CTFR 18/546,987 CTFR 100528 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 23 January 2026 is accepted. Claims 1–12 remain pending. Claim 3 has been amended to overcome an objection. The objection to claim 3 is herein withdrawn. Claims 1–11 have been amended to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The 112(b) rejections of claims 1–8, 10 and 11 are herein withdrawn. Claim 9 stands rejected under 112(b) and has not been amended to correct the indefiniteness originally identified in the previous office action (see Non-Final mailed 24 October 2025, ¶9). Claims 1–11 have been amended to overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. The 103 rejections of claims 1–11 are herein withdrawn. Claim 12 has been introduced as a new dependent claim. It finds support in the originally filed disclosure in at least pg. 2, ll. 30–33. No new matter has been introduced. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 recites the limitation “…sand, a filler or a mixture thereof…” in line 9. This leads to indefiniteness because the scope of the term “filler” already includes “sand”. Applicants have amended claim 1 to recite “one or more of sand or another filler”, which the Examiner will herein use as the interpretation of claim 9 for purposes of examination. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The preamble of claim 1 recites, “A dry mix composition for use in making cement-based tile adhesives…”. MPEP 2111.02(II) says the following: “During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim” (paragraph 2). As claimed, the dry mix composition is not limited to cement-based tile adhesives. Rather, the claimed composition is just a cellulose-reinforced cement, which is known in the art and not limited solely to tile adhesives. Accordingly, the Examiner does not find “cement-based tile adhesives” to impart a structural difference over comparable compositions. The Examiner will therefore consider “cement-based tile adhesives” to be a non-limiting statement of intended use. Claims 3 and 7–9 each recite the specific model of instrument used to obtain the claimed data. The Examiner does not believe that these specific instruments affect the data obtained; rather, the data is merely a product of measurement conditions. As such, the Examiner will interpret these claims based on their measurement conditions, not the specific instrumentation used. However, if Applicants are claiming the use of specific instrumentation because the data obtained thereby is intrinsically linked to the instrumentation, they are respectfully invited to clarify this in their response. There are a number of terms used in the instant claim which rely on definitions provided in the specification. In the interest of maintaining clarity of the record, the Examiner herein provides the pertinent definitions from the specification. Claims 1 and 3–9 recite crosslinked cellulose ethers as “gel-like”. Applicants’ specification defines “gel-like” as having low cross-over values (COV), which correspond to low angular frequencies of storage modulus to loss modulus (G’/G”) intersections (see specification, page 1, ll. 16–22). Applicants further limit the COV to be from greater than 1.5 to 8 rad/s (see specification, page 3, ll. 10–15). Therefore, the term “gel-like” does not lead to indefiniteness because the specification provides a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Claim 5 recites the abbreviations “MS (HE)” and “DS (M)”. Applicants define “MS” as the mean number of hydroxyalkyl-substituted OH-groups per anhydroglucose unit, as determined by the Zeisel method. “DS” is defined as the mean number of alkyl-substituted OH-groups per anhydroglucose unit. “HE” is an abbreviation for “hydroxyethyl”, and “M” is an abbreviation for “methyl” (see specification, page 9, ll. 5–15). So, e.g., an MS (HE) of 0.5 means that, per anhydroglucose unit, half of all OH-groups are substituted with hydroxyethyl groups. Claim 8 recites the term “open time”, with units of N/mm 2 . Applicants define “open time” to be the length of time within which the wet or back side of a given tile can still be sufficiently wetted and adhered when laying the tile into a combed bed of a given tile adhesive on a base. In the test, each tile is laid into a bed of a given tile adhesive at any one time interval, i.e., after any of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes to form the tile adhesive bed, and then each tile is weighed down with a 3 kg weight for 30 s, then the thus adhered tiles are aged, such as in 28 day standard conditions (RT and 1 atm), and then subject to tensile adhesion testing in accordance with EN 1348 by gluing a tensile test plate to the top of the tile and pulling the tile off the base using a tensile tester. The force required to remove the tile from the base is reported in N/mm 2 as the open time, citing the aging conditions and the time interval tested (see specification, page 7, l. 31–page 8, l. 8). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hild et al . (US 2018/0099906 A1, hereinafter “ Hild ”, previously cited) and Schulze et al . ( Cement and Concrete Research , 2001, 31, 357–362, hereinafter “ Schulze ”) . Evidentiary support of a reaction product is provided by Verma et al . (US 2023/0192549 A1, hereinafter “ Verma ”), and is applied only to claim 6. Evidentiary support for the dimensions of standard tiles is provided by Novoceram (“Tile Sizes”, <novoceram.com>, 2018, hereinafter “ Novoceram ”), and is applied onto to claim 11. See MPEP 2124 regarding the applicability of factual references that don’t antedate the effective filing date. Regarding claim 1, Hild teaches a dry mix composition for use in making cement-based tile adhesives (see generally abstract), comprising: from 20 to 40 wt.% of a cement (see paragraph 0005 teaching 20–35 wt.% of ordinary Portland cement); from 59.25 to 79.88 wt.% of one or more of sand or another filler having a sieve particle size of from 80 µm to 0.8 mm (see paragraph 0005 teaching 64.7–79.9 wt.% sand with a particle size of less than 0.8 mm; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges); from 0.12 to 0.75 wt.% of one or more gel-like crosslinked cellulose ethers containing polyether groups (see paragraph 0005 teaching 0.12–0.6 wt.% of crosslinked cellulose ethers containing polyether groups). Regarding the “gel-like” limitation, Hild teaches two example crosslinked cellulose ethers which have a COV in the “gel-like” range (see the above claim interpretation of claim 1 regarding “gel-like” COV as being between 1.5 and 8 rad/s; see Table 1, samples 4 and 5, which both have a COV that falls within the gel-like range [4.8 and 2.7 rad/s, respectively]). Hild further teaches that all weight proportions are based on the total solids weight in the composition (see paragraph 0005), and is presumed to meet the limitation wherein all weight proportions add up to 100% since no other components are recited. Hild fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the composition further comprises from 0.5 to 5 wt.% of one or more water redispersible polymer powders (see paragraph 0044 teaching the inclusion of water redispersible polymer powder; no amount is specified, so Hild fails to meet this limitation). Schulze teaches cement compositions modified by water redispersible polymer powders (see generally abstract). Specifically, Schulze teaches a composition comprising 25 wt.% cement, 71.25 wt.% sand, and 3.25 wt.% water-redispersible polymer powder (see pg. 358, “Experimental” section, Formulation 1). Notably, the amount of cement and sand fall within the ranges disclosed by Hild , which means the compositions of Hild and Schulze are very similar, save for the presence of cellulose ethers, which Schulze lacks. The water-redispersible polymer powder taught by Schulze (see pg. 358, “Experimental” section, Vinnapas® vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymer) is the same as disclosed by Hild (see paragraph 0044). The motivation to modify Hild according to Schulze most closely aligns with KSR Rationale B, which states it is prima facie obvious to simply substitute one known element ( Hild’s undisclosed amount of vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymer) for another ( Schulze’s use of 3.25 wt.% vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymer) to obtain predictable results ( Hild already teaches the use of this copolymer, so the use of a specific amount is still predicted to achieve the same product). The proposed modification arrives at the claimed invention, and thus claim 1 is rendered prima facie obvious. Regarding claim 2, Hild , as modified by Schulze , teaches the dry mix composition as claimed in claim 1, and further teaches the limitation wherein the composition comprises from 30 to 38 wt.% of the cement (see paragraph 0005 teaching 20–35 wt.% of ordinary Portland cement; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). Regarding claim 3, Hild further teaches the limitation wherein a 1.0 wt.% aqueous solution of at least one gel-like crosslinked cellulose ether has a crossover point (COV) at which storage modulus (G’) and loss modulus (G”) intersect, wherein the COV is from greater than 1.5 to 8 rad/s (see paragraph 0058 teaching a 1.0 wt.% aqueous solution of crosslinked cellulose ethers; also see Table 1, samples 4 and 5, which demonstrate a COV of 4.8 and 2.7, respectively). Hild further teaches the limitation wherein the aqueous solution is lump-free (see paragraph 0058 teaching the solution as being stirred in such a way to avoid the formation of lumps). Although Hild fails to explicitly teach the claimed stirring conditions, the resulting solution is lump free, and therefore the stirring conditions are merely a matter of routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). Because the resulting solution is lump-free regardless of stirring conditions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any stirring conditions that arrive at the claimed invention, whether the stirring conditions are high-speed and short, as claimed, or low-speed and prolonged, as described by Hild . Applicants can rebut this rejection by showing that the claimed stirring conditions produce an unexpected result that Hild does not achieve. Finally, Hild further teaches the limitation wherein G’ and G” are measured in Pascal at 20 °C using an oscillating rheometer equipped with a plate having a 50 mm diameter and a cone having a 1° cone angle and a 0.05 mm flattening of the cone point, and varying the angular frequency (ω) in a range of from 0.1 to 100 ω with a deformation of 0.5% (see paragraph 0059 teaching these same measurement conditions). Regarding claim 4, Hild further teaches the limitation wherein the polyether group in at least one of the one or more gel-like crosslinked cellulose ethers is a polyoxyalkylene which has from 2 to 15 oxyalkylene groups (see paragraph 0007 teaching the polyether group as a polyoxyalkylene, preferably with 3 to 15 oxyalkylene groups). Regarding claim 5, Hild further teaches the limitation wherein at least one of the one or more gel-like crosslinked cellulose ethers is a mixed cellulose ether that contains hydroxyalkyl groups and alkyl ether groups, and has a degree of hydroxyalkyl substitution MS (HE) of from 0.05 to 0.8, and, further, has a degree of alkyl substitution DS (M) of from 1.2 to 2.1 (see paragraph 0032 teaching MS (HE) of 0.5 to 0.75 and DS (M) of 1.2 to 2.1). Regarding claim 6, Hild further teaches the limitation wherein at least one of the gel-like crosslinked cellulose ethers is a hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose containing polyoxypropylene dioxyethylene ether crosslinks (see paragraph 0053 teaching the cellulose ether as NEMC [defined in paragraph 0029 to be hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose], and the crosslinker as Epilox™ M985 [defined in paragraph 0049 to be polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether]). Verma explicitly teaches hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose containing polyoxypropylene dioxyethylene ether crosslinks as the reaction product of NEMC with polypropylene glycol glycidyl ether (see Verma , paragraph 0011), which means Hild teaches the claimed limitation. Regarding claim 7, Hild further teaches the limitation wherein at least one of the one or more gel-like crosslinked cellulose ethers is the crosslinked reaction product of a cellulose ether, which, absent crosslinking, would have a viscosity of from 5,000 to 36,000 mPa·s, measured as a 2 wt.% solution in water using a rotational rheometer at 20 °C and a shear rate 2.55 s -1 (see paragraph 0023 teaching crosslinked cellulose ethers which, absent crosslinking, would have a viscosity of from 10,000 to 70,000 mPa·s, measured as a 2 wt.% solution; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). Regarding claims 8 and 9, Hild fails to explicitly teach the claimed performance data of the dry composition. Hild does teach performance data, but the composition used for obtaining this data differs from the claimed composition (claimed: 0.4 wt.% cellulose ether, 35 wt.% Portland cement, 0.05 wt.% slip-resistance aid, 64.55 wt.% filler; Hild , Table 2, sample 7 and Paragraph 0063, Batch B: 0.3 wt.% cellulose ether, 30 wt.% Portland cement, 70 wt.% sand, 0 wt.% slip-resistance aid). Because the compositions used to obtain performance data differ, the performance data cannot be compared. However, the claimed performance metrics (open time, slip resistance) are considered intrinsic properties of the composition. Any sufficiently similar composition would be expected to exhibit the same performance under the claimed measurement conditions (see MPEP 2112.01(II) regarding properties being intrinsically linked to composition). As Hild teaches a substantially similar composition, it is reasonable to conclude that Hild’s composition would exhibit the claimed properties if tested under the claimed conditions. Thus, claims 8 and 9 are rendered obvious. Regarding claim 10, Hild , as modified by Schulze , teaches a method of using the dry mix composition as claimed in claim 1, comprising: mixing the dry composition mix with water to form a cement-based tile adhesive (see Hild , paragraph 0064 teaching the mixture of the dry composition with water); applying the tile adhesive to a substrate to form an adhesive bearing substrate; and, applying a tile to the adhesive bearing substrate (see paragraph 0066 teaching testing of the adhesive strength of adhered tiles, which fundamentally requires the adhesive to be applied to a substrate and a tile to be applied to the adhesive, as claimed). Regarding claim 11, Hild , as modified by Schulze , teaches the method as claimed in claim 10. Hild fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the tile has a top or bottom surface area of at least 200 cm 2 (see paragraph 0066 teaching adhesive testing according to EN 1348, which requires tiles with dimensions of 50 mm × 50 mm [25 cm 2 surface area]). However, as Hild explicitly teaches a tile adhesive (see abstract), a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand to be obvious that the adhesive can be applied to tiles of any standard size with a reasonable expectation of success. Novoceram teaches a number of standard tile sizes, all of which exceed 200 cm 2 surface area (the smallest tile size, 5×60 cm, has a surface area of 300 cm 2 ). A person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to replicate the teachings of Hild would still reasonably arrive at the claimed invention because there are a finite number of standard tile sizes used in flooring and walling. KSR Rationale D states that it is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique (the tile adhesive of Hild , as modified by Schulze ) to a known product (any standard tile, for example, those disclosed in Novoceram ) ready for improvement ( Hild’s adhesive is already shown to have improved adhesion over other tile adhesives) to yield predictable results ( Hild’s adhesive is shown to work on smaller tiles, so it is reasonable to predict it will work on larger tiles as well). Regarding claim 12, Hild and Schulze both teach the limitation wherein the one or more water redispersible polymer powders comprise ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers (see Hild , paragraph 0044 [ethylene-vinyl acetate is synonymous with vinyl acetate-ethylene]; see Schulze , pg. 358, “Experimental” section, Vinnapas® vinyl acetate-ethylene) . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the previous grounds of rejection over Hild . Applicants present additional arguments regarding Hild , specifically stating that the present invention achieves improved slip resistance and open time, while Hild is silent to these limitations. However, Hild’s silence as to these features does not preclude the applicability of Hild to the present claims. MPEP 2145(II) states that prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art. Since Hild’s composition is so similar to the claimed composition, it is reasonable to assume that Hild’s composition inherently has the same properties, even if Hild does not explicitly recite those properties. 07-38-01 AIA Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 23 January 2026 , with respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 /ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 2 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 3 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 4 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 5 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 6 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 7 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 8 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 9 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 10 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 11 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 12 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/546,987 Page 13 Art Unit: 1731
Prosecution Insights