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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search reports submitted on 07/29/2024 and 11/02/2023 are not considered to be information disclosure statements (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) require a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The listing of references in the specification at [0004]-[0005] are not proper information disclosure statements. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 reciting “a bulk density of 950 kg/m3 to 1,150 kg/m3, and an apparent density of 1,600 kg/m3 to 1,750 kg/m3” appears to have typographical errors and should be “a bulk density of 950 kg/m3 to 1,150 kg/m3, and an apparent density of 1,600 kg/m3 to 1,750 kg/m3’. 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 1-12 and 14-21 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.
Claim 1 lines 4 and 6 reciting “original PG particles” is indefinite because the recitation “original” do not point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. Specification does not disclose what is “original PG”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “PG particles”.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claim 3 reciting “original PG particles” is indefinite because the recitation “original” do not point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. Specification does not disclose what is “original PG”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “PG particles”.
Claim 14 reciting “original PG particles” is indefinite because the recitation “original” do not point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. Specification does not disclose what is “original PG”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “PG particles”.
Claim 18 reciting “original PG particles” is indefinite because the recitation “original” do not point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant. Specification does not disclose what is “original PG”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “PG particles”.
Claims 2, 4-12, 15-17 and 19-21 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0163353 A1) (“Wu” hereinafter) in view of Li et al. (Modification of phosphogypsum using circulating fluidized bed fly ash and carbide slag for use as cement retarder, Construction and Building Materials, 2022) (“Li” hereinafter), and Yue et al. (Influence of Phosphogypsum particle size on properties and Microstructure of Wet-Mixed Mortar, Bulletin of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 2022) (“Yue” hereinafter); as evidenced by Ferraris et al. (Measurement of particle size distribution in Portland cement powder: Analysis of ASTM round robin studies, Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, 2004) (“Ferraris” hereinafter) with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a hydraulic phosphogypsum (PG)-based cementitious material (see Wu at [0005] teaching a phosphogypsum non-sintered ceramsite light aggregate). The phosphogypsum non-sintered ceramsite light aggregate is taken to meet the claimed hydraulic phosphogypsum (PG)-based cementitious material, based on the structure as outlined below, comprising the following raw materials:
PG particles (see Wu at [0005] teaching phosphogypsum), and
an auxiliary active powder, the auxiliary active powder is… one… selected from the group consisting of… Portland cement (see Wu at [0005] teaching cement),
wherein the PG particles have a dosage of 50 wt% to 95 wt% (see Wu at [0005] teaching the raw materials of the mixture have weight percentages of… phosphogypsum 80-90%) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)); and
at least 80% of materials in the auxiliary active powder have a particle size of less than or equal to 60 µm (see Wu at [0005] teaching cement). Cement is taken to meet the claimed limitations because the particles size of Portland cement overlaps with the claimed range as evidenced by Ferraris (see Ferraris at page 6, left column, Figure 3, shown with Examiner’s annotation below, evidencing the particle size distribution of cement) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
PNG
media_image1.png
880
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu does not explicitly teach that the i) “phosphogypsum (or PG) is modified, wherein the modified PG particles are obtained by conducting modification on PG particles through a calcareous material, and the calcareous material has a mass 3% to 5% of that of the PG particles”, and ii) “the PG particles each have a length of 50 µm to 200 µm and an aspect ratio of 1.5 to 5” (see 112 rejection).
With respect i), Wu teaches phosphogypsum is industrial waste produced in the process of decomposing phosphate rock with sulfuric acid and extracting phosphoric acid by chemical enterprises… phosphogypsum not only occupies a large amount of land, but also causes serious pollution to soil, water and air, and even poses a safety hazard… starting from the requirements of national industrial policy and the needs of wall material reform, the comprehensive utilization of resources and the development of circular economy are a major technical and economic policy of our country and a long-term strategic policy in the national economic and social development (see Wu at [0002]-[0003]).
Like Wu, Li teaches phosphogypsum (see Li at Title teaching modification of phosphogypsum using circulating fluidized bed fly ash and carbide slag for use as a cement retarder, see Li at page 1, section 1, paragraphs 1-2 teaching phosphogypsum is an industrial solid waste produced during the wet production of phosphoric acid… the annual comprehensive phosphogypsum utilization rate is approximately 10% only, and the technology and process involved are not mature… currently, agriculture, chemical industry, and building materials are the three main avenues that utilize phosphogypsum… among these, the building materials industry has become the focus of phosphogypsum utilization research, owing to its large usage of gypsum materials, see Li at page 2, left column, paragraph 1 teaching the direct use of phosphogypsum as a cement retarder greatly affects the cement performance because of the harmful impurities present in phosphogypsum… several studies have shown that the soluble phosphorus and soluble fluorine present in the phosphogypsum react with Ca(OH)2 that is generated by cement hydration and in turn generate precipitates of calcium phosphate and calcium fluoride… these precipitates coat the surface of the cement particles, thus restricting cement hydration and leading to a reduction in cement performance, such as prolonged setting time and low early strength, see Li at page 2 right column, paragraph 1 teaching research on the chemical modification methods for phosphogypsum are favored by researchers because of the simplicity of the production process, low production cost, and the lack of pollution).
Li further teaches in this disclosure, CFB fly ash and carbide slag were used as modifiers of phosphogypsum (see Li at page 2 paragraph 2). Li also teaches the mixing ratios of CFB fly ash and carbide slag chemically modified phosphogypsum used in the experiments are listed in Table 2… composition of modified phosphogypsum GX3… 270g undisturbed phosphogypsum… 18g carbide slag… 12g CFB fly ash… 42g water (see Li at page 3, section 2.2, paragraph 2 and Table 2, shown with Examiner’s annotation below). The total amount of the composition of modified phosphogypsum GX3 is 342g (or 270 + 18 + 12 + 42). The percentage of carbide slag in the modified phosphogypsum GX3 is 5wt % (or (18/342) x 100). Modified phosphogypsum GX3 is taken to meet the claimed i) “phosphogypsum (or PG) is modified. 5wt% carbide slag is taken to meet the claimed i) “… wherein the modified PG particles are obtained by conducting modification on PG particles through a calcareous material, and the calcareous material has a mass 3% to 5% of that of the PG particles”. Carbide slag is a calcareous material based on specification at [0011] disclosing… the calcareous material is… one… selected from the group consisting of… carbide slag.
PNG
media_image2.png
212
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Li teaches by adding a certain amount of alkaline carbide slag, the acidic soluble phosphorus and soluble fluorine impurities in phosphogypsum were neutralized and converted into the inert insoluble salts Ca3(PO4)2, CaSiF6, and CaF2, thereby reducing their impact on the cement (see Li at page 9, left column, paragraph 1).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Li teaches that adding a certain amount of alkaline carbide slag, the acidic soluble phosphorus and soluble fluorine impurities in phosphogypsum were neutralized and converted into the inert insoluble salts Ca3(PO4)2, CaSiF6, and CaF2, thereby reducing their impact on the cement, and seek those advantages by adding carbide slag to modify phosphogypsum in the light aggregate as taught by Wu.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add carbide slag to modify phosphogypsum as taught by Li in the light aggregate as taught by Wu because adding a certain amount of alkaline carbide slag, the acidic soluble phosphorus and soluble fluorine impurities in phosphogypsum were neutralized and converted into the inert insoluble salts Ca3(PO4)2, CaSiF6, and CaF2, thereby reducing their impact on the cement, and there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amount as taught by Li would be suitable.
With respect to ii), like Wu, Yue teaches phosphogypsum (see Yue at Title teaching Influence of phosphogypsum particle size on properties and microstructure of wet-mixed mortar).
Yue further teaches that the results show that with the increase of phosphogypsum particle size, the workability and mechanical properties of wet-mixed mortar show a trend of increase first and then decrease… when 30% (mass fraction) phosphogypsum with particle size of 53~106 μm is added, the wet-mixed mortar consistency loss is 19%, water retention rate is 90%, 28 d compressive strength is 10.7 MPa, 14 d tensile bond strength is 0.25 MPa, which can meet the requirements of compressive strength greater than 10 MPa… with the increase of phosphogypsum particle size, the eutectic phosphorus content in phosphogypsum decreases, the hydration process of cement is inhibited to a lesser extent, the calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) generated in mortar increases, and a large amount of C-S-H appears in the region away from CaSO4·2H2O particles… however, the pore volume of mortar hardening body shows a trend of decrease first and then increase, when 30% (mass fraction) phosphogypsum with particle size of 53~106 μm is added, the pore volume of mortar is the smallest, only 0.1309 mL/g (see Yue at Abstract). Phosphogypsum with particle size of 53~106 μm is taken to meet the claimed ii) “the PG particles each have a length of 50 µm to 200 µm” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the particle size of phosphogypsum is a result effective variable that could be optimized to provide the desired workability and mechanical properties of the mortar so as to arrive at claimed ii) “the PG particles each have a length of 50 µm to 200 µm and an aspect ratio of 1.5 to 5”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the particle size of phosphogypsum as taught by Li in the light aggregate as taught by Wu in order to provide the desired workability and mechanical properties of the mortar so as to arrive at claimed ii) “the PG particles each have a length of 50 µm to 200 µm and an aspect ratio of 1.5 to 5”.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Li further teaches wherein the calcareous material is… one… selected from the group consisting of… carbide slag (see Li at page 2 paragraph 2 teaching carbide slag… used as modifiers of phosphogypsum).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 14-15, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claims 1-2 respectively above, and Li teaches wherein the modification comprises: mixing the PG particles with the calcareous material and then conducting aging (see 112 rejection, claims 3 and 14), and wherein the aging is conducted at 1oC to 50oC for 12 h to 36 h (claims 4 and 15) (these recitations are being treated as product-by-process limitations because they are not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Li (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitations is aged and mixed PG particles with the calcareous material (see Li at page 4, section 2.3 teaching the components were mixed… the samples were aged).
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Wu further teaches wherein the auxiliary active powder is selected from the group consisting of… the mineral powder (see Wu at [0005] teaching mineral powder, see Wu at [0004] teaching mineral powder as an active mineral).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that mineral is suitable for its intended use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use mineral powder in the light aggregate as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and Wu further teaches wherein when the auxiliary active powder is the Portland cement-mineral powder mixture, the Portland cement and the mineral powder are at a mass ratio of (6-15):(2-14); when the auxiliary active powder is the Portland cement-mineral powder-metakaolin mixture, the Portland cement, the mineral powder, and the metakaolin are at a mass ratio of (1-15):(2-6):(2-7); and when the auxiliary active powder is the Portland cement-metakaolin mixture, the Portland cement and the metakaolin are at a mass ratio of (12-15):(2-7) (see claim 5 rejection, wherein the claimed limitations is met by the mineral powder (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Regarding claim 10, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Li further teaches wherein the raw materials further comprise a polycarboxylate superplasticizer (see Li at page 3, left column, section 2.1 teaching PCA-1 polycarboxylate high-performance water reducing agent), which is taken to meet the claimed polycarboxylate superplasticizer; and
based on a solid content of the polycarboxylate superplasticizer being 20% (see Li at page 3, left column, section 2.1 teaching… had a solid content of 22%). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP § 2144.05). In this instance, there are no expected differences in properties between polycarboxylate high-performance water reducing agent as taught by Li and the claimed polycarboxylate superplasticizer,
the polycarboxylate superplasticizer has a mass 0.5% to 2.0% of a total mass of the raw materials (see Li at page 4, right column teaching the water-reducing agent dosage was 1%).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Li further teaches wherein the hydraulic PG-based cementitious material has a water-binder ratio of 0.2 to 0.6 (see Li at page 4, right column, paragraph 2 teaching water-to-binder ratio was 0.4),
a bulk density of 950 kg/m3 to 1,150 kg/m3, and an apparent density of 1,600 kg/m3 to 1,750 kg/m3 (since the lightweight aggregate as taught by Wu in view of Li and Yue and the claimed hydraulic phosphogypsum (PG)-based cementitious material employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., a bulk density of 950 kg/m3 to 1,150 kg/m3, and an apparent density of 1,600 kg/m3 to 1,750 kg/m3) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Wu in view of Li and Yue (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches a preparation method (see Wu at [0010] teaching a method of preparing the phosphogypsum non-sintered ceramsite light aggregate),
of the hydraulic PG-based cementitious material according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection based on Wu in view of Li and Yue), comprising the following steps:
mixing the raw materials to obtain the hydraulic PG-based cementitious material (see Wu at [0011] teaching S1: putting phosphogypsum, mineral powder, cement, and water into a mixer according to the weight percentages and mixing uniformly, see Li at page 4, left column, section 2.3 teaching a certain amount of undisturbed phosphogypsum, carbide slag, and CFB fly ash were weighed and mixed with… water at the same time).
Regarding claim 17, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and Li further teaches wherein the calcareous material is… one… selected from the group consisting of… carbide slag (see Li at page 2 paragraph 2 teaching carbide slag… used as modifiers of phosphogypsum).
Regarding claims 18-19, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claim 12 respectively above, and Li teaches wherein the modification comprises: mixing the PG particles with the calcareous material and then conducting aging (see 112 rejection, claim 18), and wherein the aging is conducted at 1oC to 50oC for 12 h to 36 h (claim 19) (see Li at page 4, section 2.3 teaching the components were mixed… the samples were aged for 3… d under the conditions of (20 + 2) oC temperature) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 20, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and Wu further teaches wherein the auxiliary active powder is selected from the group consisting of… the mineral powder (see Wu at [0005] teaching mineral powder, see Wu at [0004] teaching mineral powder as an active mineral).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that mineral is suitable for its intended use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use mineral powder in the light aggregate as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 21, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claims 12 and 20 above, and Wu further teaches wherein when the auxiliary active powder is the Portland cement-mineral powder mixture, the Portland cement and the mineral powder are at a mass ratio of (6-15):(2-14); when the auxiliary active powder is the Portland cement-mineral powder-metakaolin mixture, the Portland cement, the mineral powder, and the metakaolin are at a mass ratio of (1-15):(2-6):(2-7); and when the auxiliary active powder is the Portland cement-metakaolin mixture, the Portland cement and the metakaolin are at a mass ratio of (12-15):(2-7) (see claim 5 rejection, wherein the claimed limitations is met by the mineral powder (see MPEP 2111.04.II)).
Claims 7-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Li and Yue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zong et al. (CN 111848082 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Zong” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 7-9, Wu in view of Li and Yue teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Wu in view of Li and Yue do not explicitly teach wherein the raw materials further comprise an alkalinity regulator with a mass not exceeding 10% a total mass of the raw materials (claim 7), wherein the alkalinity regulator comprises sodium silicate and/or sodium carbonate (claim 8), and wherein the sodium silicate has a modulus of 1.5 to 3.5 and a Baume degree of 38oBé to 48oBé (claim 9). Wu further teaches phosphogypsum non-sintered ceramsite light aggregate can be widely used in highway materials… and other products (see Wu at [0008]).
Like Wu, Zong teaches phosphogypsum (see Zong at [0002] teaching composite stabilized roadbed material with a high dosage of phosphogypsum and it preparation method).
Zong further teaches a composite roadbed material with high dosage of phosphogypsum, comprising by weight percentage… 90-95% phosphogypsum… 1.5-4% curing accelerator (see Zong at [0009])… the curing accelerator comprises… water glass (see Zong at [0011])… the alkaline environment provided by the water glass in the curing accelerator during the homogenization reaction… this environment promotes the hydrolysis of phosphogypsum, which is beneficial for its activation… furthermore, during the hydration process, the water glass promotes the hydrolysis and hydration of the curing agent, which in turn facilitates the curing of soluble F and soluble P in phosphogypsum into inert substances such as calcium fluoride and calcium silicate… this significantly reduces the retarding effect of soluble F and soluble P on the roadbed material (see Zong at [0014]). 1.5-4% curing accelerator comprising water glass is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the raw materials further comprise an alkalinity regulator with a mass not exceeding 10% a total mass of the raw materials” (claim 7) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and “wherein the alkalinity regulator comprises… sodium silicate” (claim 8) because water glass is another name for sodium silicate.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that alkaline environment provided by the water glass is a result effective variable that could be optimized so as to promote the hydrolysis of phosphogypsum beneficial for its activation and arrive at the claimed “wherein the sodium silicate has a modulus of 1.5 to 3.5 and a Baume degree of 38oBé to 48oBé” (claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the alkaline environment provided by the water glass as taught by Zong in the lightweight aggregate as taught by Wu in view of Li and Yue so as to promote the hydrolysis of phosphogypsum beneficial for its activation and arrive at the claimed “wherein the raw materials further comprise an alkalinity regulator with a mass not exceeding 10% a total mass of the raw materials” (claim 7), “wherein the alkalinity regulator comprises… sodium silicate” (claim 8), and “wherein the sodium silicate has a modulus of 1.5 to 3.5 and a Baume degree of 38oBé to 48oBé” (claim 9).
Regarding claim 16, Wu in view of Li, Yue and Zong teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and Li further teaches wherein the raw materials further comprise a polycarboxylate superplasticizer (see Li at page 3, left column, section 2.1 teaching PCA-1 polycarboxylate high-performance water reducing agent), which is taken to meet the claimed polycarboxylate superplasticizer; and
based on a solid content of the polycarboxylate superplasticizer being 20% (see Li at page 3, left column, section 2.1 teaching… had a solid content of 22%). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP § 2144.05). In this instance, there are no expected differences in properties between polycarboxylate high-performance water reducing agent as taught by Li and the claimed polycarboxylate superplasticizer,
the polycarboxylate superplasticizer has a mass 0.5% to 2.0% of a total mass of the raw materials (see Li at page 4, right column teaching the water-reducing agent dosage was 1%).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights