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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 04/26/2024, 04/30/2024 and 03/24/2026 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. They have been placed in the application file, but some of the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “Xi”, “Yi”, and “Zi” (see Fig. 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “wherein single-mine, single-phase, or a unit component” should read either “wherein a single-mine, single-phase, or unit component” or “wherein a single-mine, a single-phase, or a unit component” (see claim 1 at line 2).
In claim 1, “are used” should read “is used” (see claim 1 at line 3).
In claim 1, “the method comprises following steps” should read either “wherein the method comprises the following steps” or “the method comprising the following steps” (see claim 1 at line 4).
In claim 1, there should be spaces between the step numbers and the words; e.g., “1)placing” should read “1) placing”, etc. (see claim 1 at lines 5-6, 8 and 10).
In claim 2, “calcium alurninate” should read “calcium aluminate”, and “calcium dial.uminate” should read “calcium dialuminate" (see claim 2 at lines 4-5).
In claim 6, “materialsand” should read “materials and” (see claim 6 at line 4); “evolution , setting time” should read “evolution, setting time” (see claim 6 at line 6); “resistance , workability” should read “resistance, workability” (see claim 6 at line 8); and “sulfate resistant , chloride resistant” should read “sulfate resistance, chloride resistance” (see claim 6 at line 8).
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.
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). The term “mine” in claims 1-2 and 5 (“single-mine”; see claim 1 at line 2 and claims 2 and 5 each at line 3) is used by the claims to mean “mineral species,” while the accepted meaning is “a pit or excavation in the earth from which mineral substances are taken.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the materials" (see claim 1 at line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear to what materials “the materials” is meant to refer.
Claim 1 recites the singular limitation “a cement-based material”, then later recites the plural limitation “the cement-based materials” (see claim 1 at lines 1 and 6-7); this language renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether there is one cement-based material or multiple cement-based materials.
Claim 1 recites the singular limitation “a structural unit”, then later recites the plural limitation “the structural units” (see claim 1 at lines 3 and 5); this language renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether one structural unit is required or multiple structural units are required.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “Xi” and “Zi” (see claim 1 at lines 5 and 10), rendering the scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear what these variables are meant to represent. Both “Xi” and “X1” and both “Zi” and “Z1” are shown in Fig. 1, but no explanation as to what “Xi” and “Zi” means could be located in the specification, which only describes the claimed limitation using “X1” and “Z1”.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated “Xi” as actually meaning “X1” and treated “Zi” as actually meaning “Z1”, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the specification at paragraph [0009]-[0012] and the abstract. Clarification is requested.
Claim 2 recites a long list of components, reading “the structural unit is a single-mine of cement clinker which comprises alite… and free calcium oxide” (see claim 2 at lines 3-10); the use of “and” indicates that the single-mine of cement clinker must include every component that is listed. However, it is not clear if this is the intended meaning, as the specification only includes embodiments which comprise only a few of the listed components; e.g., the examples in paragraphs [0052]-[0053] and [0062]-[0063] only includes four of the listed components, not all of them, and the example in paragraphs [0058]-[0059] only includes three of the listed components, not all of them. This renders the scope of the claim unclear as the claim says that all of the components are required, but the specification indicates that they are not.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 2 as though it only requires one or more of the listed components, not all of them, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the specification. Clarification is requested.
Claim 3 recite the limitation “wherein the structural unit further comprises a cement component unit including gypsum, slag, volcanic ash, fly ash, silica fume, and limestone” (see claim 3 at lines 3-4); the use of “and” indicates that the structural unit must include every component that is listed. However, it is not clear if this is the intended meaning, as the specification only includes embodiments which comprise only a few of the listed components; e.g., the examples in paragraphs [0062]-[0063] and [0065]-[0066] only include up to four of the listed components, not all of them. This renders the scope of the claim unclear as the claim says that all of the components are required, but the specification indicates that they are not.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 3 as though it only requires one or more of the listed components, not all of them, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the specification. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" (see claim 4 at line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, the phrase "and so on" (see claim 4 at line 5) renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and so on"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated limitations following “such as” as not being part of the claimed invention. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “sand/gravel materials” (see claim 5 at line 4); the meaning of this limitation is indefinite as it is not clear whether “sand/gravel” means sand and gravel, or sand or gravel.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 4 as though it recites “sand and gravel”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the structural unit further comprises a single-mine of cement clinker, cement components…” (see claim 5 at lines 2-3); however, claim 2, from which claim 5 depends, already requires that the structural unit comprises a single-mine of cement clinker (see claim 2 at line 3), so the meaning of it “further comprising” the same thing that it already comprises is indefinite; a “single-mine of cement clinker” also is a “cement component”, so it is not clear if another additional cement component is actually required, as cement components are already required by claim 2. It is not clear whether this is meant to indicate that it comprises a different type of single-mine of cement clinker and/or cement component that is not already in the list recited by claim 2, or whether no additional components are actually required.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 5 as though it does not recite “wherein the structural unit further comprises a single-mine of cement clinker, cement components”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “with different fineness and particle gradation” (see claim 5 at lines 4-5); this language renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear to which of the recited materials it applies, and it is not clear what the fineness and particle gradation are different from, as written; i.e., it is not clear whether it means the sand and gravel materials have different values from each other, different from the values of the other recited components, or different from something else, or whether each of the recited components have different values from each other, etc.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation in claim 5 as though it recites “a sand material, and a gravel material having a different fineness and particle gradation than the sand material”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites “wherein performing composition structure and performance tests on the m groups of cement-based materials respectively for screening specific or excellent performance cement-based materialsand producing data, the composition structure and performance tests, including chemical composition, mineral composition, density, fineness, hydration heat evolution , setting time, strength, composition and structure of hydration products, volume soundness, impermeability, freeze-thaw resistance , workability, sulfate resistant, chloride resistant and wear resistance” (see claim 6 at lines 2-8); this does not grammatically make sense and it is not clear from this language what claim 6 is actually meant to require. The way that the claim is written does not appear to actually further limit claim 1; no step of actually performing tests is recited, just “wherein performing… tests”.
Additionally, the meaning of “specific or excellent performance” is indefinite, as it is not clear what “specific” performance refers to, and “excellent” performance is a subjective term, and it is not clear what kind of performance would be considered “excellent”.
Additionally, the claim includes a list of tested parameters reciting “including chemical composition… and wear resistance”, which indicates that (assuming this claim is actually meant to require an additional step of testing) every listed parameter must be tested. However, it is not clear if this is the intended meaning, as the specification appears to only include embodiments where a single parameter is tested (hydration heat evolution in paragraph [0056] and strength in paragraph [0069]), not all of them. This further renders the scope of the claim indefinite as the claim says that all of the components are required, but the specification indicates that they are not.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 6 as though it recites “The method… according to claim 1, further comprising performing composition structure and performance tests on the m groups of cement-based material samples for screening performance of the cement-based material and producing data, the composition structure and performance tests including at least one of chemical composition… and wear resistance”. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al. (CN-109829644-A) (hereinafter, “WANG”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a previous office action) in view of Berodier, et al. (WO-2020/091821-A1) (hereinafter, “BERODIER”).
Regarding claim 1, WANG teaches a method for high-throughput preparation of a cement-based material, wherein a single-mine, single-phase, or unit component maintaining specific hydration and hardening characteristics is used as a structural unit (see WANG generally at Abstract and paragraphs 2, 5, 7-9 and 26-27), the method comprising the following steps:
1) placing the structural unit in storage tubes X1, X2, X3... Xn respectively (see WANG at Abstract, paragraphs 5 and 33-36 and Fig. 1, teaching storing the raw materials (i.e., structural units) in silos 30);
2) putting materials of the structural unit in each of the storage tubes according to the design proportion of the cement-based material, and then preparing Y1, Y2, Y3... Ym of mixed materials respectively (see WANG at paragraphs 5 and 22, teaching putting the materials in the silos and feeding/mixing from the corresponding silo according to the proportion of the material proportioning list in strict accordance with the formula);
3) fully and uniformly mixing the Y1, Y2, Y3 ... Ym of the mixed materials through a uniform mixing device respectively to prepare m groups of cement-based material samples (see WANG at Abstract, paragraphs 33-34 and Fig. 1, teaching mixing with mixing machine 10).
Although WANG teaches the material leaving the mixing station (see WANG at paragraph 35) and it is clear that the materials have to be stored somewhere before they are used, WANG does not explicitly mention filling the uniformly mixed materials into storage tanks.
However, it is known that cement-based materials are filled into storage tanks. For example, BERODIER teaches a method for preparing a cement-based material (see BERODIER generally at Abstract) wherein cement clinker raw materials are mixed according to the design proportions and the mixed cement materials are filled into storage silos (see BERODIER at Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0003]-[0012] and [0034]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of WANG by filling and storing the mixed materials in storage tanks as taught by BERODIER (see BERODIER at Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0002]-[0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having somewhere to keep the materials until they are transported or used.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, WANG in view of BERODIER teaches a method according to claim 1. WANG teaches cementitious materials (see WANG at paragraph 5) but does not explicitly mention a single mineral species of cement clinker comprising one or more of the components recited in claim 2.
However, it is known in the art to use the recited single mineral species as cement clinker materials, i.e., structural units. For example, BERODIER teaches a method for preparing a cement-based material wherein cement clinker raw materials are mixed according to the design proportions (see BERODIER generally at Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0003]-[0012] and [0034]-[0043]) wherein the cement clinker raw materials comprise tricalcium silicate (alite), dicalcium silicate (belite), tricalcium aluminate, tetraclacium aluminoferrite (i.e., single-mineral structural units) (see BERODIER at paragraphs [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0035] and [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of WANG by selecting tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, and tetracalcium aluminoferrite as the raw materials (i.e., structural units) as taught by BERODIER (see BERODIER at paragraphs [0003], [0011]-[0012], [0035] and [0072]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have selected these single-mineral clinker materials with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing cement clinker materials and forming hydraulic cement. Further, these are known cement clinker materials, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2 above, WANG in view of BERODIER teaches a method according to claim 2, wherein the structural unit further comprises a cement component unit including one or more of gypsum, slag, volcanic ash, fly ash, silica fume, and limestone (see WANG at paragraph 5, teaching that the raw materials for concrete include, e.g., fly ash).
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 2 above, WANG in view of BERODIER teaches a method according to claim 2, wherein the structural unit further comprises a concrete structural unit including sand, stone, concrete admixtures, and supplementary cementitious materials (see WANG at teaching that the raw materials for concrete include coarse aggregate (stone), fine aggregate (sand), fly ash and mineral powder (i.e., supplementary cementitious materials), and admixtures).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 2 above, WANG in view of BERODIER teaches a method according to claim 2, wherein the structural unit further comprises supplementary cementitious materials, a sand material, and a gravel material having a different fineness and particle gradation than the sand material (see WANG at teaching that the raw materials for concrete include coarse aggregate (stone) (i.e., gravel), fine aggregate (sand), fly ash and mineral powder (i.e., supplementary cementitious materials)).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, WANG in view of BERODIER teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising performing composition structure and performance tests on the m groups of cement-based material samples for screening performance of the cement-based material and producing data (see WANG at paragraphs 57-59 and 80).
WANG teaches carrying out tests after mixing is complete to determine whether the materials meet standard specifications (see WANG at paragraphs 57-59 and 80), but does not explicitly mention specific tests, i.e., that the tests include at least one of chemical composition, mineral composition, density, fineness, hydration heat evolution, setting time, strength, composition and structure of hydration products, volume soundness, impermeability, freeze thaw resistance, workability, sulfate resistance, chloride resistance and wear resistance tests.
However, these are known structure/performance tests in the art. For example, BERODIER teaches a method for preparing a cement-based material wherein cement clinker raw materials are mixed according to the design proportions (see BERODIER generally at Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0003]-[0012] and [0034]-[0043]) wherein the cement-based material is tested to determine properties of strength, expansion, hydration, setting, chemical composition, heat evolution, etc. (see BERODIER at Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0010], [0016], [0018], [0021]-[0025], [0097], [0104], etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of WANG by testing the cement-based material for strength, expansion, hydration, setting, chemical composition, heat evolution, etc., as taught by BERODIER (see BERODIER at Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0010], [0016], [0018], [0021]-[0025], [0097], [0104], etc.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of evaluating the properties of the produced material and determining whether or not they meet required specifications/standards.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm 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 Orlando can be reached on (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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights