DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 2-38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
it is suggested that the phrase “characterized by the fact that” is replaced by “wherein”, which is the conventional US patent terminology.
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 8-11 and 18-38 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 28, claims 8 and 28 recite “the separately produced formulation is composed of 30% to 60% Portland cement, 20% to 50% hydrophobic compound and 3% to 10% graphite”, but fails to specify whether the percent ranges refer to percent by mass or volume. Therefore, claims 8 and 28 are rendered indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 29, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 11 and 31, the phrases "which may be" and "such as" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 10 and 30 recites the limitation "the active microsilica" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 18 and 38, claims 18 and 38 recite “the superplasticizer compound is one or more of the following components: mineral oil, silicone oil, vegetable oil, polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, and polymethyl methacrylate”. It is noted that the recited materials are not known in the art as superplasticizer, and that the known examples of superplasticizers are recited in claims 17 and 37. Furthermore, according to specification paragraph [0041], the recited materials are examples of the anti-foaming agents. Thus, claims 18 and 38 are rendered indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the formulation" in line 3 on page 4, “the mixture of these components” in line 4 on page 4, “the previously produced formulation” in line 1 on page 5, “the composition” in line 2 on page 5, and “the final product” in line 4 on page 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Please note that claims 20-38 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 12-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: prior art fails to teach all cumulative limitations of claim 1.
Liska et al. (EP 3623354 A1), hereinafter referred to as LISKA, Yang et al. (WO 9928264 A1), hereinafter referred to as YANG, Wang et al. (CN 110204277 A), hereinafter referred to as WANG, and Dunuweera et al. (Cement types, composition, uses and advantages of nanocement, environmental impact on cement production, and possible solutions. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018), hereinafter referred to as DUNUWEERA, are considered the closest prior art.
LISKA discloses inorganic particles having a hydrophobic coating for integral waterproofing of concrete or mortar, and an integral waterproof admixture for waterproofing of concrete or mortar including said coated inorganic particles (see LISKA at paragraph [0001]). LISKA also discloses that the specific examples of preferred inorganic particles are particles of calcium carbonate (see LISKA at paragraph [0026]), the hydrophobic coating is formed of stearic acid or a salt thereof, wherein calcium stearate is preferred (see LISKA at paragraph [0033]). Additionally, LISKA discloses that the integral waterproof admixture further comprises a pore blocker such as talc, bentonite, microsilica (see LISKA at paragraphs [0050-51]); and that the integral waterproof admixture may comprise one or more further ingredients, for example, hydraulic inorganic binders, in particular cements, superplasticizers, defoamers, fillers, stabilizers, preservatives, surfactants, dispersants, solvents or dispersion media such as water or organic solvents (see LISKA at paragraph [0052]).
YANG discloses a waterproofing additive for cement and/or concrete, comprising at least one pozzolanic material modified with at least one hydrophobic material; the pozzolanic material preferably comprises one or more of silica fume, microsilica and metakaolin; the hydrophobic compound may be a soap, especially a metallic soap of a paraffinic acid, e.g. calcium stearate, magnesium stearate or aluminium stearate (see YANG at paragraphs 3-5, p. 2).
WANG discloses the powder hydrophobic additive being at least one of stearate, nano silica and graphite powder (see WANG at paragraph [30]). Furthermore, DUNUWEERA discloses that use of graphite nanoparticles in cement is expected to not only improve mechanical
properties but also improve faster curing time, inhibition of premature failure in concretes, and ability to withstand large external forces produced in earthquakes and explosions (see DUNUWEERA at 5, Nanocement, right column, paragraph 2, p. 8).
However, LISKA, YANG, WANG and DUNUWEERA fail to teach the use of AC mortar as a constituent of a concrete additive composition. Thus, it would be improper hindsight to further modify LISKA or YANG so that the additive composition would be equivalent to the claimed concrete additive composition characterized by comprising in its composition: AC mortar, Portland cement, and a separately produced formulation that is composed of Portland cement, hydrophobic compound and graphite.
Claims 8-11 and 18-38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731