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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 05 June 2026. After entry of the amendment, claims 1, 3, 5-10, 13, 16-22, 26, 29 and 32.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 19, 21 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, applicant recites “dry cementitious mixture” however lines 5 and 8, applicant recites “cementitious mixture”. Applicant needs to use consistent terminology by inserting the term “dry” before “cementitious”.
In claim 3, line 2, applicant recites “dry cementitious mixture” however lines 5 and 8, applicant recites “cementitious mixture”. Applicant needs to use consistent terminology by inserting the term “dry” before “cementitious”.
In claims 5-9, 19, 21 and 29 the phrase “cementitious mixture” should be “dry cementitious mixture”.
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.
Claim 29 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.
The claim is confusing as written and therefore vague and indefinite as applicant states that the concrete is a dry cementitious mixture in line 1 however water is listed as a component in line 3. Clearly it cannot be dry if water is present. Clarification is requested.
Claim Interpretation
Based on the 112(b) rejection above, the examiner is interpreting claim 29 as not being a dry mixture since water is present.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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, 5-6, 13, 16-18, 21-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korea Patent Specification No. KR 10-2020-0058640A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a composition comprising 70 wt.% ordinary Portland cement (OPC), 10 wt.% blast furnace slag, 10 wt.% anhydrous gypsum, 10 wt.% quicklime, 1- 5 wt.% CSA which is usually replaced by Portland cement (OPC) as starting material. The composition is subject to dry mixing and then preparing a mixture by adding 130 wt.% mixed water to the starting material.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches ordinary Portland cement and quicklime (calcium oxide). The amount of the calcium oxide based on the cementitious materials falls within the claimed range and therefore anticipation exists. The composition is mixed with water.
As for claim 5, the amount of Portland cement and the slag (SCM) falls within the second range (20 to 100% OPC and 0 to 80% SCM) and the slag meets the SCM and falls with
As for claim 6, the amount of the calcium oxide (quicklime) falls within the claims range of 8% to 12%.
As for claim 13, the calcium content of the quicklime meets the first range (67 to 100%).
As for claim 16 the reference teaches quicklime.
As for claim 17, the SCM is not required according to claim 1, just that if it is, it be selected from the recited materials.
As for claim 18, the reference teaches that the water is added after the dry mixture is formed which meets the first limitation.
As for claim 21, a retarder may be added (paragraph [0011]).
As for claim 22, it is believed that the resulting material would be considered a cement paste, grout or mortar.
As for claim 26, the composition is capable of being used as a concrete admixture.
Claims 1, 13, 16-19, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Limberis (US Patent No. 3,623,898 A).
The reference teaches, in Example 1, an interior plaster coating composition:
PNG
media_image1.png
97
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Column 2, lines 2-5 states that the term “lime” refers to quicklime or finish lime and any commercially available lime can be employed. The composition is mixed with water.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches Portland cement and quicklime (calcium oxide). The amount of the calcium oxide based on the cementitious materials falls within the claimed range and therefore anticipation exists. The composition is mixed with water.
As for claim 13, the quicklime would meet the first limitation.
As for claim 16 the reference teaches quicklime.
As for claim 17, the SCM is not required according to claim 1, just that if it is, it be selected from the recited materials.
As for claim 18, the reference teaches that the water is added after the dry mixture is formed which meets the first limitation.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches fine aggregates (sand).
As for claim 20, the reference teaches sand.
As for claim 22, the plaster coating composition would meet the cement paste or grout.
As for claim 26, the composition is capable of being used as concrete admixture.
Claims 1, 13, 16-19, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Russia Patent Specification No. RU 2304127 C1.
The reference teaches, on page 2, lines 18+ and the claims, a dry mixture for non-autoclaved aerated concrete, including Portland cement, quicklime, ground sand and aluminum powder, and additionally contains textile cord in the following ratio of components, wt.%: Portland cement 40.1-45.8 Lime 8.1-9.2 Ground sand 41.3-48.0 Textile cord 3,5-8,5 Aluminum powder 0.210-0.214. The components are mixed with water to form a concrete.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement and quicklime (calcium oxide). The amount of quicklime falls within the claimed range and therefore anticipated exists. The composition is mixed with water.
As for claim 13, the quicklime would meet the first limitation.
As for claim 16 the reference teaches quicklime.
As for claim 17, the SCM is not required according to claim 1, just that if it is, it be selected from the recited materials.
As for claim 18, the reference teaches that the water is added after the dry mixture is formed which meets the first limitation.
As for claim 22, the composition is a concrete and comprises sand.
As for claim 26, the composition is capable of being used as concrete admixture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 10 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea Patent Specification No. KR 10-2020-0058640A as evidenced by the National Lime Association Document.
Korea Patent Specification No. KR 10-2020-0058640A was discussed previously.
The National Lime Association Document is relied on to show the commercially available sizes of quicklime. According to the document:
PNG
media_image2.png
232
1362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The instant claims are obvious.
As for claims 10 and 32 while the Korea Patent Specification No. KR 10-2020-0058640A reference does not recite the particle size of the quicklime, it is known that quicklime is commercially available in many different sizes (see the evidentiary document) and accordingly it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the size desired. Therefore as the sizes of the quicklime commercially available fall within some of the claimed ranges and accordingly the claims are obvious.
Claims 10 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limberis (US Patent No. 3,623,898 A) as evidenced by the National Lime Association Document.
Limberis (US Patent No. 3,623,898 A) was discussed previously.
The National Lime Association Document is relied on to show the commercially available sizes of quicklime. According to the document:
PNG
media_image2.png
232
1362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The instant claims are obvious.
As for claims 10 and 32 while the Limberis (US Patent No. 3,623,898 A) reference does not recite the particle size of the quicklime, it is known that quicklime is commercially available in many different sizes (see the evidentiary document) and accordingly it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the size desired. As the reference concerns a mortar it would be obvious to use a size used in mortars. Therefore as the sizes of the quicklime commercially available fall within some of the claimed ranges and accordingly the claims are obvious.
Claims 10 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russia Patent Specification No. RU 2304127 C1 as evidenced by the National Lime Association Document.
Russia Patent Specification No. RU 2304127 C1was discussed previously.
The National Lime Association Document is relied on to show the commercially available sizes of quicklime. According to the document:
The instant claims are obvious.
As for claims 10 and 32 while the Russia Patent Specification No. RU 2304127 C1 reference does not recite the particle size of the quicklime, it is known that quicklime is commercially available in many different sizes (see the evidentiary document) and accordingly it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the size desired. As the reference concerns a mortar it would be obvious to use a size used in mortars. Therefore as the sizes of the quicklime commercially available fall within some of the claimed ranges and accordingly the claims are obvious.
Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 26, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 as evidenced by the National Lime Association Document.
The Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 reference teaches, in the abstract, a concrete composition for the ultra-high strength PHC pile is composed by including 110-170 kg/m3 of water; 500-850 kg/m3 of a bonding agent; 400-750 kg/m3 of fine aggregate; and 900-1,400 kg/m3 of coarse aggregate, wherein the bonding agent is composed of 65-90 wt% of cement and 10-35 wt% of a high strength admixture, and the cement is composed of 1-55 wt% of type 1 ordinary cement and 45-99 wt% of type 3 Portland cement, and the high strength additive is composed by including 40-55 wt% of calcium oxide (CaO, quicklime), 15-25 wt% of sulfur trioxide (SO3), 5-10 wt% of alumina (Al2O3), and 5-10 wt% of alpha-hemihydrate gypsum (CaSO4 ∙ ½ H2O), and polycarboxylate-based high performance water reducing agent including amine-based surfactant and methylcellulose-based viscosity agent is added to the bonding agent by 1.5-2.5 wt% thereof. The fine aggregate may be sand (see claim 2). According to the claims the concrete is formed by the following steps: the fine aggregate, cement and high-strength mixture is first mixed, the water and the polycarboxylate-based high performance reducing agent is added to the second mixture, then the coarse aggregate is added.
The National Lime Association Document is relied on to show the commercially available sizes of quicklime. According to the document:
PNG
media_image2.png
232
1362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 reference teaches a concrete comprising Type I ordinary cement (Portland cement), CaO or quick lime, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. The fine aggregate, cement and high strength mixture (which comprises quick lime) are mixed the water and a reducing agent are added and then the coarse aggregate. Based on the amount of the high strength mixture which contains quick lime and other components and the amount of the cement components, the amount of quick lime overlaps the claimed range and 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05. As the water is added to the mixture of Portland cement and quick lime, the claimed sequence of steps is met.
As for claim 3, the Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 reference teaches a concrete comprising Type I ordinary cement (Portland cement), CaO or quick lime, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. The fine aggregate, cement and high strength mixture (which comprises quick lime) are mixed the water and a reducing agent are added and then the coarse aggregate. Based on the amount of the high strength mixture which contains quick lime and other components and the amount of the cement components, the amount of quick lime overlaps the claimed range and 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05. While the reference does not recite the same sequence of steps as the gravel is added after the water, it is believed that the result is still the same. According to MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C): The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
As for claim 5, the amount of Portland cement falls within the second range (20 to 100% OPC and 0 to 80% SCM).
As for claim 6, the amount overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 7, it is while the reference teaches an amount of binder content outside of the claimed range, it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of binder content depending on the properties desired by the composition. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As for claim 8, the Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 reference teaches an amount of 500-850 kg/m3 which falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 9, the Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 reference teaches an amount of 500-850 kg/m3 which overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 10 while the Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 reference does not recite the particle size of the quicklime, it is known that quicklime is commercially available in many different sizes (see the evidentiary document) and accordingly it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the size desired. As the reference concerns a mortar it would be obvious to use a size used in mortars. Therefore as the sizes of the quicklime commercially available fall within some of the claimed ranges and accordingly the claims are obvious.
As for claim 16, the reference teaches quicklime.
As for claim 17, the SCM is not required according to claim 1, just that if it is, it be selected from the recited materials.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches fine and coarse aggregates.
As for claim 20, the reference teaches sand.
As for claim 22, the reference teaches a concrete.
As for claim 26, the composition is capable of being used as a concrete admixture.
As for claim 29, the Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 reference teaches a concrete comprising Type I ordinary cement (Portland cement), CaO or quick lime, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. The fine aggregate, cement and high strength mixture (which comprises quick lime) are mixed the water and a reducing agent are added and then the coarse aggregate. Based on the amount of the high strength mixture which contains quick lime and other components and the amount of the cement components, the amount of quick lime overlaps the claimed range and 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 32 while the Korea Patent Specification No. KR101613900 B1 reference does not recite the particle size of the quicklime, it is known that quicklime is commercially available in many different sizes (see the evidentiary document) and accordingly it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the size desired. As the reference concerns a mortar it would be obvious to use a size used in mortars. Therefore as the sizes of the quicklime commercially available fall within some of the claimed ranges and accordingly the claims are obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to previous claim rejections 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.
Rule 1.132 Declaration
Applicant’s declaration was submitted to show that unexpected results have been achieved when using certain amounts of Ca(OH)2 and has been reviewed and is, however not relevant to the instant rejections all of which recite calcium oxide as the calcium compound.
With respect to the 102 rejections, these cannot be overcome by an affidavit.
With respect to the 103 rejection of the claims over Korea Patent Specification o. KR101613900 B1 which recites overlapping ranges, the declaration does not show unexpected results when calcium oxide is used as the calcium compound.
Conclusion
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 ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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 R. 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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights