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 with traverse of Group I claims 1-8 and 16-17 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that they are rejoin able when there is shared allowable subject matter. Allowable subject matter has not been identified as such the remarks are not persuasive. This is not found persuasive because a showing of lack of unity was established in the restriction mailed 11/6/2025 both a priori and a posteriori having cited prior art establishing a special technical feature not making a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/19/2025
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 1/26/2026, 12/5/2025, 10/3/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
REJECTION SECTION 102
Shao et al (WO 2018/102931A1)
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Shao et al (WO 2018/102931A1)
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Shao et al (WO 2018/102931A1) discloses ladle slag having particle size distribution at d50 of 18.8 microns [0073] (meeting the limitation of claim 1 for a composition comprising at least one ladle slag with a particle size distribution by vol D50 40 microns or less) the composition is a hydraulic binder [0010][0019]
Regarding Claim 2:
Shao et al (WO 2018/102931A1) discloses the limitations above set forth. Shao discloses ladle slag having particle size distribution at d50 of 18.8 microns [0073] (meeting the limitation of claim 1 for a composition comprising at least one ladle slag with a particle size distribution by vol D50 40 microns or less) the composition is a hydraulic binder [0010][0019]
PNG
media_image1.png
514
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(meeting the limitations of claim 2)
Regarding Claim 6:
Shao discloses the limitations above set forth. Shao discloses the composition further comprises Portland Cement [0047] (meeting claim 6)
The composition comprises aggregates [0010] [0051]
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.
REJECTION SECTION 103
Shao et al (WO 2018/102931A1)
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al (WO 2018/102931A1) as applied to claims 1-2 and 6 above further in view of Ladle slag cement-Characterization of hydration and Conversion by Adesanya, Sreenivasan, Kantola, Telkki, Ohenoja, Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 193 (2018) 128-134 (referred to as “Ladle”)
Regarding Claims 3-4, 5 and 16-17
Shao WO 2018/102931 discloses the limitations above set forth Shao discloses the ladle slag having particle size distribution at d50 of 18.8 microns [0073] (meeting the limitation of claim 5 for a composition comprising at least one ladle slag with a particle size distribution by vol D50 40 microns or less) The slag has a SiO.sub.2 content of 6 or more or at least about 15 % [0039] (overlapping claim 16)
Particle size distribution of the slag is preferable less than 20 microns [0041] (meeting claim 5 and overlapping the ranges of claim 17)
Shao teaches the composition comprises ladle slag. As such the composition will necessarily possess the claimed constituents in ranges which meet and/or overlap the claimed ranges of SiO.sub.2, CaO, Al.sub.2O.sub.3 and crystalline phases
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, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Assuming arguendo the ladle slag of Shao does not render obvious the crystalline phase of calcium aluminate type of claims 3-4 and 16.
Ladle slag cement-Characterization of hydration and Conversion by Adesanya, Sreenivasan, Kantola, Telkki, Ohenoja, Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 193 (2018) 128-134 (referred to as “Ladle”)
“Ladle” teaches a similar composition to that of Shao using ladle slag and providing the content of the instantly claimed constituents and crystalline phases. Ladle teaches ladle slag has hydraulic properties and is used in a binder (See Abstract P128 and P129 C1 L2-7)
Ladle slag cement-Characterization of hydration and Conversion by Adesanya, Sreenivasan, Kantola, Telkki, Ohenoja, Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 193 (2018) 128-134 teaches ladle slag from steel making used in Cementous materials (Abstract) The ladle slag with a d50 below 10 microns (P128 section 2.1 last col last par) (overlapping the claimed range of less than 40 microns by volume)
Further regarding Claim 16:
PNG
media_image2.png
210
1062
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(being within the claimed ranges)
Further Regarding Claims 3-4 and 5:
Ladle slag is predominantly crystalline slag with a large proportion of fine particles from the breakdown or conversion of larnite to calcium olivinE during cooing the ladle slag typically consists of CaO Alsubs2 O.sub.3 SiO.sub.2 and MGO and its mineralogical phases are mayenite C12A1 and tricalcium aluminate. The content can vary between plants due to difference in de oxidation process and type of oxides. (P128 First col.)
Ladle slag is known to have hydraulic properties, which means that it reacts with water to produce cement-like hydration products. c-C2S is poorly hydraulic under normal hydration conditions, however C12A7 is known to be highly hydraulic, reacting quickly when in contact with water [6]. Based on chemical composition and reaction mechanism, ladle slag can be compared with calcium aluminate cement (CAC) which is a high-value cement used in niche applications, such as refractories, rapid-hardening repair mortars, floor levelers and in orthopedics [7,8]. Therefore, the hydration reactions in CAC cements are well-understood, and due to the mineralogical similarities between LS and CAC, the hydration of ladle slag could be further understood. Typically, calcium aluminate cement is characterized by high content of aluminum and calcium, with the main reactive phase identified as CA. (P129 Col 1)
In mineralogical analyses of ladle slag, they identified major crystalline phases to be pleochroite/Q-phase (C20A13M3S3), C12A7 and C3A.(P129 col 2)
The reference example:
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Materials The chemical composition of the slowly cooled ladle slag (LS) that was used in the studies is presented in Table 1. Free CaO for the LS was measured to be 0.4 wt.% using the method in the standard EN 450-1 [21]. The major mineralogy phases of ladle slag are c-C2S, C12A7,C3A and minor traces of periclase (see Fig. 2) (meeting claims 3 for calcium aluminate type and C3A and C12A7) . Calcium aluminate content of the slag has been previously analyzed to be 53.3 wt.% and an amorphous content of 21.3 wt.% [9] (meeting claim 3 and 7-8 for calcium aluminate) . The received LS had median particle size (d50) of about 34 microns and was further ball milled to achieve d50 below 10 microns determined (within the range of claim 1 and 5) using laser diffraction technique (Beckman Coulter LS 13320). Analytical grade citric acid (C1949, Tokyo Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Japan) was used as retarder (P129) See also Fig 2 of reference for crystalline phases of C3A and C12A7)
PNG
media_image2.png
210
1062
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(P130) (meeting claim 2 and 16)
The ladle slag with a d50 below 10 microns (P128 section 2.1 last col last par) (overlapping the claimed range of less than 20 microns by volume of claim 5 and between 8 and 15 microns of claim 17)
It would have been obvious to use the ladle slag with the content of CaO Al.sub.2O.sub.3, SiO.sub.2 and crystalline configuration and content and calcium aluminate as taught by Ladle in the composition of Shao as it is suitable for forming hydraulic binder compositions and will improve the hydraulic and hydration properties of the composition therein.
Regarding Claims 7-8:
Shao discloses the limitations above set forth.
Regarding claim 7: the claim recites ranges of cement and aluminous cement including zero As such for claim 7 these are not required. Only the ladle slag and calcium sulfate are required.
The composition is a binder consisting essentially of steel slag [0023] and may include cement and a slag; cement ratio of up to 20 [0024] (overlapping claim 7 and 8 for 5-80 % slag or 10-70 % slag and 0-50 % Portland cement and 2 to 35 % Portland cement) Steel slag includes ladle slag [0033-0034] and given the ranges of same renders obvious alumina cement in a range overlapping that of the instant claims (i.e. slag 20, cement 20, Portland 40, leaving 20 for aluminous cement)
PNG
media_image3.png
338
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Quick setting cement is also recited which comprises both calcium aluminate and calcium sulfate components thereby rendering obvious claims 7-8.
The composition also includes aggregates such as clay, shale, expanded slag, expanded steel slag, expanded iron slag, gravel, limestone aggregate + cement + slag ranges from 0.2 to 0.8 [0052]
"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
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)
REJECTION SECTION 103
Ladle slag cement-Characterization of hydration and Conversion by Adesanya, Sreenivasan, Kantola, Telkki, Ohenoja, Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 193 (2018) 128-134
Claim(s)1-5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladle slag cement-Characterization of hydration and Conversion by Adesanya, Sreenivasan, Kantola, Telkki, Ohenoja, Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 193 (2018) 128-134 (referred to as “Ladle”)
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Ladle slag cement-Characterization of hydration and Conversion by Adesanya, Sreenivasan, Kantola, Telkki, Ohenoja, Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 193 (2018) 128-134 teaches ladle slag from steel making used in Cementous materials (Abstract) The ladle slag with a d50 below 10 microns (P128 section 2.1 last col last par) (overlapping the claimed range of less than 40 microns by volume)
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)"
Regarding Dependent Claims 2-5 and 16:
Ladle discloses the limitations above set forth.
Further regarding Claims 2 and 16:
PNG
media_image2.png
210
1062
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(being within the claimed ranges)
Further Regarding Claims 3-4 and 5:
Ladle slag is predominantly crystalline slag with a large proportion of fine particles from the breakdown or conversion of larnite to calcium olivinE during cooing the ladle slag typically consists of CaO Alsubs2 O.sub.3 SiO.sub.2 and MGO and its mineralogical phases are mayenite C12A1 and tricalcium aluminate. The content can vary between plants due to difference in de oxidation process and type of oxides. (P128 First col.)
Ladle slag is known to have hydraulic properties, which means that it reacts with water to produce cement-like hydration products. c-C2S is poorly hydraulic under normal hydration conditions, however C12A7 is known to be highly hydraulic, reacting quickly when in contact with water [6]. Based on chemical composition and reaction mechanism, ladle slag can be compared with calcium aluminate cement (CAC) which is a high-value cement used in niche applications, such as refractories, rapid-hardening repair mortars, floor levelers and in orthopedics [7,8]. Therefore, the hydration reactions in CAC cements are well-understood, and due to the mineralogical similarities between LS and CAC, the hydration of ladle slag could be further understood. Typically, calcium aluminate cement is characterized by high content of aluminum and calcium, with the main reactive phase identified as CA. (P129 Col 1)
In mineralogical analyses of ladle slag, they identified major crystalline phases to be pleochroite/Q-phase (C20A13M3S3), C12A7 and C3A.(P129 col 2)
The reference example:
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Materials The chemical composition of the slowly cooled ladle slag (LS) that was used in the studies is presented in Table 1. Free CaO for the LS was measured to be 0.4 wt.% using the method in the standard EN 450-1 [21]. The major mineralogy phases of ladle slag are c-C2S, C12A7,C3A and minor traces of periclase (see Fig. 2) (meeting claims 3 for calcium aluminate type and C3A and C12A7) Calcium aluminate content of the slag has been previously analyzed to be 53.3 wt.% and an amorphous content of 21.3 wt.% [9] (meeting claim 3) . The received LS had median particle size (d50) of about 34 microns and was further ball milled to achieve d50 below 10 microns determined (within the range of claim 1 and 5) using laser diffraction technique (Beckman Coulter LS 13320). Analytical grade citric acid (C1949, Tokyo Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Japan) was used as retarder (P129) See also Fig 2 of reference for crystalline phases of C3A and C12A7)
PNG
media_image2.png
210
1062
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(P130) (meeting claim 2 and 16)
The ladle slag with a d50 below 10 microns (P128 section 2.1 last col last par) (overlapping the claimed range of less than 20 microns by volume of claim 5 and between 8 and 15 microns of claim 17)
Claim(s) 6-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladle slag cement-Characterization of hydration and Conversion by Adesanya, Sreenivasan, Kantola, Telkki, Ohenoja, Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 193 (2018) 128-134 as applied to claims 1-5 and 16 above further in view of Sattler et al (US 5,030,289)
Ladle Slag teaches the limitations above set forth
The ladle slag with a d50 below 10 microns (P128 section 2.1 last col last par) (overlapping the claimed range of less than 20 microns by volume of claim 5 and between 8 and 15 microns of claim 17)
Ladle slag teaches the material is used as a cementitious material in construction. (Abstract) and is a promising cement like binder (P129 C1 send par)
Based on chemical composition and reaction mechanism, ladle slag can be compared with calcium aluminate cement (CAC) which is a high-value cement used in niche applications, such as refractories, rapid-hardening repair mortars, floor levelers and in orthopedics (p129 col L3-20 approx.)
As such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try to combine the ladle slag and a calcium aluminate cement (i.e. aluminous cement) as both are used for the same purposes. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)
Ladle does not disclose the ladle slag cement like material combined with one or more cement etc. as in instant claims 6-8 or the amounts/ratios thereof
Satttler, et. al (US 5,030,289) discloses construction products comprising a binder which consist of 60-80 5 of a latently hydraulic component of a ground slag and 15-25 % of calcium sulfate, 3-10 % Portland cement. The slag has 8-15% amorphous reactive Al.sub.2O.sub.3 1-10 % MgO and 35-45 % CaO (C4 L55-65) the binder when hardened forms water and weatherproof and crystalline hardened product (C4 l5-68) (given the amount of slag, calcium sulfate and Portland cement, the the ranges will overlap the instantly claimed ranges including calcium aluminate cement)
"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
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)
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)"
REJECTION SECTION 103
Byproduct based ettringite binder A synergy between ladle slag and gypsum Nguyen Adesanya Ohenoja Kriskova Pontikes Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019 14-151)
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Byproduct based ettringite binder A synergy between ladle slag and gypsum Nguyen Adesanya Ohenoja Kriskova Pontikes Kinnunen and Illikainen Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019 14-151)
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Byproduct teaches ladles slag used in binders (P144 C1 third par approx.)
In the examples a commercially available gypsum is used with a d50 of 11.5 microns and the ladle slag was ground to a particles size distribution D50 value less than 10 microns (P144 C1 first 2 par) 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)"
Regarding claims 2-7 and 16-17
Byproduct teaches ladles slag used in binders (P144 C1 third par approx.)
PNG
media_image4.png
336
566
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(meeting claims 3-4)
PNG
media_image5.png
204
1028
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(meeting claims 2 and claim 16)
A commercially available gypsum (CaSO42H2O) (P144 C1 par 2) (i.e. calcium sulfate)
Gypsum meeting the limitation for calcium sulfate of claim 7
PNG
media_image6.png
150
554
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(meeting the claimed ranges of claims 7 and 8 for ladle slag and for gypsum
15.7% ladle slag and 6.7 % calcium sulfate in the form of gypsum (meting claims 7-8 (total grams 2002.5 315/2002.5 x 100 and 135/2002.5 x100 for percentages)
In the examples a commercially available gypsum is used with a d50 of 11.5 microns and the ladle slag was ground to a particles size distribution D50 value less than 10 microns (P144 C1 first 2 par) 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)"
(teaching away from Portland cement)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action. For example:
US 2017/0260096 discloses concrete pavers comprising slag and gypsum the gypsum is 1-25 wt.5 of the mixture [0050] and calcium aluminate in a range of 0.1 to 10 wt. % [0051]
Frouin, Chaocuche et al (WO 2019/110134A1) discloses ground granulate slag binder or mortar or concrete composition which is an substitute to ordinary Portland cement based composition (Abstract) The composition comprises at least one slag and at least one co binder different from the at least one slag. (See claim 1) the slag has a D50 of 7-20 microns or 3-7 microns or 0.5 to 3 microns (See claim 2 reference) the co-binder includes at last one of ladle slag and Portland cements (See claims 5 reference)
The composition comprises Slag A with a co-binder B which includes at least one compound of calcium aluminate, silica fume, ladle slags etc. (P8 L28-35) the co-binder includes ordinary Portland cement etc. (P9 L1-3) Slag A is a hydraulic binder (P9 L10-14) Slag A with B preferable at last 30 % or more with a proportion of A:B of 40-99.9 % (P9 L1-8) (overlapping the range of claims 7-8)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732