DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application is a national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/SK2022/000006 filed 6/7/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) by Application No. PP 41-2021 and PU V 85-2021 filed 6/7/2021, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claims 1-3 are pending.
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 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 recites …ARC synthetic fibers… The specification indicates “The mixture may further contain silica sand with a fraction 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm and/or solidification accelerator, e.g. Betodur AS, thus a chloride free concrete and/or synthetic fibers, e.g. ARC 42/30 mm, namely alkali resistant (AR) Glass Fibers, which may be designed specifically for use in concrete and/or powdery paint and/or silica fume (micro silica) SiO2.” One skilled in the art would not understand the full meaning and scope of ARC synthetic fibers in light of the specification. For instance, it would not be clear if synthetic fibers include inorganic or organic synthetic fibers, since synthetic typically involves polymeric fibers, vs inorganic glass fibers. Further, ARC is not defined. Therefore, the full scope and meaning of “ARC synthetic fibers” would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-3 are subsumed by this rejection because of their dependence.
Claim 3 recites silica fume (microsilica) SiO2. However, it would not be clear why parenthesis are recited. For instance, it would not be clear if silica fume is also known as microsilica, or if microsilica further limits the silica fume, for instance. Therefore, it would not be clear why parenthesis are recited.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 2019/0337850) in view of Beilda et al. (CN 106064911).
Regarding claim 1: Ali is directed to a method of preparing a cement plastic mixture comprising
Mixing in a mixing device and a temperature of 2-25 ˚C preferably 4-22 ˚C ([0059]). Sample M1 comprises mixing for 2-3 minutes 68.05 wt% cement, 31.12 wt% plastic crumb waste, and mixing was continued until a uniform consistency was achieved (]0143] Ali). The water is present in an amount of 5-12 wt% ([0105] Ali). No basis for the aforementioned amounts are presently recited in the claims, and therefore the amounts are based on broadest reasonable interpretation.
The superplasticizer and remaining water are added and mixing is continued until a uniform consistency is achieved (col. 11 ll. 27-52, col. 14 ll. 60- col. 15 l. 64, col. 17 ll. 47-56, col. 19 ll. 7-17).
While a specific time of 6-10 minutes is not specifically mentioned, it is a result-effective variable (MPEP 2144.05), since mixing is performed until uniform consistency is achieved, which is well within the skill level of one skilled in the art.
Additives of accelerators, pigments, and synthetic fibers can be added, although an amount is not mentioned.
Beilda is directed to a dry cement mixture comprising gravel, cement, superplasticizer, and an accelerator (equivalent to a solidification accelerator). The amount added at least overlaps the claimed amount, e.g. 2 part accelerator in 300 parts cement, sand, mineral active admixture, superplasticizer, viscosity modifier, adhesive functional aggregate results in 0.67 wt% solidification accelerator of the composition. Further, the amount of accelerator is less when water is added, and hence at least overlaps the claimed range.
One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included the accelerator of Beilda in the composition of Ali to accelerate the curing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included an accelerant in the composition of Ali.
Regarding claim 2: The basic mixture of Ali further comprises silica sand with a fraction 0.3-2.0 mm. Specifically, fine aggregate graded with 1.18 mm opening was utilized in the working examples. While Ali discloses the composition comprises 37-57 wt% fine aggregate, the percentage of silica sand in the fine aggregate is 80-95% of the fine aggregate ([0075] Ali), and the amount of silica sand having a fraction of 0.3 to 2.0 mm is less than 37-57 wt% since other sized fine particles are included (Table 4). Therefore, it is clear the amount of silica sand with a fraction 0.3-2.0 mm at least overlaps the claimed 6.0-12% by weight.
A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 2019/0337850) in view of Beilda CN 106064911 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toussaint et al. (WO 2015/193420).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Ali and Beilda doesn’t mention 4.0-15 wt% silica fume (microsilica) SiO2.
Toussaint is directed to a cement mixture comprising cement, and at least 5 wt% silica fume (abstract). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included at least 5 wt% silica fume in the method of Ali and Beilda to produce a ultra-high performance concrete to be produced with a reduction in associated emissions of carbon dioxide (p. 1 Toussaint). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included an amount of silica fume in an amount within the scope of claim 3.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights