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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 02/01/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but some of the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specification The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Tables 1-2 should be reformatted so that the words are clear and legible. Appropriate correction is required. The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink s and/or other form of browser-executable code (see pg. 1 and 2 of the present specification) . Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink s and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim s 1-5, 7-9 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 2 , 9 , 13 and 15 contain a grammatical error; “or mixture thereof” should read “or a mixture thereof” (see claim 1 at line 3, claim 2 at line 2 , claim 9 at line 3 , claim 13 at line 5 , and claim 15 at line 6 ). Claims 1, 2, 4 , 9 , 11, 13 and 15 contain a grammatical and punctuation error; “where , ” should read “wherein” (see claim 1 at lines 6 and 14, claim 2 at line 4, claim 4 at line 4, and claim 9 at line s 6 and 14, claim 11 at line 5, claim 13 at lines 8 and 16, and claim 15 at lines 9, 17 and 21 ). Claim s 1 , 9, 13 and 15 contain a grammatical error; “ hydrogen atom ” should read “ a hydrogen atom ” (see claim 1 at line 7 , claim 9 at line 7, claim 13 at line 9, and claim 15 at line 10 ). Claim 1, 9, 13 and 15 contain a grammatical error; “equal to 3, c is 0” should read “equal to 3, and c is 0” (see claim 1 at lines 11-12, claim 9 at lines 11-12, claim 13 at lines 13-14, and claim 15 at lines 14-15). Claim 1 , 9, 13 and 15 contain a grammatical error; “ with the provisos that a+b+c≤3, in more than 50 percent… ” should read “ with the provisos that a+b+c≤3, and that in more than 50 percent… ” (see claim 1 at line s 13-14 , claim 9 at lines 13-14, claim 13 at lines 15-16, and claim 15 at lines 16-17 ). Claims 1, 9 and 13 contain a grammatical error; “is” should read “are” (see claim 1 at line 14, claim 9 at line 14 , and claim 13 at line 16 ). Claim 2 contains a punctuation error; in line 3, there should be a comma after “( Ib )”. Claim 2 contains a grammatical error; “group, R’” should read “group, and R’” (see claim 2 at lines 6-7). Claim 4 contains a grammatical error; “ C 1 -C 20 group ” should read “ a C 1 -C 20 group ” (see claim 4 at line 4 ). Claim 5 contains a grammatical error; “methyl or ethyl” should read “a methyl or ethyl group”, and “ octyl or iso-octyl group ” should read “ an octyl or iso-octyl group ” (see claim 5 at line s 1-2 ). Claim 7 contains a grammatical error; it appears that “ the silicone antifoam composition comprising ” should read “ wherein the silicone antifoam composition comprises ” (see claim 7 at line s 1-2 ). Claim s 8 and 14 contain a grammatical error; “ comprising ” should read “ comprises ” (see claim 8 at line 1 ). Claim 15 contains a punctuation error; in line 27, there should not be a comma after “wherein”. Claim 15 contains a repeated grammatical error; “ having ” should read “ has ” (see claim 15 at line s 27 and 29 ). 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. Claim s 1-15 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 s 1, 9, 13 and 15 recite the limitation " the formula " (see claim 1 at line 4, claim 9 at line 4, claim 13 at line 6, and claim 15 at line 7 ) . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim s 1, 9, 13 and 15 recite the limitation " R 1 is same or different and is hydrogen atom, a monovalent alkyl group with 1-4 carbon atoms, R 2 is same or different and is a monovalent alkyl group with at least 1-3 carbon atoms, R 3 is same or different and is a monovalent alkyl with 4-20 carbon atoms " (see claim 1 at line s 7-9, claim 9 at line s 7-9 , claim 13 at line s 9-11 , and claim 15 at line s 10-12 ) . These limitations are indefinite and the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. It is not clear from this language what R 1 , R 2 and R 3 are meant to be the same as or different from . As written the claim also indicates that R 1 is a hydrogen atom which is a monovalent alkyl group with 1-4 carbon atoms, which does not make sense. The meaning of “R 3 … is a monovalent alkyl” is also unclear. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation as meaning R 1 is a hydrogen atom or a monovalent alkyl group with 1-4 carbon atoms, R 2 is a monovalent alkyl group with 1-3 carbon atoms, and R 3 is a monovalent alkyl group with 4-20 carbon atoms. Clarification is requested. Claim s 1, 9, 13 and 15 recite the limitation " a is 0, greater than 0 and less than or equal to 3, b is 0, greater than 0 and less than or equal to 3, c is 0, greater than 0 and less than or equal to 3 " (see claim 1 at line s 10-12, claim 9 at lines 10-12, claim 13 at lines 12-14, and claim 15 at lines 13-15). These limitations are not possible, and the scope of the claims cannot be determined; a variable cannot be 0 and greater than 0. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated these limitations as meaning that each recited variable is greater than or equal to zero and less than or equal to 3, i.e., each variable is within a range of 0 to 3. Clarification is requested. Claim s 1, 9 and 13 recite the limitation " in more than 50 percent of all units of formula ( I a ), b is less than c, where, a, b, c is same or different and are integers or a fraction either each unit or in an average unit " (see claim 1 at line s 14-15 , claim 9 at lines 14-15 , and claim 13 at lines 16-17) and claim 15 recites the limitation “b is less than c, where, a, b, c are same or different and are integers or a fraction either each unit or in an average unit” (see claim 15 at lines 17-18) . These limitations are indefinite and the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. It is not clear from this language what a, b and c are meant to be the same as or different from . It is also not clear from the language “a, b, c” whether this limitation is directed toward a, b and c or toward a, b or c. The language “integers or a fraction” is also unclear, as it appears this should refer to either integers or fractions or an integer or a fraction . The meaning of “ either each unit or in an average unit ” is also indefinite, as this limitation does not make sense as written and as it is unclear whether this refers to only a, b and/or c being integers/fractions or to the entire limitation . As written, it is also ambiguous whether everything following “where,” is meant to apply to only more than 50 percent of all units of formula ( Ia ) or to all units of formula ( Ia ). For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation as meaning that in more than 50 percent of all units of formula ( Ia ), b is less than c ; and wherein a, b and c are integers or fractions (i.e., a, b and c across all units are integers or fractions, rather than in more than 50 percent) . Clarification is requested. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the alkyl silane of formula ( Ib )” (see claim 2 at line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 does not include a proper transitional phrase and the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claim 2 recites “The additive composition of claim 1, the alkyl silane of formula ( Ib ) or its hydrolysate or mixture thereof…”; it does not say that the composition of claim 1 further comprises an alkyl silane of formula ( Ib ), or consists of something and the alkyl silane of formula ( Ib ), etc., it merely describes an alkyl silane of formula ( Ib ) but does not indicate that it is actually included in the composition. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation as meaning the additive composition of claim 1, further comprising an alkyl silane of formula ( Ib ) or its hydroxylate or a mixture thereof. Clarification is requested. Claim 2 recites the limitation “X is same or different and is a halide, -OR, R is same or different and is a C 1 -C 20 group, R’ is same or different and is a C 1 -C 20 group ” (see claim 2 at lines 5-7). These limitations are indefinite and the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. It is not clear from this language what R and R’ are meant to be the same as or different from . The meaning of “halide, -OR” is also unclear. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation as meaning that X is a halide or an -OR group, R is a C 1 -C 20 group, and R’ is a C 1 -C 20 group. Clarification is requested. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 15 each recite the limitation “its mixtures thereof” (see claim 3 at line 3, claim 4 at line 5, claim 10 at line 4, claim 11 at line 6, and claim 15 at lines 22 and 24) and claims 8 and 14 each recite the limitation “its mixture thereof” (see claim 8 at line 2 and claim 14 at line 2). It is not clear in any of these claims to what “its” is meant to refer, rendering the scope of each claim indefinite. It is further unclear in the claims reciting “mixtures thereof” whether the limitation is actually meant to require multiple mixtures or is only meant to require a mixture. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation in each claim as though it recites “a mixture thereof”. Clarification is requested. Claim s 3 and 10 each recite the limitation “an antifoam composition selected from a group comprising a silicone antifoam composition and a non-silicone antifoam composition and its mixtures thereof” (see claim 3 at lines 1-3 and claim 10 at lines 2-4 ). It is not clear from this language whether the antifoam composition must be selected from one of the recited compositions or could also be selected from any unrecited composition, as the claim uses the open language “comprising”, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim s 3 and 10 as though they recite “selected from the group consisting of” rather than “selected from a group comprising”. Clarification is requested. Claim s 4 and 11 recite the limitation “where, R”, R”’ is an optionally substituted aromatic or aliphatic hydrocarbon radical” (see claim 4 at lines 4-5 and claim 11 at lines 5-6 ). The scope of the claim s cannot be determined as it is not clear whether R”, R”’ is supposed to mean R” and R”’ or R” or R”’. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation as meaning that R” and R”’ are optionally substituted aromatic or aliphatic hydrocarbon radicals. Clarification is requested. Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein R 1 , R 2 is methyl or ethyl” (see claim 5 at line 1). The scope of the claim cannot be determined as it is not clear whether R 1 , R 2 is supposed to mean R 1 and R 2 or R 1 or R 2 . For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation as meaning that either R 1 or R 2 is a methyl or ethyl group. Clarification is requested. Claim 6 recites the limitation “the alkyl silane of formula (I)” (see claim 6 at line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 also recites the limitation “its… mixture composition” (see claim 6 at lines 1-2); it is not clear to what “its mixture composition” is meant to refer, as no “mixture composition” is recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated “the alkyl silane of formula (I) or its hydroxylate or mixture composition” as meaning the silicon resin comprising units of the formula ( Ia ) of claim 1 . Clarification is requested. Claim 7 recites the limitation “The additive composition of claim 3, the silicone antifoam composition comprising a silicone polymer, a silica, a surfactant, and water” (see claim 7 at lines 1-2); however, the silicone antifoam composition is not required by claim 3, and claim 7 does not indicate that it is required. It is not clear whether claim 7 is meant to require the silicone antifoam composition or whether the silicone antifoam composition is still optional but, if included, requires the further limitations recited by claim 7. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 7 as though it recites the additive composition of claim 3, wherein the antifoam composition comprises the silicone antifoam composition. Clarification is requested. Claim 8 recites the limitation “The additive composition of claim 4, wherein the organic additive comprising a diamine or alkanolamine or its mixture thereof” (see claim 8 at lines 1-2); however, the organic additive is not required by claim 4, and claim 8 does not indicate that it is required. It is not clear whether claim 8 is meant to require the organic additive or whether the organic additive is still optional but, if included, requires the further limitations recited by claim For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 8 as though it recites the additive composition of claim 4, wherein the additive composition comprises the organic additive. Clarification is requested. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the alkyl silane of formula ( Ia )” (see claim 12 at line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 also recites the limitation “its… mixture composition” (see claim 12 at lines 2-3); it is not clear to what “its mixture composition” is meant to refer, as no “mixture composition” is recited in claim 9. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated “the alkyl silane of formula ( Ia ) or its hydroxylate or mixture composition” as meaning the silicon resin comprising units of the formula ( Ia ) of claim 9. Clarification is requested. Claim 13 recites the limitations “15% to 35% of a pozzolanic material” and “60% to 80% of a clinker” (see claim 13 at lines 18-19), but does not specify whether these are percentage s measured on the basis of weight or volume, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated these percentages as being weight percentages. Clarification is requested. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the organic additive” (see claim 14 at line 1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitations “0.01 to 100%”, “0 to 69.99%” and “0 to 30%” (see claim 15 at lines 4, 19 and 23), but does not specify whether these are percentages measured on the basis of weight or volume, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated these percentages as being weight percentages. Clarification is requested. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the range” twice (see claim 15 at lines 27-29). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the concrete or mortar” (see claim 15 at lines 29-30). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated “the concrete or mortar” as referring to the previously recited concrete or mortar composition . Clarification is requested. Claim 15 recites the limitations “the concrete or mortar composition having a compressive strength improvement in the range of 10 to 30%” and “having a reduction of water uptake in the range of 10 to 40%” (see claim 15 at lines 27-29); the terms “improvement” and “reduction” are relative terms which render the scope of the claim indefinite. It is not clear from the claim what the basis of comparison is for the claimed improvement and reduction percentages, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For purposes of examination, Examiner treated these limitations as meaning that the concrete or mortar composition has the claimed improvement/reduction as compared to a concrete or mortar composition which does not include the cement additive composition. Clarification is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul, et al. (U . S . Pub. No. 2018 / 0282234 - A1) (hereinafter, “ PAUL ”). Regarding claim 1 , PAUL teaches a compressive strength improving, water uptake reducing additive composition (see PAUL generally at paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0042], [0075] and [0078] and Table 6, teaching a self-dispersible mixture additive which increases compressive strength and decreases water uptake when used in cement compositions ) comprising: an alkyl silane or its hydrolysate or a mixture thereof comprising a silicon resin comprising units of the formula ( Ia ) (R 1 O) a R 2 b R 3 c SiO (4-a-b-c)/2 ( Ia ) ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0024]-[0028] , [0066]-[0067] and [0075], teaching alkyltrialkoxysilane or its hydrolysate or a mixture thereof, e.g., hydrolyzed octyltriethoxysilane having greater than one unit , which is an alkyl silane hydrolysate comprising a silicon resin comprising units of formula ( Ia ) as claimed; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 29 and 37-38, stating that hydrolyzed alkoxysilane is silicon resin, and that octyltriethoxysilane is an exemplary alkyl silane of the invention meeting the limitations of formula ( Ia ) as claimed ) , wherein R 1 is a hydrogen atom or a monovalent alkyl group with 1-4 carbon atoms , R 2 is a monovalent alkyl group with 1-3 carbon atoms , R 3 is a monovalent alkyl with at least 4 carbon atoms, a is 0 to 3, b is 0 to 3, and c is 0 to 3 (see PAUL at paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075] ) ; octyltriethoxysilane (C 14 H 32 O 3 Si) when hydrolyzed and condensed forms a polymer having units C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , which is of formula ( Ia ) wherein R 3 is an octyl gr oup, a is 0 , b is 0 and c is 1 ), with the provisos that a+b+c≤3 ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, in C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , a is 0, b is 0 and c is 1, so a+b+c = 1 ), and that in more than 50 percent of all units of formula ( Ia ), b is less than c (s ee PAUL at [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075] ; as discussed above, the resin is units of formula ( Ia ) wherein b is 0 and c is 1 ); and wherein a, b and c are integers or fractions (s ee PAUL at [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, a and b are 0 and c is 1 ) . Regarding claim 9 , PAUL teaches a compressive strength improving, water uptake reducing, self-dispersible mixture additive composition ( see PAUL generally at paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0042], [0075] and [0078] and Table 6, teaching a self-dispersible mixture additive which increases compressive strength and decreases water uptake when used in cement compositions ) comprising: an alkyl silane or its hydrolysate or a mixture thereof comprising a silicon resin comprising units of the formula ( Ia ) (R 1 O) a R 2 b R 3 c SiO (4-a-b-c)/2 ( Ia ) ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075], teaching alkyltrialkoxysilane or its hydrolysate or a mixture thereof, e.g., hydrolyzed octyltriethoxysilane , which is an alkyl silane hydrolysate comprising a silicon resin comprising units of formula ( Ia ) as claimed; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 29 and 37-38, stating that hydrolyzed alkoxysilane is silicon resin, and that octyltriethoxysilane is an exemplary alkyl silane of the invention meeting the limitations of formula ( Ia ) as claimed), wherein R 1 is a hydrogen atom or a monovalent alkyl group with 1-4 carbon atoms , R 2 is a monovalent alkyl group with 1-3 carbon atoms , R 3 is a monovalent alkyl with at least 4 carbon atoms, a is 0 to 3, b is 0 to 3, and c is 0 to 3 (see PAUL at paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075] ) ; octyltriethoxysilane (C 14 H 32 O 3 Si) when hydrolyzed and condensed forms a polymer having units C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , which is of formula ( Ia ) wherein R 3 is an octyl group, a is 0, b is 0 and c is 1 ), with the provisos that a+b+c≤3 ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, in C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , a is 0, b is 0 and c is 1, so a+b+c = 1), and that in more than 50 percent of all units of formula ( Ia ), b is less than c (s ee PAUL at [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, the resin is units of formula ( Ia ) wherein b is 0 and c is 1); and wherein a, b and c are integers or fractions (s ee PAUL at [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, a and b are 0 and c is 1) . Regarding claim 2, PAUL teaches an additive composition according to claim 1, further comprising an alkyl silane of formula ( Ib ) or its hydrolysate or mixture thereof (X) 4-n SiR' n ( Ib ) , where in n is any number from 1 to 3, X is a halide or an -OR group wherein R a C 1 -C 20 group, and R' is a C 1 -C 20 group (see PAUL at paragraphs [0018], [0024] and [0028 ] ; see also Applicant’s specification at pg. 24, acknowledging that PAUL discloses the claimed alkyl silane). Regarding claims 4 , 8 and 11, PAUL teaches an additive composition according to claims 1 and 9 , further comprising: an additive selected from (a) an amino silane, (b) an amino siloxane or (c) an organic additive selected from a hyperbranched polycarboxylate polymer or molecules having groups NR" 2 -, or R" 2 N-R"'-NR"- or R"N=NR", where in R" and R"' are optionally substituted aromatic or aliphatic hydrocarbon radical s having C 1 -C 20 group, or a mixture thereof , as recited by claims 4 and 11, and wherein the organic additive compris es a diamine or an alkanolamine , or a mixture thereof , as recited by claim 8 ( see PAUL at paragraph [0067], teaching triethanolamine ) . Regarding claim 5, PAUL teaches an additive composition according to claim 1, wherein R 1 or R 2 is a methyl or ethyl group, and R 3 is an octyl or iso-octyl group ( paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075] ) ; it is noted that octyltriethoxysilane (C 14 H 32 O 3 Si) is of the formula ( Ia ) wherein R 1 is an ethyl group and R 3 is an octyl group, and a is 3, b is 0 and c is 1, however, alkyltrialkoxysilanes have 3 oxygen atoms and cannot meet the limitation of a+b+c ≤3 as claimed; as set forth above, when hydrolyzed and condensed , octyltriethoxysilane forms a polymer having units C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , which is of formula ( Ia ) wherein R 3 is an octyl group, a is 0, b is 0 and c is 1 , and a+b+c≤3; this is considered to meet the limitations of “wherein R 1 or R 2 is a methyl or ethyl group” as presently claimed, as R 1 or R 2 can be any group, such as a methyl or ethyl group, but are still not required by the claim as both a and b can be 0, and also as the claimed units ( Ia ) are formed from the hydrolysis and condensation of an alkyl silane wherein R 1 is an ethyl group and R 3 is an octyl group ) . Regarding claims 6 and 12, PAUL teaches an additive composition according to claims 1 and 9 , wherein the silicon resin comprising units of the formula ( Ia ) is emulsified or is in a solvent ( see PAUL at Abstract and paragraphs [0001] and [0044] ) . 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 . Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAUL . Regarding claim 15, PAUL teaches a cement mortar or concrete composition ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0040] and [0055] and Tables 5 and 7, teaching concrete and mortar compositions ) comprising: I) a cement composition ( see PAUL generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0002] , [0046] and [0072] ) comprising: 0.01 to 5% by weight of a cement additive composition ( see PAUL at paragraph [0072], teaching cement compositions comprising 300 g of hydraulic binder (Portland cement) and 2.5 g of the additive, i.e., 0.8% by weight; also see PAUL at paragraph [0050], teaching using 0.125% to 0.5% by weight of the additive ) comprising: a) 0.01 to 100% of a compressive strength improving, water uptake reducing additive composition ( see PAUL a t, e.g., paragraph [0072] , teaching a cement composition consisting of hydraulic binder (Portland cement) and the additive as claimed , i.e., the claimed additive is 100% by weight of the cement additive composition ) comprising: an alkyl silane or its hydrolysate or a mixture thereof comprising a silicon resin comprising units of the formula ( Ia ) (R 1 O) a R 2 b R 3 c SiO (4-a-b-c)/2 ( Ia ) ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075], teaching alkyltrialkoxysilane or its hydrolysate or a mixture thereof, e.g., hydrolyzed octyltriethoxysilane , which is an alkyl silane hydrolysate comprising a silicon resin comprising units of formula ( Ia ) as claimed; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 29 and 37-38, stating that hydrolyzed alkoxysilane is silicon resin, and that octyltriethoxysilane is an exemplary alkyl silane of the invention meeting the limitations of formula ( Ia ) as claimed), wherein R 1 is a hydrogen atom or a monovalent alkyl group with 1-4 carbon atoms , R 2 is a monovalent alkyl group with 1-3 carbon atoms , R 3 is a monovalent alkyl with at least 4 carbon atoms, a is 0 to 3, b is 0 to 3, and c is 0 to 3 (see PAUL at paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075] ) ; octyltriethoxysilane (C 14 H 32 O 3 Si) when hydrolyzed and condensed forms a polymer having units C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , which is of formula ( Ia ) wherein R 3 is an octyl group, a is 0, b is 0 and c is 1 ), with the provisos that a+b+c≤3 ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, in C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , a is 0, b is 0 and c is 1, so a+b+c = 1), and that in more than 50 percent of all units of formula ( Ia ), b is less than c (s ee PAUL at [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, the resin is units of formula ( Ia ) wherein b is 0 and c is 1); and wherein a, b and c are integers or fractions (s ee PAUL at [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, a and b are 0 and c is 1) ; b) 0 to 69.99% of an additive selected from (a) an amino silane, (b) an amino siloxane or (c) an organic additive selected from a hyperbranched polycarboxylate polymer or molecules having groups NR" 2 -, or R" 2 N-R"'-NR"- or R"N=NR", where in R" and R"' are optionally substituted aromatic or aliphatic hydrocarbon radical s having C 1 -C 20 group, or a mixture thereof ( see PAUL a t, e.g., paragraph [0072] , teaching a cement composition consisting of hydraulic binder (Portland cement) and the additive of a) as claimed , i.e., the additive of a) is 100% by weight of the cement additive composition , i.e., other additives are 0% ); c) 0 to 30% of an antifoam composition selected from a silicone antifoam composition and a non-silicone antifoam composition and its mixtures thereof ( see PAUL a t, e.g., paragraph [0072] , teaching a cement composition consisting of hydraulic binder (Portland cement) and the additive of a) as claimed, i.e., the additive of a) is 100% by weight of the cement additive composition, i.e., other additives are 0% ) ; and II) a silica composition ( see PAUL at paragraph [0055], teaching a mortar comprising the additive, sand, water, and Portland cement, which is a silica composition; see also Applicant’s specification at pg. 38, describing an identical mortar composition, i.e., Portland cement appears to be the silica composition as claimed ) , wherein the concrete or mortar composition has a compressive strength improvement in a range of 10 to 30% determined according to DIN EN 12390-3 or DIN EN 196-1, respectively (see PAUL at Table 6, teaching that the additive composition causes an improvement in compressive strength of, e.g., 4.15 to 16.02 N/mm2, or 3.09 to 3.62 N/mm2, i.e., an improvement of 13% or 17%.). PAUL teaches that the additive composition decreases water uptake (see PAUL at , e.g., paragraph s [0078] and Tables 8-10 ) , but fails to explicitly mention that the concrete or mortar composition has a reduction of water uptake in a range of 10 to 40% according to ASTM C1585 ; however, as described above, PAUL teaches a mortar composition as claimed by the present claim, therefore the mortar composition of PAUL would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as the present invention, including a reduction of water uptake in a range from 10 to 40% . MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that 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 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "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). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed Cir. 1990). 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. Claim s 3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAUL in view of Zinatullin , et al. (RU - 2520608 - C1) (hereinafter, “ ZINATULLIN ” ; citations herein refer to the attached machine translation ) . Regarding claims 3, 7 and 10, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, PAUL teaches an additive composition according to claims 1 and 9. PAUL teaches that to improve the performance characteristics, further additives can be added to the self-dispersible mixture additive (see PAUL at paragraph [0039]); h owever, PAUL fails to explicitly teach that the additive composition further comprises an antifoam composition selected from the group consisting of a silicone antifoam composition , a non-silicone antifoam composition , and a mixture thereof , as recited by claims 3 and 10, wherein the silicone antifoam composition comprises a silicone polymer, a silica, a surfactant, and water, as recited by claim 7. ZINATULLIN teaches an additive for mortar compositions which includes an antifoam additive comprising an aqueous emulsion of polymethylalkylsiloxanes (i.e., silicone polymers), nonionic surfactants, and aerosil (i.e., silica) (see ZINATULLIN at paragraphs 6-7 and 17-18 ). ZINATULLIN teaches that the formation of foam in a cement mortar can lead to the formation of porous cement stone and as a result decrease the strength, and that the introduction of this antifoam into the additive eliminates the formation of foam in a cement mortar, which increases the strength of the mortar ( see ZINATULLIN at paragraph 17 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the additive composition of PAUL by incorporating the silicone antifoam additive comprising silicone polymer, silica, surfactant and water taught by ZINATULLIN ( see ZINATULLIN at paragraph 18 ) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing an additive which can inhibit the formation of foam when added to a cement mortar, thereby increasing the strength of the mortar ( see ZINATULLIN at 17). Claim s 3, 10 and 13 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PAUL in view of Kim, et al. (KR - 101963579 - B1) (hereinafter, “ KIM ” ; citations herein refer to the attached machine translation ) , with evidence from PCA, “Environmental Product Declaration Portland Cement” (hereinafter, “PCA”) as to the rejection of claim 13 . Regarding claims 3 and 10, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, PAUL teaches an additive composition according to claims 1 and 9. PAUL teaches that to improve the performance characteristics, further additives can be added to the self-dispersible mixture additive (see PAUL at paragraph [0039]); however, PAUL fails to explicitly teach that the additive composition further comprises an antifoam composition selected from the group consisting of a silicone antifoam composition , a non-silicone antifoam composition , and a mixture thereof . However, antifoam compositions are common and well-known additives for cement compositions in the art. For example, KIM teaches additives for concrete compositions including alkyl silanes, e.g., alkyltrialkoxysilanes , and silicone and non-silicone antifoaming agents (see KIM at Abstract and paragraphs [0022] , [0052]-[0054] and [0086]-[0090] ). KIM teaches that antifoaming agents reduce the increase in the amount of air in the composition due to the generation of entrained air (see KIM at paragraph [0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the additive composition of PAUL by incorporating an antifoaming agent as taught by KIM ( see KIM at paragraphs [0022] and [0052]-[0054 ) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of being able to control the air content of the cement composition to which the additive is added, as taught by KIM (see KIM at paragraph [0052]). Regarding claim 13 , PAUL teaches a compressive strength improving, water uptake reducing cement composition (see PAUL generally at Abstract and paragraph [0002] ) comprising: a) 0.01 to 5% by weight of a compressive strength improving, water uptake reducing additive composition (see PAUL at paragraph [0072], teaching cement compositions comprising 300 g of binder (Portland cement) and 2.5 g of the additive, i.e., 0.8% by weight; also see PAUL at paragraph [0050], teaching 0.125% to 0.5% by weight of the additive ) comprising: an alkyl silane or its hydrolysate or a mixture thereof comprising a silicon resin comprising units of the formula ( Ia ) (R 1 O) a R 2 b R 3 c SiO (4-a-b-c)/2 ( Ia ) ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0024]-[0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075], teaching alkyltrialkoxysilane or its hydrolysate or a mixture thereof, e.g., hydrolyzed octyltriethoxysilane , which is an alkyl silane hydrolysate comprising a silicon resin comprising units of formula ( Ia ) as claimed; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 29 and 37-38, stating that hydrolyzed alkoxysilane is silicon resin, and that octyltriethoxysilane is an exemplary alkyl silane of the invention meeting the limitations of formula ( Ia ) as claimed), wherein R 1 is a hydrogen atom or a monovalent alkyl group with 1-4 carbon atoms , R 2 is a monovalent alkyl group with 1-3 carbon atoms , R 3 is a monovalent alkyl with at least 4 carbon atoms, a is 0 to 3, b is 0 to 3, and c is 0 to 3 (see PAUL at paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075] ) ; octyltriethoxysilane (C 14 H 32 O 3 Si) when hydrolyzed and condensed forms a polymer having units C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , which is of formula ( Ia ) wherein R 3 is an octyl group, a is 0, b is 0 and c is 1 ), with the provisos that a+b+c≤3 ( see PAUL at paragraphs [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, in C 8 H 17 SiO 1.5 , a is 0, b is 0 and c is 1, so a+b+c = 1), and that in more than 50 percent of all units of formula ( Ia ), b is less than c (s ee PAUL at [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, the resin is units of formula ( Ia ) wherein b is 0 and c is 1); and wherein a, b and c are integers or fractions (s ee PAUL at [0028], [0066]-[0067] and [0075]; as discussed above, a and b are 0 and c is 1) ; and c) a clinker (see PAUL at paragraph [0072], teaching Portland cement , which typically comprises an average of 91.4% clinker by weight as evidenced by PCA ; see PCA at pg. 4 ) . However, PAUL fails to explicitly teach that the additive composition comprises b) 15% to 35% of a pozzolanic material , or that the clinker is present in an amount of 60% to 80% . KIM teaches cement compositions (concrete) including additives, e.g., alkyltrialkoxysilanes (see KIM at Abstract and paragraphs [0086]-[0090] ) , wherein the binder comprises Portland cement and fly ash (a pozzolanic material) , wherein the fly ash is included in an amount of 1 to 20 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the cement (see KIM at Abstract and paragraphs [0034] ) . KIM teaches that mixing the fly ash with the cement in this amount results in compositions having improved workability, alleviated curing heat, and improved long-term strength and water tightness (see KIM at paragraphs [0039]-[0043] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cement composition of PAUL by including fly ash in an amount of 1 to 20 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the cement as taught by KIM (see KIM at Abstract) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the workability, long-term strength and water-tightness of the cement composition as taught by KIM (see KIM at paragraphs [0039]-[0043]). Using 1 to 20 parts by weight of fly ash per 100 parts by weight of Portland cement would result in a cement composition comprising approximately 1% to 17% by weight of fly ash and 76% to 90% by weight of clinker (which as discussed above comprises an average of 91.4% by weight of Portland cement); these ranges overlap with and thereby render obvious the claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 13 above, PAUL in view of KIM teaches an additive composition according to claim 13, wherein the additive composition further compris es a diamine or an alkanolamine , or a mixture thereof ( see PAUL at paragraph [0067], teaching triethanolamine ) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5406 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST . 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 on 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. /S.C.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 1731 /ANTHONY J GREEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731