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 .
Applicant has amended the claims to include limitations not previously considered. Support for the new limitations is found in the original filing. Accordingly amended grounds of rejection are below set forth addressing same.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/14/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al KR 10-185766B published 5/11/2018 further in view of CN110423074B published 8/11/2020 with no common inventors and no common assignee (as cited and provided by IDS 10/03/2023 as such this is not listed on the PTO 892 accompanying this office action) (effective filing date of instant application 3/5/2021)
Regarding Claim 18:
Hwang et al KR 10185766B discloses a filler concrete composition comprising Portland cement and calcium sulfo aluminate cement (P17 translation)
PNG
media_image1.png
100
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(meeting the limitations of claim 18 for preparation of a concrete of claim 1 a binding blend of Portland cement and calcium sulphoaluminate based cement)
The composition is used as a filling layer 2 with the slab panel 1and connecting material may be embedded in the filler layer (P 6)
PNG
media_image2.png
284
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
222
972
media_image3.png
Greyscale
P4 The filling layer is formed between the slab panel and the base layer (i.e. meeting the limitation of claim 18 for casting between surface of slab and platform plane where the surface is curved/intrados)
PNG
media_image4.png
454
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
276
998
media_image5.png
Greyscale
3-20:3-7 overlapping the claimed ratio – there is more Portland cement than CSA at a proportion which overlaps the claimed ratio
PNG
media_image6.png
170
930
media_image6.png
Greyscale
While the reference expressly contemplates a polycarboxylic acid high performance water reducing agent, it does not expressly disclose same to be citric acid.
CN110423074B discloses a concrete composition for track slab. CN discloses the concrete used in construction of CRTS III slab track [0002] for railways [0004] which has a concave convex structure [0005] requiring replacement and may be filled with a layer of concrete between the slab and the base [0006] the concrete filling layer may be bonded to the track slab and fill the cavity [0006][0010-0011] (i.e. meeting the limitation of claim 18 for casting between surface of slab and platform plane where the surface is curved/intrados)
The composition comprises fast hardening sulfo aluminate cement [0012] and Portland cement [013] The suflo aluminate cement and gypsum control the hydration rate of the Portland cement [0035] (meeting the limitations of claim 18 for preparation of a concrete of claim 1 a binding blend of Portland cement and calcium sulphoaluminate based cement)
The composition comprises a retarder such citric acid [0032]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add citric acid to the composition of Hwang as taught by CN to provide retarding properties thereto; further since Hwang expressly contemplates a poly carboxylic acid doing so amounts to nothing more than use of a known compound (citric acid poly carboxylic acid) in a known environment (concrete) to achieve an entirely expected result (improving properties in concrete such as retarding and water reduction)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sampyo KR 101857066B1 further in view of CN110423074B
Regarding Claim 18:
Sampyo discloses a concrete composition for use in rail track slabs etc. (See Abstract)
PNG
media_image7.png
218
944
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(p4)
Sampyo teaches use in railway tracks slabs and panels (P4) See Drawings to fill gaps on various surface of the rails, filler layers, etc. for railway foundations and slabs (P2) applied in concrete slab tracks (Description P2) as a filler between layers and slabs, (p3)rendering obvious the claimed intrados surface of slabs and platform planes
Sampyo does not expressly disclose the poly carboxylic acid to be citric acid and
CN110423074B discloses a concrete composition for track slab. CN discloses the concrete used in construction of CRTS III slab track [0002] for railways [0004] which has a concave convex structure [0005] requiring replacement and may be filled with a layer of concrete between the slab and the base [0006] the concrete filling layer may be bonded to the track slab and fill the cavity [0006][0010-0011] (i.e. meeting the limitation of claim 18 for casting between surface of slab and platform plane where the surface is curved/intrados)
The composition comprises fast hardening sulfo aluminate cement [0012] and Portland cement [013] The suflo aluminate cement and gypsum control the hydration rate of the Portland cement [0035] (meeting the limitations of claim 18 for preparation of a concrete of claim 1 a binding blend of Portland cement and calcium sulphoaluminate based cement)
The composition comprises a retarder such citric acid [0032]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add citric acid to the composition of Sampyo as taught by CN to provide retarding properties thereto; further since Sampyo expressly contemplates a polycarboxylic acid doing so amounts to nothing more than use of a known compound (citric acid polycarboxylic acid) in a known environment (concrete) to achieve an entirely expected result (improving properties in concrete such as retarding and water reduction)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth addressing the amended claim and new limitations. Additional prior art is cited. The rejections are not based on Section 103 for obviousness.
The prior art teaches the claimed composition in the claimed method as above set forth. The new claim limitations are addressed above including the limitation for citric acid and overlapping ranges of ratios of the CSA and Portland cement.
Applicant asserts the claimed ratio is not taught by the prior art. Certain rejections have been withdrawn and new and amended grounds of rejection including citation to additional prior art are above set forth. These rejections teach overlapping ranges of the claimed ratio as well as the compositional components and process steps as more fully above set forth.
The examiner notes that the claimed ratio is not based on the % in the total composition but rather to the relationship or ratio of the Portland cement to the CSA. As claimed there must be more Portland cement than CSA.
A prima facie showing of obviousness has been established by a preponderance of the evidence. The rejection is made final.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying prior office action as well as this office action. The cited prior art teaches the composition in overlapping ratios used in rail tracks.
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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights