Dietrich at [0038]), wherein the phrase it is possible to reduce the jetted introduction of water is taken to meet the claimed under a water spray.
Additionally, it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this instant case, it is known to use vertical roller mill with jetted water in the method of grinding a clinker.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Dietrich teaches the use of a vertical roller mill with jetted water, and seek those advantages by in the cement production taught by Mueller because it is a known method of grinding a clinker.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use of a vertical roller mill with jetted water as taught by Dietrich in the cement production taught Mueller because it is a known method of grinding a clinker.
Regarding ii), as mentioned Muller does not explicitly teach wherein the pre-hydration level of the cement composition (Wk) is equal to or less than 1.5%.
Like Muller, Theisen teaches cement production (see Theisen at page 787, left column, paragraph 1, last sentence teaching prehydration of the cement during the manufacturing processes may seriously retard or deteriorate strength development). Theisen also teaches that cement is exposed to a humid atmosphere, during grinding in the cement mill, and later during storage and transportation… the reaction between the water vapor and the clinker minerals is called prehydration (see Theisen at page 787, left column, paragraph 2), and as a measure of prehydration... the so-called “corrected loss on ignition Wk is calculated… this is the weight that the sample loses up to 500 oC, which is not due to dehydration of gypsum and Ca(OH)2… Wk thus represents the amount of water combined with clinker minerals… normally in commercial cements Wk is ~0.15 to 0.30% when the cement leaves the cement mill (see Theisen at page 787, left column, paragraph 9), thus meeting the claimed pre-hydration level of the cement composition (Wk) and overlaps with the claimed range of equal to or less than 1.5%.
The prehydration definition taught by Theisen is consistent with Applicant’s definition of pre-hydration (see Applicant’s Specification at [00317] teaching pre-hydration is quantified for the present purposes as the parameter Wk, defined as the percentage mass loss of a cement sample is it is heated).
Theisen further teaches that experiments have shown that by knowing the degree of prehydration, it is possible to predict, to a certain extent, the changes in strength development for a given cement (see Theisen at page 787, left column, paragraph 5). And, Theisen teaches that experiments have shown that the effect of prehydration on strength development of cement is quite significant even though the amount of hydration of product is <0.5% measured as combined water (see Theisen at last page, left column, paragraph 2), and for some cements there seems to be a critical value for Wk of ~0.35% and only when Wk exceeds that value the strength will deteriorate… for other cements on the early strength is affected for Wk less than ~0.4 to 0.5%, when Wk exceeds that value the late strength is also decreased (see Theisen at last page, left column, paragraph 5). Furthermore, Theisen teaches that the knowledge of prehydration, easily measured by calculating Wk from the thermogravimetric curve, makes it possible to estimate a parameter which is of great importance to the cement quality (see Theisen at last page, right column, paragraph 2).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Theisen teaches that for some cements the strength will deteriorate when prehydration Wk exceeds ~0.35% and for other cements the early strength is affected when prehydration Wk is less than ~0.4 to 0.5%, when Wk exceeds that value the late strength is also decreased, and seek those advantages by optimizing the Wk value and measuring Wk from the thermogravimetric curve in the cement production taught by Muller so as to estimate cement strength development which is of great importance to the cement quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a prehydration Wk value of ~0.35% and ~0.4 to 0.5% as taught by Theisen in the cement production of Muller so as to so as to estimate cement strength development which is of great importance to the cement quality.
Regarding the limitations of the calms for the spray level of claims 15, 16, as mentioned Muller does not explicitly teach wherein the water spray level is reduced by 5% to 80% compared to grinding without the grinding stabilizing additive.
Dietrich teaches at least one glycol compound may preferably also be used for reducing vibration or oscillation of the roller mill… the at least one glycol compound may equally be used advantageously for stabilizing the grinding bed of the roller mill as well (see Dietrich at [0034]). Furthermore, Dietrich teaches that vibrations occur in roller mills especially when the grinding stock is unevenly distributed on the grinding plate, when unusually hard contaminant reach the grinding plate, or when the amount of grinding stock is too great… the “grinding bed” refers to grinding stock lying on the grinding plate (see Dietrich at [0035]).
Dietrich also teaches stabilization of the grinding bed… means, in particular, the optimization of the grinding stock distribution or of the grinding bed on the grinding plate, to achieve an optimum grinding effect… this is a beneficial factor in reducing unwanted vibration… water has to date usually been used for this purpose… using water, however, particularly when grinding hydraulic or cementitious binders, has the drawback that some of the grinding stock reacts with water during grinding, to form hydrate phases, and no longer acts as a settable hydraulic or cementitious binder (see Dietrich at [0037]). Additionally, Dietrich teaches that if, on the other hand, a glycol compound of the disclosure is used, it is possible to reduce or eliminate entirely the jetted introduction of water that is necessary for grinding bed stabilization… this allows an improvement in grinding stock quality to be obtained… and this is achievable in particular without the risk of hydration reactions with hydraulic or cementitious binders… the physical properties of the solid are therefore improved directly (see Dietrich at [0038]).
In summary, Dietrich teaches that to achieve an optimum grinding effect, it is preferable to reduce the vibration or oscillation of the roller mill and to stabilize the grinding bed, which was usually done by adding water. However, the addition of water causes some reaction that forms hydrated phases that leads the cement to no longer act as a settable hydraulic or cementitious binder. Thus, to reduce or eliminate the jetted introduction of water during grinding, addition of a glycol compound is necessary for grinding bed stabilization and reduction of vibration.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a grinding aid comprising a glycol is important in reducing or eliminating the jetted introduction of water during grinding of cement clinkers as taught by Dietrich, and recognize that the claimed wherein the water spray level is reduced by 5% to 80% compared to grinding without the grinding stabilizing additive is a result-effective variable together with the grinding aid comprising a glycol because it would allow the reduction or elimination of the jetted introduction of water during grinding and would reduce the vibration of the roller mill and stabilize the grinding bed without the risk of hydration reactions with hydraulic or cementitious binders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the water-spray level (or jetted water introduction) together with the grinding additive comprising a glycol are appreciated as a result-effective variables in the grinding of cement clinkers and would have been obvious to optimize to achieve the reduction or elimination of the jetted introduction of water during grinding so as to reduce the vibration of the roller mill and stabilize the grinding bed without the risk of hydration reactions with hydraulic or cementitious binders.
Further Regarding Claims 17:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches wherein the grinding stabilizing additive further comprises at least one of… diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA) (see Muller at [0021] teaching one or more amino alcohols may be used, and see Muller at [0022] teaching examples of suitable amino alcohols are… wherein diethanolisopropanolamine is featured in the list).
Claims 5-6, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller, Dietrich and Theisen as applied to claims above, and further in view of Jeknavorian et al. (US 5,641,352, cited by the applicant 10/09/2020)(“Jeknavorian” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 5 Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches that the grinding aid may optionally comprise one or more further customary additives (see Muller at [0032]).
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen does not explicitly teach wherein the grinding stabilizing additive further comprises ethanol diglycine (EDG) present in an amount of 0.001-0.04% based on dry weight of solid being ground.
Like Muller, Jeknavorian et al. (US 5,641,352) Jeknavorian teaches an aid used in cements (see Jeknavorian at C1 L49-54 teaching cement admixtures containing… b) a strength-enhancing component). Jeknavorian also teaches a nitrogenous compound of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
266
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Jeknavorian at C1 L56-67), and R5=C1-C10 alkylene… at least one of R2 and R3 is R5A (see Jeknavorian at C2 L9 and L11). Jeknavorian further teaches that in the above formula R5… are advantageously C2 to C5… good results are obtained when A = –COOH (see Jeknavorian at C3 L34-36).
When the nitrogenous compound formula is R1 = R2 = R5A, and wherein R5 = C2 and A = –COOH, and R3 = R5OH, wherein R5 = C2, it is taken to meet the claimed ethanol diglycine (EDG).
Jeknavorian further teaches the amount of the… nitrogenous strength enhancing compound used in cement compositions… is generally at least 0.001 weight percent… and usually in the range of 0.005 to 5… weight percent, based on the weight of hydraulic cement binder in the composition (see Jeknavorian at C3 L51-56), wherein the weight percent is taken to meet the claimed % and the binder is taken to meet the claimed solid being ground. Thus, the range of 0.005 to 5 wt.% is overlaps with the claimed present in an amount of 0.001-0.04% based on dry weight of solid being ground.
Furthermore, Jeknavorian teaches that certain nitrogenous compounds which, when added to cement compositions, enhance the early strength of the hardened cement (see Jeknavorian at C2 L58-60).
Additionally, it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, nitrogenous compounds (i.e. ethanol diglycine (EDG)) is a known additive for cements and is suitable for its intended use.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Jeknavorian teaches a known cement additive suitable for its intended use, that is nitrogenous compounds (i.e. ethanol diglycine (EDG)) that enhances the early strength of the hardened cement, and seek those advantages by adding the ethanol diglycine as an additive in the grinding of cement clinker as taught by Muller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a nitrogenous compound (i.e. ethanol diglycine (EDG)) taught by Jeknavorian during the grinding of cement clinker taught by Muller so as to enhance the early strength of the hardened cement and it is a known cement additive suitable for its intended use.
Further regarding claims 5 and 6(b) and 9
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller in view of Dietrich, Theisen and Jeknavorian teaches the limitations of claims above. Jeknavorian further teaches wherein the grinding of the solid further comprises grinding in the presence of a set retarding agent chosen from corn syrup (see Jeknavorian at C8 L10-11 teaching set retarders which may be used are, e.g. corn syrup).
Further Regarding Claims 6 C, 10:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller in view of Dietrich, Theisen and Jeknavorian teaches the limitations of claims above. Muller further teaches wherein the grinding of the solid in the presence of a set accelerating agent chosen from a thiocyanate salt (see Muller at [0024] teaching the grinding aid further comprises one or more cement hydration accelerators selected from… wherein thiocyanates is featured in the list… the cement hydration accelerator is preferably a metal salt), thus meeting the claimed thiocyanate salt.
Claim 6 (D), 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller, Dietrich and Theisen as applied to claims above, and further in view of Moorer et al. (US 4,204,877, cited by the application 10/09/2020 )(“Moorer” hereinafter).
Further Regarding Claim 6 D and 7:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches that the grinding aid may optionally comprise one or more further customary additives (see Muller at [0032]).
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen does not explicitly teach wherein, in the grinding of the solid, the grinding aid further comprises sodium acetate, potassium acetate, or mixture thereof.
Like Muller, Moorer teaches grinding aids comprising glycol and amino alcohol (see Moorer at C3 L4-6 teaching intergrinding with hydraulic cement small quantities of an additive, and see Moorer at C3 L36-40 teaches the addition to the above additives of at least one of a hydroxy-alkyl-amine (or an amino alcohol), a water-soluble glycol… the salt of an aliphatic acid having no more than three carbons produces desirable additional improvements).
Moorer also teaches a water-soluble salt of an aliphatic acid of no more than three carbons, i.e. acetic (see Moorer at C3 L64-65), and the most commonly used and preferable salts are the sodium and potassium salts of acetic acid and mixtures thereof (see Moorer at C4 L4-6). The sodium salt of acetic acid is taken to meet the claimed sodium acetate.
Furthermore, Moorer teaches that the inclusion of each additive agent either individually or in combination serves to increase the grinding efficiency while retarding set and retaining other desirable properties of cement when added to the grinding mill (see C4 L60-64).
Additionally, it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, it is known to add sodium acetate in a grinding aid and is suitable for its intended use.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Moorer teaches sodium acetate so as to increase the grinding efficiency while retaining other desirable properties of cement when added to the grinding mill, and seek those advantages by adding the sodium acetate in the grinding aid taught by Muller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add sodium acetate taught by Moorer in the grinding aid taught by Muller so as to increase the grinding efficiency while retaining other desirable properties of cement when added to the grinding mill and it is a known aid suitable for its intended use.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller, Dietrich and Theisen as applied to claims above, and further in view of Cheung (US 2012/0137932 A1)(“Cheung” hereinafter).
Further Regarding claim 17:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches wherein, in the grinding of the solid, the grinding stabilizing additive further comprises a set accelerating agent chosen from sodium thiocyanate (see Muller at [0024] teaching the grinding aid further comprises one or more cement hydration accelerators selected from… wherein thiocyanates is featured in the list… the cement hydration accelerator is preferably a metal salt, and see Muller at [0026] teaching specific examples of suitable cement hydration accelerators are… wherein sodium thiocyanate is featured in the list).
Muller also teaches that the grinding aid may optionally comprise one or more further customary additives (see Muller at [0032]).
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen does not explicitly teach wherein, in the grinding of the solid, the grinding stabilizing additive further comprises sodium gluconate.
Like Muller, Cheung teaches grinding aid comprising an amino alcohol (see Cheung at [0019] teaching an exemplary process of the present disclosure for preparing a hydratable cement, comprises: introducing to cement clinker, before, during, or after the grinding manufacturing process whereby the clinker is ground… at least one air-entraining cement additive comprising tertiary alkanolamine (or amino alcohol), and see Cheung at [0030] teaching exemplary tertiary alkanolamines suitable for use… may include… diethanolisopropanolamine (DEIPA) featured in the list).
Cheung also teaches in other exemplary embodiments, one or more conventional cement additives may be introduced to the cement clinker… such conventional cement additives may include… a carbohydrate (e.g., sodium gluconate) featured in the list) (see Cheung at [0044]).
Additionally, it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, it is known to add sodium gluconate in a grinding aid and is suitable for its intended use.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Cheung teaches sodium acetate as a known aid that is suitable for its intended use, and seek those advantages by adding the sodium gluconate in the grinding aid taught by Muller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add sodium gluconate taught by Cheung in the grinding aid taught by Muller because it is a known aid suitable for its intended use.
Claim 6 c and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller, Dietrich and Theisen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shendy et al. (US 2003/0187101 A1, cited in the previous office action)(“Shendy” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6 c and 13:
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen teaches the limitations of claims above, and Muller further teaches wherein, in the grinding of the solid, the tripropylene glycol (TPG) is present (see Muller at [0028]-[0029] teaching the grinding aid further comprises one or more glycols… examples of suitable glycols… wherein tripropylene glycol is featured in the list),
Muller further teaches that the amount of the grinding aid… may vary within wide ranges… the grinding aid is metered… in an amount such that the fraction of the grinding aid is in the range of 0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.%... based on the cement weight (see Muller at [0092]), and Muller teaches that the grinding aid comprises… 2 to 25 wt.% of at least one glycol (see Muller at [0030]). Thus, the amount of glycol based on the cement weight is 2x10-5 % (2% of 0.001%) to 0.25% (25% of 1.0%), which overlaps with the claimed present in the amount of 0.0025%-0.030% based on the dry weight of the solid being ground.
With regard to the above range, it has been held that ‘where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP § 2144.05 I).
Muller in view of Dietrich and Theisen does not explicitly teach the method further comprising grinding the solid in the presence of air-detraining agent tri-isobutyl phosphate (TiBP), wherein TiBP is present at 0.0001%-0.002% based on dry weight of the solid being ground.
Like Muller, Shendy teaches an aid used in cements (see Shendy at Abstract teaching amine solubilizing agents are mixed with water insoluble defoamers and optionally a dispersant for cementitious compositions to provide an admixture for cementitious compositions that is stable over time).
Shendy also teaches suitable examples of the water insoluble defoamers useful to control the air content in cementitious compounds include… triisobutyl phosphate featured in the list (see Shendy at [0169]), wherein the triisobutyl phosphate water insoluble defoamer is taken to meet the claimed air-detraining agent tri-isobutyl phosphate (TiBP).
Shendy further teaches that the water insoluble defoamer that is present in a cementitious mixture ranges from about 0.0001% to about 0.1% primary active ingredient based on the dry weight of cementitious material (see Shendy at [0165]), which overlaps with the claimed 0.0001%-0.002%, and the dry weight of cementitious material is taken to meet the claimed dry weight of the solid being ground.
Additionally, it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, tri-isobutyl phosphate (TiBP) is a known additive for cements and is suitable for its intended use.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Shendy teaches a known cement additive suitable for its intended use, that is tri-isobutyl phosphate (TiBP) that is useful in controlling the air content in cementitious compounds, and seek those advantages by adding the tri-isobutyl phosphate (TiBP) as an additive in the grinding of cement clinker as taught by Muller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; to add tri-isobutyl phosphate (TiBP) taught by Shendy during the grinding of cement clinker taught by Muller so as to control the air content in cementitious compounds and it is a known cement additive suitable for its intended use.
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 1-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11684929. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the patent claim a method for grinding in a vertical roller mill (claim 1 of patent vs claims 1, 16 and 18 of instant) with an additive composition including an alkanolamine which includes triethanol amine where the material to be ground includes cement clinker, gypsum and supplemental cement material (claim 2 patent vs. instant claims 1, 4, 8, 16 and 18) and other alkanol amines such as DEIPa EDIOPA THEED and diethylene glycol (see patent alcim 25) and the glycol includes tripopylene glycol and tetrapropylamine glycol (See claim 18 of patent) including additional compositional components such as ethanol diglycine (claim 3 patent vs. claim 5 instant) as well as glycol and glycerin in ranges which overlap the claimed ranges (see claim 4 of patent) and the grinding aid in amount which overlap the claimed ranges as well as a set retarding additive overlapping the claimed ranges (see claim 12 patents) and additives such as gluconate slats molasses, chloride salt, thiocyanate salt (patent claim 15-17 also claimed in the instant application) and additional alkanolamines including those of instant claim 17 (see patent at 22) an additive of ethanol diglycines (patent claim 24-25) rendering obvious the claimed invention as to apparatus grinding the compositional components overlapping ranges etc. The patent having claimed compositional components not requiring the material to be hydrated and having been ground in the claimed apparatus will necessarily possess the claimed properties including but not limited to prehydration and water reduction in ranges which will meet and/or overlap the instantly claimed ranges.. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732