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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/25/2026 and 11/22/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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 11-22 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 11 and 21 recite the addition of at least one molecules “whose aqueous solution of said molecule presents a dispersive portion of more than 25 %, to said hydraulic composition” It is unclear if the applicant is claiming the addition of an aqueous solution comprising the molecule in an amount of more than 25% or if the applicant is merely claiming the molecule. Giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification for purposes of examination the claims are interpreted to comprise an aqueous solution with a dispersive portion of the claimed molecule in an amount of more than 25 wt. %. See instant specification at [0036-0043].
Claim Objections
Claims 11-22 are objected to because of the following informalities: the units of weight/mass as appropriate and as supported by the original filing should be set forth when referring to %’s Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN 101367631B) (cited on IDS and copy of translation provided therewith)
Regarding Claims 11-22:
Yao et al (CN 101367631B) discloses an ultra-fine fly ash compound mineral mixture (Abstract)
The composition of a mineral admixture comprises in weight ratios:
100 pbw ultrafine fly ash (instant specification recognizes fly ash is an aluminosilicate [0017-0018] of instant spec)
10-60 pbw Slag powder (aggregate)
5-8% activator (overlapping the range of claim 18 for 0.5-3 wt.% of the binder esp. where the alkanolamine is 25% of the overall activator - or 2% of the composition)
The activator is
10-30 polysaccharide
10-30 pbw sodium acetate (alkaline salt of claim 19)
10-30 pbw alkanolamine
10-70 pbw water (i.e. aqueous)
See claims of reference esp. claim 1 and see [0051]
i.e.
30 parts alkanolamine and 60 parts overall solution making 50% alkanolamine
10 parts alkanolamine/40 parts total solutions = 25% alkanolamine
within the claimed range of the instant claims for more than 25% of at least one molecule dispersive portion in the aqueous solution of claim 11 and 25-50 % of claim 12)
No clinker is required.
The alkanolamine such as triisopropanolamine [0031] (meeting claims 11 for at least one molecule and meeting claims 14-17)
Based on the concentration of the alkanolamine and species thereof in water the composition of the reference being the same as that of the instant claims as such the surface tension mN/m will meet and/or overlap the range of claim 13. The composition comprising the claimed compositional components meets the limitations for a hydraulic binder and is capable of performing as same. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
The concrete mixture includes cement 510 kg/m3 sand 714kg/m3 and crushed stone 1028kg/m3 [0046] (i.e. less than 10 wt.% clinker of the claims and aggregate of claim 21)
Ultrafine fly ash slag powder activator where slag powder is 0.1 to 0.6 times the fly ash by weight and 5-8% activator [0051]
The mineral admixture is in the concrete at 15-30 wt.% [0051]
The composition is prepared by adding and mixing and stirring [0051] (meeting the process limitations of claim and the limitations of claim 2)
The composition provides improved workability [0052]
Optional components of the claims such as claim 21 mineral additions need not be present.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action.
Guynn (US 2018/0194679) discloses a composition comprising quarry fines and/or limestone powder to reduce clinker content in cement compositions to relace and augment hydraulic cement binder (Abstract) the composition improves rheology flow and workability properties [0013] [0023]
The cement composition comprises ground Portland cement clinker and sulfate to control setting, a supplementary cement material with pozzolanic properties, quarry fines and/or limestone powder and at least one accelerator selected from lime, quicklime, hydrate lime, in amount of 0.1 to 4.8 % by combined weight of hydraulic cement SCM quarry fines and/or limestone and may optionally include a supplemental sulfate [0024] The composition comprises reduced clinker [0039][0055]
MAXIMUM CLINKER BY WEIGHT LESS THAN 10%
The hydraulic cement including Portland cement and similar material containing one or more of the four clinker minerals tricalcium silicate dicalcium silicate tricalcium aluminate and tetra calcium alumino ferrite [0062]
Hydraulic cement is 65% of the binder content and the Clinker content is reduced by 35% [0124] the pre-mix is less than 50 % hydraulic cement and can be free of hydraulic cement the performance enhancing particulate pre mix less than 50 % or le 1 ! and can be free of hydraulic cement [0127]
Mineral addition ground with clinker in amounts 5-15% to replace portion of fine aggregate [0114]
REGARDING ALUMINOSILICATE:
The composition is formed by mixing hydraulic cement, quarry fines and/or limestone powder, aggregate and water and reduces clinker content [0016] Hydraulic cement binder comprises ordinary Portland cement [021] and Portland cement clinker [0024]
The composition is formed by replacing a portion of the hydraulic cement with quarry fines or limestone powder and one or more supplementary cement material with pozzolanic properties and altering the ion balance in the aqueous solution during mixing to avoid loss of workability [0049] The composition includes an amount of aluminosilicate clay [0066]
In some embodiments, cementitious binder blends may include one or more chemical additives that affect the chemistry of the aqueous solution, such as accelerating, retarding, and/or water-reducing admixtures, supplemental lime, and supplemental sulfate.[0101]
Quarry fines and/or limestone powder can be blended with performance enhancing additives that can form a pre-mix to be added to concrete or other cement mixture. The performance additives may include one or more of supplemental lime, plaster of Paris, calcium sulfate (meeting claim 19) alkanolamines such as tri iso propanol amine [0126]
Fig 1-10 illustrate embodiments for designing and manufacturing cement composition that utilize quarry fines and/or limestone powder in an effect and predictable manner to yield concrete and other cement composition with predictable rheology strength and other desirable properties [0108]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMELA H WEISS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights