DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 9-10 in the reply filed on 04/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/28/2026.
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 3-5 and 10 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “wherein raw materials of the cement clinker comprise 40-65 wt.% of limestone, 15-30 wt.% of phosphogypsum, 5-20 wt.% of fly ash, and 5-25 wt.% of aluminum source”, and the claim also recites “particularly, raw materials of the cement clinker comprise 48-52 wt.% of limestone, 18-24 wt.% of phosphogypsum, 9-15 wt.% of fly ash, and 18-21 wt.% of aluminum source” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Examiner is treating claim 3 as requiring “wherein raw materials of the cement clinker comprise 40-65 wt.% of limestone, 15-30 wt.% of phosphogypsum, 5-20 wt.% of fly ash, and 5-25 wt.% of aluminum source”.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either: i) remove the additional preferential limitation; ii) amend the claim so as to incorporate the narrower preferential as desired; or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 10 lines 5-6 reciting “determined according to the specification of the cement” is indefinite because it is unclear what i) cement and what specification the claim refers to, and ii) what steps are needed to make the determination.
Examiner will treat the recitation following specification at [0077] disclosing the molar ratio of ye’elimite within the cement clinker to SO3 in phosphogypsum was maintained at 2:1; and the amount of phosphogypsum to be added was determined by subtracting the amount of free-calcium sulfate… in the cement clinker from the molar ratio of 2:1.
Claims 4-5 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 3.
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.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 112608047 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Zhang” hereinafter), as evidenced by Wang et al. (Hydration and Properties of Cement in the Belite-Ye'elimite-Ternesite System, Materials) (“Wang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a belite-ye’elimite-ternesite cement clinker (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… the cement clinker), which is taken to meet the claimed “belite-ye’elimite-ternesite cement clinker” based on the structure as outlined below, comprising (see Zhang at [0013] teaching comprises, by weight percentage):
ye’elimite: 20-50 wt.% (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 40-55%... calcium sulfoaluminate (see MPEP 2144.05(I))), which is taken to meet the claimed recitation based on specification at [0003] disclosing… calcium sulfoaluminate… Ye’elimite;
ternesite: 24-50 wt.% (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 20-40% calcium sulfosilicate (see MPEP 2144.05(I))), which is taken to meet the claimed recitation based on specification at [0004] disclosing… calcium sulfosilicate… Ternesite;
belite: 10-35 wt.% (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 10-20% dicalcium silicate (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), which is taken to meet the claimed recitation based on specification at [0003] disclosing… dicalcium silicate… Belite; and
free-calcium sulfate (f-C$): 2-10 wt.% (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 0-5% free gypsum (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). Gypsum is taken to meet the claimed calcium sulfate, as evidenced by Wang (see Wang at page 2, section 2.1 evidencing gypsum (CaSO4˖2H2O)).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches belite-ye’elimite-ternesite cement (see Zhang at [0013] teaching modified sulfoaluminate cement), which is taken to meet the claimed recitation based on the structure as outlined below,
comprising… the belite-ye’elimite-ternesite cement clinker of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection based on Zhang), and
calcium sulfate (see Zhang at [0005] and [0007] teaching a modified sulfoaluminate cement according to the present disclosure comprises… gypsum). Gypsum is taken to meet the claimed calcium sulfate, as evidenced by Wang (see Wang at page 2, section 2.1 evidencing gypsum (CaSO4˖2H2O)).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and Zhang further teaches… the calcium sulfate comprises… phosphogypsum (see Zhang at [0011] teaching the gypsum is selected from one of… phosphogypsum).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one or ordinary skill in the art all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Zhang further teaches
ye’elimite: 40-43 wt.% (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 40-55%... calcium sulfoaluminate (see MPEP 2144.05(I)));
ternesite: 24-35 wt.% (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 20-40% calcium sulfosilicate (see MPEP 2144.05(I)));
belite: 15-25 wt.% (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 10-20% dicalcium silicate (see MPEP 2144.05(I)); and
free-calcium sulfate (f-C$): 3-5 wt.% (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 0-5% free gypsum (see MPEP 2144.05(I));
a mass ratio of belite to ternesite is 0.25-1 (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 10-20% dicalcium silicate… 20-40% calcium sulfosilicate). The mass ratio balance of belite to ternesite is 0.25 (or 10 ÷ 40) to 1 (or 20 ÷ 20) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and
a mass ratio of ternesite to ye’elimite is 0.5-1 (see Zhang at [0013] teaching… 20-40% calcium sulfosilicate… 40-55%... calcium sulfoaluminate). The mass ratio balance of ternesite to ye’elimite is 0.36 (or 20 ÷ 55) to 1 (or 40 ÷ 40).
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach “wherein, cubic ye’elimite accounts for 9-15 wt.% of the cement clinker; [Symbol font/0x61]-C2S accounts for 1-3 wt.% of the cement clinker” as claimed. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Zhang as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 as claimed. Therefore, all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 are considered allowable. Claims 3-5 are considered allowable due to their dependency on claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights