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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see paragraphs 0004 and 0006) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The IDS reference entitled “Optimization design and performance study of high stable foaming agent and foam concrete” has not been provided with an English translation of the abstract (see 37 C.F.R. 1.98(a)(3)). However, the Examiner was able to obtain a full copy of the thesis and a machine translation, and relevant sections have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 06 December 2023 are accepted.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Title: “Kind of” can be interpreted as taxonomic (i.e., “A kind of”) or hedging (i.e., “It’s kind of high, but not very high”);
Abstract: “33 parts” is not followed by any component, and also seems to be listed twice (“27–33 parts of quick-setting agent”);
Abstract: “900–1100 parts of water” is listed twice;
Paragraph 0035: “…and better play its volcanic ash effect” does not have a clear meaning;
Paragraph 0055: “From the graphs” is unclear, as no graphs are provided; the Examiner believes this is meant to recite “From the Table” or “From the collected data”.
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the as-filed specification is replete with grammatical errors (e.g., missing articles, subject-verb disagreement, inconsistent verb tenses, missing punctuation, run-on sentences, etc.). See for example, paragraph 0006 (“…concrete These” missing a period), paragraph 0023 (“…moisture It” missing a period, and also all 13 lines of the paragraph are a single sentence which should be broken up into smaller sentences), and paragraph 0035 (“…and effectively improving the adhesion of the gas/liquid interface. Effectively improve the adhesion of the gas/liquid interface”, which states a passive result and then re-states it as an active step).
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the preamble refers to “mass percentages”, but the components are listed as mass parts;
Claim 1: the range provided for polypropylene fiber contains an extra space after the en dash (i.e., “7.2– 8.8 parts of polypropylene fiber”);
Claim 1: the hyphenation of nano-silica is inconsistent, as it is alternately written as both “nano-silica” and “nanosilica”;
Claim 1: the range provided for urea contains an extra space after the en dash;
Claim 1: the word “respectively” should be added after the percentages in line 16 so it is clear that the percentages correspond to the recited components in the same order, i.e., the first component corresponds to the first percentage range, and the third component corresponds to the third percentage range;
Claim 1: the capital S in “Said” in line 18 should be lowercase;
Claim 1: “sodium dodecyl sulfate SDS” should have parentheses around SDS to make it clear that it is an abbreviation of sodium dodecyl sulfate and not part of the chemical name;
Claim 4: the hyphenation of “re-dispersible” is inconsistent, as it is written as “redispersible” in claim 1;
Claim 5: a space should be added between 0.90 and g/cm3 for consistency, i.e., “0.90g/cm3” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “0.90 g/cm3”;
Claim 5: “fibers” technically lacks antecedence because claim 1 recites singular “fiber”, but it doesn’t lead to indefiniteness because a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claim is not requiring one singular fiber to be added in claim 1, therefore “fibers” should be changed to “fiber” to correct the antecedence;
Claim 6: all method steps should begin with a lowercase letter;
Claim 6: the method steps seem to alternate between present tense and past tense (e.g., “particles are mixed” in step 1, vs. “were sequentially added” in step 2); the method steps should all use the same verb tense for consistency;
Claim 6: “nano-silica” in the first method step is alternately written as “nano-silicon dioxide” in the second method step, and this should be corrected to maintain consistent terminology;
Claim 6: “the fluorine-free foams was mixed” in lines 11 and 12 should read “the fluorine-free foams were mixed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “high impermeability”, “low conductivity”, and “lightweight” in claim 1 are each relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “ordinary silicate cement” in line 4. This is not a recognized term of the art. “Ordinary Portland Cement” is widely known, and is primarily composed of calcium silicates, so the Examiner assumes this is what is meant, but this is not clear from Applicant’s disclosure. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume “ordinary silicate cements” is synonymous with “Ordinary Portland Cement”. However, if Applicants intended for “ordinary silicate cements” to cover a different class of materials, then the term must be clearly defined in the specification, or evidence must be presented to indicate it is a recognized term of the art. Additionally, if Applicants intended for “silicate cements” to broadly encompass all cements comprising silicates, then there is indefiniteness over the use of the term “ordinary”, as it is unclear what differentiates an “ordinary silicate cement” and an “atypical silicate cement”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said silicone surfactant" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Lines 13 and 14 recite “silicon surfactant”, but silicon and silicone are different chemical species. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will herein interpret “silicon surfactant” as “silicone surfactant”, as silicone is known to be a surfactant while silicon is not.
Claim 1 recites the components of fluorine-free foam in lines 13–19, which includes some components that were not previously listed in lines 4–12, and some components which were, namely nano-silica and water. It is unclear if any of the previously recited mass parts of nano-silica and water are meant to be applied towards the fluorine-free foam, or if the previously recited mass parts are independent of the amounts of nano-silica and water used in the fluorine-free foam.
Claims 2–6, being dependent on claim 1, inherit its deficiencies, and are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the weighed…aggregate” in line 8, but parent claim 1 recites “aggregates”. Since claim 1 suggests multiple types of aggregates, it is unclear if claim 6 is meant to limit all aggregates collectively, one specific aggregate, or each aggregate individually.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the weighed…quick-setting agent” in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 1 does not introduce “a quick-setting agent”.
Claim 6 recites the addition of components “sequentially” in line 9, but then recites the addition of fluorine-free foams “at the same time” in line 10. Since “sequentially” means “one after the other”, it is unclear if the addition of fluorine-free foams is meant to be performed during the entire length of time required to add the components sequentially, or if “at the same time” only refers to the length of time required to add the final component of the mixture.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the original solution of fluorine-free foams” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “fluorine-free foams”. Claim 1 recites a singular “fluorine-free foam”, so it is unclear if claim 6 is requiring additional fluorine-free foams to be added. Additionally, “the original solution of fluorine-free foams” is indefinite because it implies that there are other, non-original solutions of fluorine-free foams, for which there is no antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the fluorine-free foams was mixed with the appropriate amount of water” in lines 11–12. This leads to indefiniteness because the fluorine-free foam recited in claim 1 was already mixed with water. The claim is either repeating the addition of water (which doesn’t make sense because the claim refers to it as a solution already), or it is requiring the addition of more water (which leads to indefiniteness because “the appropriate amount of water” is relative and lacks antecedence).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the fluorine-free foams required for the experiments” in lines 12–13. This leads to indefiniteness because it implies there are other fluorine-free foams which are not required for the experiments, for which there is no antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the drive of the air compressor” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the standby” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the weighed water” in line 15. As discussed in the above 112(b) rejection of claim 1, it is unclear if the mass parts of water recited in line 12 are meant to be applied in full or in part to the fluorine-free foam in line 14, and as such, it is unclear how to interpret “the weighed water” recited in claim 6.
The terms “thoroughly” and “reasonable” in lines 16 and 17 of claim 6 are each relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the mixer is used to mix thoroughly so that the foam is fully and uniformly dispersed in the cement slurry” (emphasis added) in lines 19 and 20. This is sufficiently defined to overcome any indefiniteness. However, claim 6 subsequently recites “the cement-based slurry mixed well in the fourth step” (emphasis added), which is relative and not as limiting as the referenced slurry, which leads to indefiniteness because it is unclear to what degree the slurry actually needs to be mixed to satisfy the claim limitations.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the triplex steel test mold” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “high impermeability” and “low thermal conductivity” in lines 23 and 24 of claim 6 are each relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jiang (US 8,070,876 B1): teaches a foamed concrete demonstrating thermal insulation and water-resistance with ranges of cement, fly ash, aggregates, latex, polypropylene fiber, and fluorine-free foaming solution that overlap with the claimed ranges;
Hu (CN 108,726,951 A): teaches a thermally insulating foam concrete with cement, foaming agent, latex powder, polypropylene fibers, and nano-silica;
Liu (Construction and Building Materials, 2021, 272, 121895): teaches a thermally insulating foam concrete with cement, fly ash, foaming agent, aggregates, polypropylene fibers, and nano-silica;
Younis (Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 1512830): teaches explicit benefits of nano-silica in concrete, particularly nano-silica with 99% purity and average particle size 20–30 nm, which is relevant to claim 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, W, F after 5:30 PM and Th from 8 AM to 6 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights