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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted on 07 May 2024 has been entered. After entry claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-22, 26 and 29 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner interprets “binder” in the claims as including cement, SCM and any material that may be considered to be a binder.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 10, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 6, the phrase “about about” should be “about”.
In claim 10, it is believed that “204 m” should be “204 mm” as that is how it appears in the specification.
In claim 22, line 1, the term “1-“ should be “1” 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-22, 26 and 29 are 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.
In the claims, the use of the term “about” renders the claim vague and indefinite as applicant has not disclosed what range of values the term “about” represents. For example, in claim 1, it is unclear as to what value is encompassed by “about 3.1%”. Is it ±10% of 3.1% or what? Also it is unclear as to what the percentages of the components are based on. Are they by weight or volume. Clarification is requested.
In claim 1, the phrases “the dosage” and “the binder content” lack proper antecedent basis. Also it is unclear as to which components applicant considers as the binder. Is it just the cement or does it include the SCM and any other component that can be considered to be a binder? Clarification is requested.
In claim 2, the phrases “the dosage” and “the binder content” lack proper antecedent basis. Also it is unclear as to which components applicant considers as the binder. Is it just the cement or does it include the SCM and any other component that can be considered to be a binder? Clarification is requested.
In claim 3, the phrases “the dosage” and “the binder content” lack proper antecedent basis. Also it is unclear as to which components applicant considers as the binder. Is it just the cement or does it include the SCM and any other component that can be considered to be a binder? Clarification is requested.
In claim 6, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “about 8% to about 12%, about 6.5% to about 30%, about 6.5% to about 20%, about 6.5% to about 15%, about 6.5% to about 12%, about 6.5% to about 10%, about 6.5% to about 8%, about 8% to about 30%, about 8% to about 20%, about 8% to about 15%, about 8% to about 10%, about 3.1% to about 35%, about 25% to about 35%, about 25% to about 30%, about 15% to about 25%, about 10% to about 35%, about 10% to about 30%, about 10% to about 15%, about 3.1% to about 25%, about 3.1% to about 20%, about 3.1% to about 15%”, and the claim also recites “or about 3.1% to about 10%, about 3.1% to about 8%, about 3.1% to about 6.5%, about 5% to about 25%, about 5% to about 20%, about 5% to about 15%, about 5% to about 10%, about 10% to about 20%, about 20% to about 30%, or about 20% to about 25% of the total binder content of the cementitious mixture” and “optionally about 8% to about 12%” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 8, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “about 300 kg/m3 to about 500 kg/m3; about 200 kg/m3 to about 700 kg/m3, about 300 kg/m3 to about 700 kg/m3, about 400 kg/m3 to about 700 kg/m3, about 200 kg/m3 to about 600 kg/m3, about 300 kg/m3 to about 600 kg/m3, about 400 kg/m3 to about 600 kg/m3, about 500 kg/m3 to about 600 kg/m3, or about 200 kg/m3 to about 300 kg/m3” and the claim also recites “optionally about about 300 kg/m3 to about 500 kg/m3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recites a range of “about 63 mm to 204 mm” (the claim recites “204 m” however clearly this a typo, see the above claim objection). This range is confusing as it is unclear as to how a cement composition can comprise a calcium compound having a size of about 204 mm which corresponds to 8.0134 inches. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite due to the use of the phrase “optionally comprising magnesium oxide” as magnesium oxide is clearly not a calcium compound.
In claim 16, the phrase “comprises, consists of, or consists essentially of” renders the claim confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as it is unclear as to the exact scope of the claim as “comprising” is open terminology, “consists of” is closes terminology and “consists essentially of” is partially closed terminology. That is, is the claim open to the addition of other components or closed. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “comprises” and the claim also recites “consists of” and “consists essentially of” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as it first recites that the SCM may be selected from fly ash and other materials and then the claim recites “optionally fly ash”. Accordingly it is unclear as to whether or not fly ash is intended to be an example of the SCM material. Clarification is requested.
In claim 19, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “fine aggregate”, and the claim also recites “optionally wherein the fine aggregates comprise one or more of one or more of sand, crushed stone, silt, stone dust, and clay” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 29, the phrases “the dosage” and “the binder content” lack proper antecedent basis.
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 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 15-19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baes (US Patent No. 4,840,672 A).
The reference teaches, in column 3, lines 8+, a composition comprising (a) 50-75 (preferably 55-65) wt.% cement; (b) 0-5 (preferably 2-4) wt.% cellulose fibres; (c) 0.5-4 (preferably 0.8-1.5) wt.% alkali-resistant fibre material; (d) 5-20 (preferably 10-15) wt.% mica; (e) 5-20 (preferably 8-18) wt.% light filler; and (f) 8-25 (preferably 10-18) wt.% hydrated lime (i.e. calcium hydroxide). The cement is preferably Portland cement. The light filler may be expanded perlite, puffed clay, xonotlite aggregates or ground foam concrete. A process wherein an excess of water is added and mixed is also taught. See also the examples.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition that comprises Portland cement and 8-25 (preferable 10-18) wt% hydrated lime. The hydrated lime meets the calcium compound and the range falls within the claimed range. The addition of water is taught.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a composition that comprises cement and 8-25 (preferably 10-18) wt% hydrated lime. The hydrated lime meets the calcium compound and the range falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches Portland cement. This meets the limitation of “about 20% to about 100% OPC”.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches an amount that falls within a number of the claimed ranges.
As for claim 12, the hydrated lime is also known as calcium hydroxide.
As for claim 13, the hydrated lime is seen to meet the third limitation recited in the claim.
As for claim 15, the hydrated lime is seen to meet the first limitation in the claim.
As for claim 16, the hydrated lime is believed to meet the calcium hydrated lime.
As for claim 17, while the reference does not recite the addition of a SCM, this claim is met as a SCM does not need to be present, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in the instant claim.
As for claim 18, the water is added to the composition thus meet the first limitation.
As for claim 19, the light filler which may be include xonotlite aggregates or ground foam concrete is seen to meet the fine aggregate or coarse aggregate.
As for claim 26, the composition can serve as a concrete admixture.
Claims 1-2, 6, 12-14, 17-18, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Russia Patent Specification No. RU 2707837 C1.
The reference teaches, in the claims, a Cement grout containing PCT-1-50 grouting Portland cement, an expanding component and a 4% aqueous calcium chloride solution, characterized in that the grouting cement contains calcium oxide as an expanding component, while it additionally contains microsilica in the following ratio, wt . %:
calcium oxide
10-15
microsilica
12-16
cement Portland cement -PTsT-1-50
rest,
and the content of a 4% aqueous solution of calcium chloride in the grouting mortar provides a ratio of the aqueous mixture to the base from 0.6 to 0.7. See also the examples.1
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising Portland cement, calcium oxide and aqueous calcium chloride which meets the calcium compound and microsilica which meets the SCM. The amount of calcium oxide and calcium chloride falls within the claimed range. As for the addition of water, the water is present in the aqueous solution of calcium chloride.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a composition comprising Portland cement, calcium oxide and aqueous calcium chloride which meets the calcium compound and microsilica.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches an amount that falls within a number of the claimed ranges.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches calcium oxide.
As for claim 13, the reference meets the first limitation.
As for claim 14, the reference meets the first limitation.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches microsilica.
As for claim 18, the water is added after step (a) in combination with the calcium chloride solution.
As for claim 22, the reference teaches a cement grout.
As for claim 26, the composition meets the admixture of the claim.
Claim 2 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 103626443 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a waterproof material which consists of 42% Portland cement, 1% sodium methyl naphthalene sulfonate condensate, 7% siloxane, 6% calcium hydroxide, 10% bentonite, 28% quartz sand, and 6% aluminum potassium sulfate dodecahydrate.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a composition comprising Portland cement and calcium hydroxide which meets the calcium compound. The components are mixed together.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 12, 17-18, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Indonesia Patent Specification No. ID 202001753 U1.
The reference teaches, in the examples, various compositions comprising OPC (Ordinary Portland cement), fly ash, GCC (ground calcium carbonate) and Ca(OH)2. Example 1 teaches a made from 60% OPC, 35% Fly ash and 5% GCC (ground calcium carbonate) which is mixed with an NaOH solution. Example 2 teaches a paste made from 50% OPC, 43% Fly ash and 7% GCC (ground calcium carbonate) which is mixed with an NaOH solution. Example 3 teaches a paste made from 40% OPC, 47% Fly ash and 3% GCC (ground calcium carbonate) which is mixed with an NaOH solution. Example 4 teaches a paste made from 30% OPC, 62% Fly ash; 5% GCC 30 (ground calcium carbonate); 3% Ca(OH)2 which is mixed with an NaOH solution. Example 5 teaches a paste made from 20% OPC, 77% Fly ash and 3% PCC 5 (ground calcium carbonate) which is mixed with an NaOH solution.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches Ordinary Portland cement that meets the Portland cement component. The fly ash meets the SCM, the calcium carbonate and the calcium hydroxide meets the calcium compound. The amount of the calcium carbonate and the calcium hydroxide falls within the claimed range. As for the addition of water, it is known in the art an NaOH solution is NaOH in a water solution. This meets the water.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches Ordinary Portland cement that meets the Portland cement component. The fly ash meets the SCM, the calcium carbonate and the calcium hydroxide meets the calcium compound. The amount of the calcium carbonate and the calcium hydroxide falls within the claimed range. As for the addition of water, it is known in the art an NaOH solution is NaOH in a water solution. This meets the water.
As for claim 5, the reference meets the limitations recited in the instant claim based on the ranges of amounts of Ordinary Portland cement and the fly ash (SCM).
As for claim 6, the amount of the calcium carbonate and the calcium hydroxide falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches, in claim 7 that the GCC has a size a maximum size of 45 μm, preferably have an average particle diameter of up to 10 μm and this size falls within some of the limitations found in this claim.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches calcium hydroxide.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches fly ash.
As for claim 18, the components are mixed with the NaOH solution and this meets the limitation of step b) occurring after step a)
As for claim 22, the reference teaches a cement paste.
As for claim 26, the composition meets the claimed concrete admixture as it comprises the same component.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10, 17-19, 21-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 111960755 A.
The reference teaches, in example 1, a method for preparing fine-grained concrete using dredged sand as the main raw material of the present invention specifically includes the following steps;
Step 1: Weigh 250kg/m3 of cement, 1500kg/m3 of dredged sand, 100kg/m3 of limestone powder, and 100kg/m3 of glass powder, add them to the mixer and dry mix for 1min until the mixture is uniform.
Step two, then add polycarboxylic acid superplasticizer 3.75kg/m3 and water 150kg/m3 by blending method. The water and materials are wet-mixed for 30 seconds, and then the water-reducing agent is wet-mixed for 60 seconds until the mixing is uniform.
The cement is Ordinary Portland cement.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a concrete comprising at least Portland cement, limestone powder, glass powder, a superplasticizer and water. The glass powder meets the SCM. The limestone meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that falls within the claimed range. The water is added with the superplasticizer.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a concrete comprising at least Portland cement, limestone powder, glass powder, a superplasticizer and water. The glass powder meets the SCM. The limestone meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 5, the amount of the Portland cement and SCM falls within the first 2 limitations in the claim.
As for claim 6, the amount of the limestone (the calcium compound) falls within a number of the claimed ranges.
As for claim 8, the total binder content (Portland cement + limestone) is 350 kg/m3 which falls within at least the first 2 limitations.
As for claim 10, the particle size is less than 80 µm which falls at least in the range of the first and second limitation.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches glass powder.
As for claim 18, the water is added with the superplasticizer to the other components and this is seen to meet the first limitation.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches sand as fine aggregates.
As for claim 21, the reference teaches the addition of a superplasticizer.
As for claim 22, the composition is a concrete.
As for claim 26, the composition meets the admixture of the claim.
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 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 17-18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atakan (US Patent Publication No. US 20170204010 A1).
The reference teaches, in paragraphs [0014] and [0062], an activator comprising one of the following materials: OPC (1-70 wt %), free lime (1-20 wt %), calcium hydroxide (1-20 wt %), and alkali hydroxides (NaOH, KOH 1 to 10 wt %), individually or in combination.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches ordinary Portland cement, and free lime and calcium hydroxide that meets the calcium compound. The amount of the free lime and calcium hydroxide 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. The addition of water is also taught.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches ordinary Portland cement, and free lime and calcium hydroxide that meets the calcium compound. The amount of the free lime and calcium hydroxide 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 5, the reference meets the second limitation.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches an amount that either falls within or overlaps the claimed ranges.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide.
As for claim 13, the reference teaches amounts of calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide that overlaps some of the claimed ranges.
As for claim 17, while the reference does not recite the addition of a SCM, this claim is met as a SCM does not need to be present, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in the instant claim.
As for claim 18, it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine when to add the water to a composition.
As for claim 26, the reference which teaches an activator component meets the claimed concrete admixture.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 17-18, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Patent Specification No. JP 2001181013 A.
The reference teaches, in paragraph [0006] and claims 2 and 4, a hydraulic inorganic material contains 5-30% of sodium silicate, 0-20% of magnesium silicofluoride, 20-60% of ordinary Portland cement and 0-40% of calcium hydroxide. The composition further comprises water and a retarder and an accelerator.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches ordinary Portland cement and calcium hydroxide which meets the calcium compound. The amount of the calcium hydroxide 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. The addition of water is also taught.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches ordinary Portland cement and calcium hydroxide which meets the calcium compound. The amount of the calcium hydroxide 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 5, the amount of cement meets the second limitation.
As for claim 6, the amount meets most of the claimed ranges.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches calcium hydroxide.
As for claim 13, the reference meets the last limitation.
As for claim 17, while the reference does not recite the addition of a SCM, this claim is met as a SCM does not need to be present, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in the instant claim.
As for claim 18, the water is added after step (a).
As for claim 21, the reference teaches retarders.
As for claim 26, the composition meets the claimed admixture.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 17-20, 22, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korea Patent Specification No. KR 10-2229203 B1 .
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a quick-hardening cement concrete composition comprises 3-55 wt.% super-fast setting binder, 5-70 wt.% fine aggregate, 3-60 wt.% coarse aggregate, 0.01-30 wt.% modifying admixture, and 0.1-30 wt.% water. The super-fast setting binder comprises 50-70 pts. wt. boron nitride, 50-70 pts. wt. lithium metaphosphate, 20-40 pts. wt. cobalt sulfate, 20-40 pts. wt. zinc silicate, and 10-30 pts. wt. gypsum based on 100 pts. wt. early-strength Portland cement, 10-30 pts. wt. aluminum sulfate, 10-30 pts. wt. electric furnace slag, 10-30 pts. wt. calcium sulfoaluminate, and 10-30 pts. wt. aluminum dihydrogen tripolyphosphate.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference,
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, gypsum and calcium sulfoaluminate, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. The gypsum and calcium sulfoaluminate meets the calcium compound and is present in amounts that overlap the claimed range of amounts 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. The addition of water to the components is taught.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, gypsum and calcium sulfoaluminate, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. The gypsum and calcium sulfoaluminate meets the calcium compound and is present in amounts that overlap the claimed range of amounts 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 3, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, gypsum and calcium sulfoaluminate, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. The gypsum and calcium sulfoaluminate meets the calcium compound and is present in amounts that overlap the claimed range of amounts 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. The composition comprises both fine aggregates and coarse aggregates. The addition of water to the components is taught.
As for claim 5, the reference meets the second limitation.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches an amount that overlaps some of the claimed ranges.
As for claim 17, while the reference does not recite the addition of a SCM, this claim is met as a SCM does not need to be present, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in the instant claim.
As for claim 18, according to the examples, the water is added to the components this meets the first limitation.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches the addition of fine aggregates.
As for claim 20, while the reference does not recite the types of materials used as the fine aggregate, the types recited in the instant claim are well-known to be used as fine aggregates and accordingly their use is obvious absent evidence showing unexpected results.
As for claim 22, the reference teaches a concrete composition.
As for claim 26, the composition meets the claimed admixture.
As for claim 29, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, gypsum and calcium sulfoaluminate, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. The gypsum and calcium sulfoaluminate meets the calcium compound and is present in amounts that overlap the claimed range of amounts 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. The composition comprises both fine aggregates and coarse aggregates. The addition of water to the components is taught.
Claims 1-3, 6, 17-22, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turkey Patent Specification No. TR 202016580 A2.
The reference teaches, in the abstract and claims 2, a mortar mixture comprising 1-20 wt.% calcium aluminate cement, 0-15% phase change material, 5-50% Portland cement, 0-15% gypsum, 0.01-1.5% water reducing agent, 0.01-0.5% set accelerator, 0.01-1.5% set retarder, 0-30% fine silica sand, 0-50% coarse silica sand, 0.01-1% cellulose ether, 0.1-1.5 percent starch ether, 0.01-1.5% polypropylene fiber, 0.05-1.5% antifoaming agent and 0-50% water.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, calcium aluminate cement, gypsum, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, a retarder and water. The calcium aluminate cement and gypsum meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that overlaps the claimed range of amounts 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. The water is added to the composition.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, calcium aluminate cement, gypsum, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, a retarder and water. The calcium aluminate cement and gypsum meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that overlaps the claimed range of amounts 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 3, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, calcium aluminate cement, gypsum, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, a retarder and water. The calcium aluminate cement and gypsum meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that overlaps the claimed range of amounts 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. Fine and coarse sand is used as the fine and coarse aggregates. The water is added to the composition.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches an amount that overlaps some of the claimed ranges.
As for claim 17, while the reference does not recite the addition of a SCM, this claim is met as a SCM does not need to be present, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in the instant claim.
As for claim 18, it would appear that the water is added after the components are mixed thus meeting the first limitation.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches the addition of fine aggregates and coarse aggregates and they are selected from sand.
As for claim 20, the reference teaches sand.
As for claim 21, the reference teaches a retarder and also a water reducer. The water reducer is seen to meet the plasticizer.
As for claim 22, the reference teaches a mortar.
As for claim 26, the composition is seen to meet the claimed concrete admixture.
As for claim 29, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, calcium aluminate cement, gypsum, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, a retarder and water. The calcium aluminate cement and gypsum meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that overlaps the claimed range of amounts 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. Fine and coarse sand is used as the fine and coarse aggregates. The water is added to the composition.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 17-20, 22, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Specification No. CN 112456907 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a white high-durability clear water concrete comprises 240-280 kg/m3 white Portland cement, 100-120 kg/m3 mineral powder, 40-60 kg/m3 fly ash, 24-70 kg/m3 microsilica powder, 24-45 kg/m3 fine sinking beads, 24-45 kg/m3 limestone powder, 270-300 kg/m3 large stone, 500-540 kg/m3 medium stone, 270-300 kg/m3 small stone, 650-700 kg/m3 sand, 160-240 kg/m3 water and 3-4.5 kg/m3 additive. The mineral powder is ground granulated blast furnace slag.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, fly ash, microsilica powder, limestone powder, large stone, medium stone, small stone, sand and water. The cement, mineral powder, fly ash, and microsilica powder meets the binder component. The mineral powder, fly ash and microsilica powder also meets the SCM. The limestone powder meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that overlaps the claimed range of amounts for the binder 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. The water is added to the composition.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, fly ash, microsilica powder, limestone powder, large stone, medium stone, small stone, sand and water. The cement, mineral powder, fly ash, and microsilica powder meets the binder component. The mineral powder, fly ash and microsilica powder also meets the SCM. The limestone powder meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that overlaps the claimed range of amounts for the binder 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 3, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, fly ash, microsilica powder, limestone powder, large stone, medium stone, small stone, sand and water. The cement, mineral powder, fly ash, and microsilica powder meets the binder component. The mineral powder, fly ash and microsilica powder also meets the SCM. The limestone powder meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that overlaps the claimed range of amounts for the binder 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. The water is added to the composition.
As for claim 5, the amounts of the components present in the binder overlap the range of amounts recited in limitations 2 and 4 and overlapping ranges are obvious.
As for claim 6, the amount of limestone overlaps some of the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are obvious.
As for claim 8, the binder content range overlaps some of the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag and microsilica.
As for claim 18, it is believed that the water is added after step a).
As for claim 19, the reference teaches both fine and coarse aggregate.
As for claim 20, the reference teaches sand
As for claim 22, the reference teaches a concrete.
As for claim 26, the composition meets the claimed admixture.
As for claim 29, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, fly ash, microsilica powder, limestone powder, large stone, medium stone, small stone, sand and water. The cement, mineral powder, fly ash, and microsilica powder meets the binder component. The mineral powder, fly ash and microsilica powder also meets the SCM. The limestone powder meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that overlaps the claimed range of amounts for the binder 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. The water is added to the composition.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 17-19, 21-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over India Patent Specification No IN 201921014198 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, and page 4, a composition comprising the Primary Ingredients: • Portland cement 750 - 850 kg/m3 • Silica fume 180 - 250 kg/m3 • Fine sand 950 – 1100 kg/m3 • Superplasticizer 22 – 40 l/m3 • Steel fibers 80 – 240 kg/m3 • Water / Ice 150 – 200 kg/m3 Secondary Ingredients: •Accelerator 5 – 15 l/m3 (optional) • Retarder 5 – 15 l/m3 (optional) • Expansion agent 40 – 60 kg/m3 (optional) • PVA fiber 0.5% - 1.0% by vol. (optional) • PP fiber 0.5% - 1.0% by vol. (optional) • Ground lime 150 – 200 kg/m3 (optional) A premix or dry mix for the composition may comprise the above ingredients without water, admixtures or steel fibres.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, silica fume (microsilica), fine sand, superplasticizer, steel fiber, and ground lime. The Portland cement and silica fume meets the binder component. The silica fume meets the SCM. The ground lime meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that 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. The water is added to the composition in combination with the superplasticizer.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, silica fume (microsilica), fine sand, superplasticizer, steel fiber, and ground lime. The Portland cement and silica fume meets the binder component. The silica fume meets the SCM. The ground lime meets the calcium compound and is present in an amount that 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 5, the reference teaches amounts of the Portland cement and silica fume (SCM) that falls within many of the claimed ranges, depending on the amounts utilized.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches an amount of ground lime that overlaps the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 9, the reference teaches an amount of binder (Portland cement and silica fume) that overlaps many of the claimed ranges.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches silica fume also known as microsilica.
As for claim 18, as the water is added after the binder and some of the other components are mixed, the claim meets the first limitation.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches fine aggregates (i.e. fine sand).
As for claim 21, the reference teaches the addition of a superplasticizer and optionally a retarder.
As for claim 22, the composition is believed to be an example of a concrete or a mortar based on the components.
As for claim 26, the composition meets the claimed admixture.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 17, 19, 22, 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Patent Specification No. JP 2020093951 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract and the claims, a composition comprising Portland cement and 20 to 60% by mass of limestone fine powder. The composition can further contain water and an aggregate. The aggregate can be both fine and coarse.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches Portland cement and limestone which meets the calcium compound. The amount of the limestone overlaps the claimed range of amounts 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. The reference also teaches the addition of water.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches Portland cement and limestone which meets the calcium compound. The amount of the limestone overlaps the claimed range of amounts 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 5, the reference meets the second limitation.
As for claim 6, the reference meets some of the claimed limitations as the amount ranges from 20% to 60%.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches the amount of the cement ranges from 140 to 250 kg/m3 and this 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 8, the reference teaches the amount of the cement ranges from 140 to 250 kg/m3 and this overlaps some of the claimed limitations. See for example, the second, fifth and the penultimate limitation which have a lower limit of 200 kg/m3.
As for claim 17, while the reference does not recite the addition of a SCM, this claim is met as a SCM does not need to be present, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in the instant claim.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches the addition of fine and coarse aggregates.
As for claim 22, the composition is a concrete and can comprise sand.
As for claim 26, the composition meets this claimed admixture.
As for claim 29, the reference teaches Portland cement and limestone which meets the calcium compound. The amount of the limestone overlaps the claimed range of amounts 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. The reference also teaches the addition of water, coarse aggregate and fine aggregate. The addition of sand is recited in the reference.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 17-19, 21-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Specification No. CN 11034859 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract and claim 7, a mortar composition comprising PO 42.5R Portland cement 200-260 kg/m3, limestone powder 70-150 kg/m3, medium sand
1250 ~1300 kg/m3, water reducing agent 3 kg/m3, retarder 0.5kg/m3 and water 280 kg/m3.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, limestone powder which meets the calcium compound, sand, a water reducing agent, retarder and water. The amount of the limestone powder overlaps the claimed range for the calcium compound 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. The composition is mixed with water.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least Portland cement, limestone powder which meets the calcium compound, sand, a water reducing agent, retarder and water. The amount of the limestone powder overlaps the claimed range for the calcium compound 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 5, the reference meets the second limitation.
As for claim 6, the amount of the limestone powder overlaps some of the claimed range for the calcium compound and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches a content of 200-260 kg/m3 which overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches a content of 200-260 kg/m3 which overlaps some of the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 17, while the reference does not recite the addition of a SCM, this claim is met as a SCM does not need to be present, just that, if it is, it be selected from the types recited in the instant claim.
As for claim 18, it appears that the water is added after the components are mixed.
As for claim 19, the reference teaches sand.
As for claim 21, the reference teaches a water reducing agent which meets the plasticizer as well as a retarder.
As for claim 22, the composition is a mortar,
As for claim 26, the composition meets this claimed admixture.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 17-19, 21-22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Specification No. CN 108751873 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract and the claims, a grouting material comprising: 80 kg/m3 to 140 kg/m3 of cementing material, 250 kg/m3 to 380 kg/m3 of fine construction waste powder, 10 kg/m3to 50 kg/m3of bentonite, 710 kg/m3 to 940 kg/m3 of sand, 0.8 kg/m3 to 1.4 kg/m3 of polycarboxylate superplasticizer, 0.01 kg/m3 to 1.0 kg/m3 of cellulose ether and 300 kg/m3 to 550 kg/m3 of water. The cementing material is either Portland cement or lime. The bentonite is sodium bentonite or calcium bentonite.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a grouting material comprising at least Portland cement, calcium bentonite which meets the calcium compound, sand, a superplasticizer and water. The amount of calcium bentonite overlaps the claimed range of amounts for the calcium compound 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. The water is added to the other components after mixing.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches a grouting material comprising at least Portland cement, calcium bentonite which meets the calcium compound, sand, a superplasticizer and water. The amount of calcium bentonite overlaps the claimed range of amounts for the calcium compound 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 5, the reference meets at least the second limitation.
As for claim 6, the amount of the calcium bentonite overlaps some of the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are deemed to be obvious.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches 80 kg/m3 to 140 kg/m3 of Portland cement which 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