Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/568,999

DRY MIXES AND CEMENTS COMPRISING CELLULOSE ETHERS HAVING POLYETHER GROUPS AS LUBRICATIVE ADDITIVES FOR ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE APPLICATIONS AND METHODS OF USING THEM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 11, 2023
Examiner
KUVAYSKAYA, ANASTASIA ALEKSEYEVNA
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rohm And Haas Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
41 granted / 59 resolved
+4.5% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
115
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 59 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 6 and 10 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 6 recites the limitation “the number of molar equivalents” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation s: "the powder" in line 7 , p. 32, “ the indicated amount of water” in line 8, p. 32, “the sides of the bowl” in line 9, p. 32, “the mixture” in line 10, p. 32, “the center” in line 2, p. 33, “the surface” in line 3, p. 33, “the top of the cone” in line 3, p. 33, “the difference” in line 5, p. 33 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for th ese limitation s in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1- 5 and 7-9 are allowed. Claims 6 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach all cumulative limitations of the independent claim 1. Yamakawa et al. (US 10435332 B2), hereinafter referred to as YAMAKAWA , Dominowski et al. (WO 2013074296 A1), hereinafter referred to as DOMINOWSKI , Bury et al. (US 20080156225 A1), hereinafter referred to as BURY , are considered the closes prior art. YAMAKAWA discloses a hydraulic composition is prepared by mixing an admixture aqueous solution containing a water-soluble salt which is a water-reducing agent or setting retarder, and a water-soluble cellulose ether with a fresh concrete composition containing a hydraulic substance, an aggregate (see YAMAKAWA at Abstract ). YAMAKAWA teaches s uitable water-soluble cellulose ethers being alkyl celluloses such as methyl cellulose and ethyl cellulose, hydroxyalkyl celluloses such as hydroxypropyl cellulose and hydroxyethyl cellulose, and hydroxyalkyl alkyl celluloses such as hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and hydroxyethyl ethyl cellulose ; that examples of the alkyl cellulose include methyl celluloses preferably having a DS of 1.0 to 2.2 , and e xamples of the hydroxyalkyl cellulose include hydroxyethyl celluloses preferably having a MS of 0.1 to 3.0 (see YAMAKAWA at Col. 3, lines 63-67 – Col. 4, lines 1-16 ). YAMAKAWA discloses that a 2% or 1% by weight aqueous solution of the water-soluble cellulose ether should preferably have a viscosity at 20° C of 100 mP a· s (2% by weight) to 30,000 mPa · s (1% by weight) as measured by a BH type viscometer at 20 rpm (see YAMAKAWA at Col. 4, lines 32-40 ). YAMAKAWA also discloses that the hydraulic substance is cement, e.g., Portland cement, high-early-strength Portland cement, moderate-heat Portland cement, blast-furnace slag cement, silica cement, fly-ash cement, alumina cement, and ultra-high-early-strength Portland cement (see YAMAKAWA at Col. 6, lines 6-11 ); and that s uitable aggregates include coarse aggregates and sand percentages ; e xamples of the coarse aggregate include river gravel, pit gravel, land gravel, and crushed stone, and the particle size is preferably up to 40 mm, and e xamples of the fine sand percentages include river sand, pit sand, land sand, silica sand, and crushed sand, and the particle size is preferably up to 10 mm (see YAMAKAWA at Col. 6, lines 17-24 ). However, YAMAKAWA discloses mixing an admixture aqueous solution comprising cellulose ether to a fresh concrete composition comprising hydraulic substance, aggregate and water, while the present invention claims a dry mix composition comprising a powder of cellulose ether. Moreover, while YAMAKAWA discloses that a 2% or 1% by weight aqueous solution of the water-soluble cellulose ether should preferably have a viscosity at 20° C of 100 mP a· s (2% by weight) to 30,000 mPa · s (1% by weight) as measured by a BH type viscometer at 20 rpm (see YAMAKAWA at Col. 4, lines 32-40 ), YAMAKAWA fails to explicitly teach whether the viscosity was measured at a 2.55 s -1 shear rate, as set forth in claim 1. Similarly to the Applicant’s disclosure, DOMINOWSKI discloses dry mix compositions for use in a cement slurry comprising carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) alone or in a blend with hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC), one or more setting retardant, and hydraulic cement or lime wherein the viscosity of the carboxymethyl cellulose is measured as a 1.0 wt.% aqueous solution of the cellulose ether at 20°C, 2.55 s -1 shear rate (see DOMINOWSKI at Abstract ). However, DOMINOWSKI teaches viscosity ranging from 75 to 4400 mP a· s , which is outside the claimed range of 1000 0 to 100000 mP a· s . BURY discloses a cementitious composition including cement, water, and a rheology modifying additive (RMA) (see BURY at Abstract ), wherein additive may comprise at least one cellulose polymer, such as a cellulose ether (see BURY at paragraph [0026] ), examples of hydraulic cements include Portland cement, masonry cement, alumina cement, refractory cement, magnesia cements (see BURY at paragraph [0039] ), the cementitious composition can also include fine aggregates, coarse aggregates; the fine aggregates are materials that pass through a Number 4 sieve (ASTM C125 and ASTM C33), such as natural or manufactured sand; and the coarse aggregates are materials that are retained on a Number 4 sieve (ASTM C125 and ASTM C33), such as silica, quartz, crushed round marble, glass spheres, granite, limestone, calcite, feldspar, alluvial sands, or any other durable aggregate (see BURY at paragraphs [0191-192] ). However, BURY fails to teach an aqueous solution viscosity at 1 wt.% cellulose ether solids . Moreover, BURY does not provide or suggest any incentive to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cellulose ether with a viscosity in the claimed range. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5437 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 11, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590030
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SUBGRADE UTILITY VAULTS, LIDS AND TRENCHES USING RECYCLED POLYSTYRENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577161
DRY MORTAR, IN PARTICULAR CEMENTITIOUS TILE ADHESIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570884
BONDED ABRASIVE AND METHODS OF FORMING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570575
BENEFICIATION OF METAL SLAGS FOR USE AS CEMENT MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565449
ULTRA-HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETES WITH HIGH EARLY STRENGTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 59 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month