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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words (see 37 C.F.R. 1.72; the filed abstract is 181 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 3 recites a limitation regarding “the hydroxyaryl compound”. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites a hydroxyaryl compound in component (i-2) and in component (ii-2), and it is unclear whether claim 3 is meant to limit just one of the hydroxyaryl compounds of claim 1, or if it is meant to limit both hydroxyaryl compounds. The specification at pg. 5, ll. 16–18 confirms that the limitation applies to component (i-2), and at pg. 10, ll. 9–11 confirms that the limitation also applies to component (ii-2). Therefore, the indefiniteness arising from ambiguous antecedent basis is resolved by the specification, and claim 3 is herein considered to apply to both components.
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 1–23 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, components (i) and (ii) recite the limitation “comprising a condensation reaction of…”. It is unclear how a composition can comprise a reaction; the claim conflates product and process language, which makes the scope of the claim unclear. Furthermore, even if the claim language is interpreted as reciting the reactants of a reaction, it is unclear how the condensation reactants “comprise” the listed components; “comprise” is open-ended, allowing for other, unlisted components, but the inclusion of other components in a reaction would either change the reaction (in which case it would not produce the claimed product), or it would not change the reaction (in which case it isn’t taking part in the reaction and therefore should not be considered a reactant). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will herein interpret component (i) as reciting “a naphthalene sulfonic acid polycondensate produced via a condensation reaction of…”, and component (ii) as reciting “a phosphorylated polycondensate produced via a condensation reaction of…”. If this interpretation does not align with Applicants’ intended meaning, they are respectfully requested to clarify their intended meaning in their response to this Office Action. Claims 2–23, being directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1, inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds.
Claims 2, 19 and 20 each recite limitations regarding “the polyoxyalkylene units” according to claim 1. However, claim 1 recites polyoxyalkylene units in component (i-2), (ii-2), and (iii), and it is unclear whether “the polyoxyalkylene units” refers to the units of one specific component, or to all three components equally, or just to the overall cement dispersant of claim 1 comprising a mixture of multiple components. This ambiguous antecedent basis leads to indefiniteness because each of these interpretations would result in a different claim scope. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will herein interpret these claims as limiting all three components of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, 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). Claim 11, by virtue of its dependence on claim 10, inherits the deficiencies of its parent, and is rejected on the same grounds. Since claim 11 limits the latent hydraulic binder of claim 10, which was introduced with the phrase “such as”, the Examiner will interpret claim 11 as instead reciting “…wherein the supplementary cementitious material is blast furnace slag”.
The phrase “freshly mixed” in claims 14 and 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “freshly mixed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the limitations apply to a composition at the exact moment water is mixed into the dry composition, or if the composition would still be considered “freshly mixed” within 10 minutes of mixing. Since “freshly mixed” is subjective, there are myriad possible interpretations, and each would have different water-to-binder ratios as the hydration reactions commence and proceed, so the scope of the claim is unclear. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “freshly mixed” as referring to a composition that has been mixed with water, but has not yet begun to harden.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamato et al. (JP H0826800 A) teaches a cement dispersant comprising an aromatic compound having a polyoxyethylene chain with 100–300 oxyethylene units, condensed with formaldehyde, in combination with naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde polycondensate and a polycarboxylic acid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 6:30-4:30.
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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights