DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-13 and 21-22 in the reply filed on 05/04/20269 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II relate to a single inventive concept (see Remarks received on 05/04/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 1-2). This is not found persuasive because the requirement for restriction is based on lack of unity of invention since the technical feature is not a special feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Applicant also argues that the inventive feature of the present application lie in the use of specific ingredients such as dry foundry sand having specific characteristics, a polymer, a binding agent and a filler in specific amounts (see Remarks received on 05/04/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 2-4). This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature indicated in the Office Action mailed on 03/23/2026 was based on the claim set filed on 08/18/2023. Claim 14 of Group II in the aforementioned claim set does not recite specific amounts of the ingredients. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the amended claims received on 05/04/2026 indicate the ingredient “filler” as essential. It is noted, that this argument is without merit, since Applicant’s arguments are referring to the claims as amended, not as they were previously presented.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the particle size" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 105837141 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as CHEN.
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches a ready mix composition (Abstract: dry-mixed mortar) comprising:
a dry waste foundry sand in an amount in the range of 20 mass % to 90 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph 6, p. 2: cast waste sand 25-35%; the mass percent);
at least one binding agent in an amount in the range of 10 mass % to 40 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph 6, p. 2: cement 25-35%);
at least one polymer in an amount in the range of 0.1 mass % to 3 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph 6, p. 2: wood fibre 0.6-0.8%, cellulose ether 0.2-0.4%);
at least one filler in an amount in the range of 5 mass % to 60 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph 6, p. 2: fly ash 2-6%, slag powders 10-15%, lithium slag 10-15%); CHEN teaches filler in an amount in the range 22-36%.
CHEN teaches ranges which are within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 5, CHEN teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein said polymer comprises one of the re-dispersible polymer powder (RDR), methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose powder (MHEC), cellulose fibers, recron fibers, natural fibers (paragraph 6, p. 2: wood fibre 0.6-0.8%, cellulose ether 0.2-0.4%), and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 8, CHEN teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein said filler is at least one of fly ash, slag sand (paragraph 6, p. 2: fly ash 2-6%, slag powders 10-15%, lithium slag 10-15%).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN, in view of Shadheer et al. (Natural fibers in concrete – a review, IOP Conf. Ser.: Matre. Sci. Eng. 2021, 10055, 012038), hereinafter referred to as SHADHEER.
Regarding claim 7, CHEN teaches the composition as claimed in claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach wherein said cellulose fibers comprise one of jute fibers, coconut fibers, hemp fibers, fibers derived from paper, board, and recycled paper, wool fibers, cotton fibers, rock wool fibers, lignocellulose fibers, and combinations thereof.
However, SHADHEER discloses that the plant fibers are used to replace conventional fibers as reinforcement in concrete compositions due to environmental and ecological issues (see SHADHEER at 1.Introduction, paragraph 1, p. 1). SHADHEER teaches that coir, sisal, sugarcane, banana, bamboo, jute, wood, vegetables, rice husk, etc, in these, types, hemp, jute are mainly used in concrete (see SHADHEER at 2. Types of fibres, paragraph 1, p. 2). SHADHEER discloses wood, hemp and jute fibers among the natural fibers suitable for use in concrete compositions. According to MPEP §2144.06(II): “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)”.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when substituting wood fibers of CHEN with jute or hemp fibers disclosed by SHADHEER based on the teachings of SHADHEER describing wood, hemp and jute fibers among the natural fibers suitable for use in concrete compositions (see SHADHEER at 2. Types of fibres, paragraph 1, p. 2).
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 composition of CHEN by utilizing natural fibers such as jute or hemp fibers disclosed by SHADHEER since wood, hemp and jute fibers are known as equivalents in the art.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ju et al. (CN 101870571 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as JU.
Regarding claim 1, JU a ready mix composition (Abstract: dry powder mortar) comprising:
a dry waste foundry sand in an amount in the range of 20 mass % to 90 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (Abstract: 30-40 percent of precision casting waste sand);
at least one binding agent in an amount in the range of 10 mass % to 40 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (Abstract: 13-35 percent of cement);
at least one polymer in an amount in the range of 0.1 mass % to 3 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (Abstract:2.7-3.4 percent of mortar thickening powder; 0.01-4 percent of admixture; paragraph 3, p. 3: 0.1-0.3% water reducer; and paragraph 7, p. 3: redispersible latex powder);
at least one filler in an amount in the range of 5 mass % to 60 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (Abstract: 3-4 percent of pulverized ash, 30-40 percent of yellow sand ); JU teaches filler in an amount in the range 33-44%.
JU teaches ranges which are within or overlap with the claimed ranges. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, JU teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the particle size of said dry foundry waste sand is in the range of 0.01 to 1.5 mm (paragraph 10, p. 3: Main passing through is processed into the building sand that meets GB/T4684-2001 "building sand" standard to precision casting waste sand fragmentation, screening and grating with precision casting waste sand, and modulus is between 1.8 ~ 3.0). According to MPEP § 2111, the proper claim interpretation includes giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Specification discloses fineness modulus in the range of 2.3 to 2.5 on line 1, p. 7, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated the particle size of the casting waste sand of JU having modulus between 1.8-3.0 to have particle size overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, JU teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein said binding agent comprises one of Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC), Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) (paragraph 12, p. 3: 42.5 ordinary Portland cements).
Regarding claim 5, JU teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein said polymer comprises one of the re-dispersible polymer powder (RDR) (paragraph 3, p. 3: 0.1-0.3% water reducer; and paragraph 7, p. 3: redispersible latex powder is the EVA rubber powder), methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose powder (MHEC), cellulose fibers, recron fibers, natural fibers, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 6, JU teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein said re-dipersible polymer powder (RDP) is selected from vinyl acetate-ethylene copolymer powder (paragraph 7, p. 3: redispersible latex powder is the EVA rubber powder).
Regarding claim 11, JU teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of dry waste foundry sand to said binding agent is in the range of 1:0.15 to 1:0.7 (Abstract: 30-40 percent of precision casting waste sand; 13-35 percent of cement). Thus, JU teaches a mass ratio of dry waste foundry sand to said binding agent is in the range of 1:0.32 to 1:1.16, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JU in view of Thamaraiselvi et al. (Improving the performance of mortar containing industrial wastes, Materials Today: Proceedings, 2021, 37, 1062-1065), hereinafter referred to as THAMARAISELVI.
Regarding claims 9-10, JU teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the filler comprising at least one anti caking agent in an amount in the range of 0.1 mass % to 10 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (claim 9), wherein said anti-caking agent comprises one of magnesium carbonate, calcium carbonate, nano silicon, rubber powder, silica fume, micro silica, mineral fibers, magnesium stearate, and combinations thereof (claim 10).
However, the use of anti-caking agent such as silica fume is known in the art as evidenced form the disclosure of THAMARAISELVI describing mortar composition comprising fine aggregate partially replaced with the foundry sand and the cement replaced by GGBS and silica fume (SF) (see THAMARAISELVI at Abstract). THAMARAISELVI teaches that the application of silica fume and GGBS in cement mortar has several advantages over the normal mix; silica fume and GGBS are added to Portland cement to develop its properties of mortar, and that the compressive strength, split strength and scrape resistance properties of mortar mix are improved over normal mix (see THAMARAISELVI at 1. Introduction, right column, paragraph 2). THAMARAISELVI discloses that cement is replaced by 5%, 10% an 15% of silica fume (see THAMARAISELVI at Table 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the dry powder mortar composition of JU by replacing 5-15% of cement with silica fume as disclosed by THAMARAISELVI since THAMARAISELVI explicitly teaches that replacing part of the cement with silica fume can lead to improving compressive strength, split strength and scrape resistance properties of mortar mix (see THAMARAISELVI at 1. Introduction, right column, paragraph 2).
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 dry mortar composition of JU by replacing 5-15% of cement with silica fume as disclosed by THAMARAISELVI in order to improve compressive strength, split strength and scrape resistance properties of mortar mix.
It is noted, that JU teaches composition comprising 15-35% cement, thus, JU as modified by THAMARAISELVI teach a mortar composition comprising 0.65-5.25% of silica fume, which is within the claimed range.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al. (IN 201303166 I3), hereinafter referred to as AGRAWAL.
Regarding claim 1, AGRAWAL teaches a ready mix composition (paragraph 6, p. 3: pre-mixed ready to use plaster) comprising:
a dry waste foundry sand in an amount in the range of 20 mass % to 90 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (Preferred Design Mix Table, p. 5: waste foundry sand 45.00-65.00%);
at least one binding agent in an amount in the range of 10 mass % to 40 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (Preferred Design Mix Table, p. 5: cement 14.00-25.00%);
at least one polymer in an amount in the range of 0.1 mass % to 3 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (Preferred Design Mix Table, p. 5: admixtures 0.05-0.1 %; and paragraph 3, p. 5: admixtures such as plasticizer, water reducing agents, fibers, polymers);
at least one filler in an amount in the range of 5 mass % to 60 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (Preferred Design Mix Table, p. 5: crushed sand 20.00-40.00%).
AGRAWAL teaches ranges which are within or overlap with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 12, AGRAWAL teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein said composition has:
compressive strength in the range of 5 N/mm2 to 20 N/mm2 (paragraph 3, p. 4: compressive strength more than 8 N/mm2). AGRAWAL teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range.
While AGRAWAL is silent with respect to a shelf life being in the range of 4 months to 12 months, AGRAWAL teaches all limitations of claim 1, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the rat would anticipate the composition of AGRAWAL to comprise the claimed properties such as shelf life as set forth in l claim 12. See MPEP §2112.01(I): “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”.
Regarding claim 13, AGRAWAL teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein said composition is in a form of one of tile adhesive, ready mix plaster, and block adhesive (Abstract: plastering, roofing, tile adhesive, floor hardener and jointing mortar).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (CN 102701681 A) with reference to the provided machina translation, hereinafter referred to as JIN.
Regarding claim 1, JIN teaches a ready mix composition (paragraph [7]: a waste casting sand dry-mixed mortar) comprising:
a dry waste foundry sand in an amount in the range of 20 mass % to 90 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph [7]: 50 to 80% of dry waste casting sand);
at least one binding agent in an amount in the range of 10 mass % to 40 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph [7]: cement 11-31%);
at least one polymer in an amount in the range of 0.1 mass % to 3 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraphs [7]: water retention agent 0.1-0.6%; and [17]: cellulose ether);
at least one filler in an amount in the range of 5 mass % to 60 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph [7]: dry fly ash 3-7% and yellow sand 0-20%); thus, JIN teaches filler in an amount in the range of 3-27%.
JIN teaches ranges which are within or overlap with the claimed ranges.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIN in view of JU.
Regarding claim 22, JIN teaches the composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein said composition comprises:
said dry waste foundry sand in an amount of 50 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph [7]: 50 to 80% of dry waste casting sand);
said at least one binding agent in an amount of 30 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph [7]: cement 11-31%);
said at least one polymer (paragraphs [7]: water retention agent 0.1-0.6%; and [17]: cellulose ether);
said at least one filler in an amount of 18.5 mass % with respect to the total mass of the composition (paragraph [7]: dry fly ash 3-7% and yellow sand 0-20%); thus, JIN teaches filler in an amount in the range of 3-27%.
While JIN discloses composition comprising cellulose ether (see JIN at paragraph [17]), JIN fails to explicitly teach wherein the composition comprises 1.5 mass % of polymer.
However, it is known in the art to use higher amounts of polymers in composition comprising waste foundry sand. For example, JU discloses dry powder mortar by utilizing precision casting waste sand comprising 13-35 percent of cement, 3-4 percent of pulverized fuel ash, 30-40 percent of yellow sand, 2. 7-3.4 percent of mortar thickening powder, 0.01-4 percent of admixture, and 30-40 percent of precision casting waste sand (see JU at Abstract). JU teaches that mortar densification powder has good water-keeping thickening effect, can significantly improve the workability of dry-mix; the mortar densification powder comprises wilkinite, metakaolin and cellulose ether (see JU at paragraph 8, p. 3).
According to MPEP: "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dry-mixed mortar composition of JIN by adjusting the amount of cellulose ether to be within the claimed range, since the higher amounts of cellulose ether used in mixtures of similar compositions are known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights