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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 13 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has failed to meet the burden under MPEP 806.05 to demonstrate that the groups are distinct and unrelated inventions requiring separate searches… the mere citation of a reference (with reference to Pfeil, see previous office action dated 04/23/2026) disclosing certain components does not establish that the specific combination and configuration claimed in claim 1 and its dependent claims fail to contribute over prior art… Examiner has failed to demonstrate that the method can be practiced with materially different apparatus or compositions… the inventions are functionally related as product and process under 37 CFR 1.475(b)(2) and, and the Examiner has not met the burden under MPEP 806.04(e) to show that separate searches would be required (see Applicant’s arguments at page 2 paragraph 2 to page 3 paragraph 1).
This is not found persuasive because the application is a national stage application provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), not under 37 CFR 1.475(b)(2), and shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”).
Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident "a priori," i.e., before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent "a posteriori," i.e., after taking the prior art into consideration. In this case, there is a lack of unity of invention after taking the prior art into consideration “a posteriori” (see MPEP § 1850.II). Pfeil has reasonably met the technical feature of claim 1, as outlined the previous office action dated 04/23/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
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 7 is 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 7 lines 2-3 reciting “the activator comprises at least one alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt” is indefinite because it is not clear if it is the same or different from the claimed “at least one alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt” in claim 1 lines 2-3.
Examiner is treating the claimed “at least one alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt” in claim 7 to be different from the claimed “at least one alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt” in claim 1 based on specification at page 7 paragraph 3 disclosing the at least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt… is preferably comprised in the curable aluminous cement component A, and specification at page 10 paragraph 2 disclosing the activator present in component B comprises at least one alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt.
Examiner suggests clarifying the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfeil and Beroll (US 2018/0290935 A1) (“Beroll” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Beroll teaches an inorganic mortar system (see Beroll at [0107] teaching the long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition… is used in a mortar system comprising a curable aqueous-phase aluminous cement component). The mortar system are taken to meet the claimed inorganic mortar system, based on the structure as outlined below, comprising:
at least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt (see Beroll at [0107] teaching the long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition, see Beroll at [0028] teaching a long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition comprising… at least one accelerator component comprising at least one water-soluble alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt),
for a chemical fastening of an anchor in a mineral substrate to accelerate curing of a cement (this recitation is alluding to state a purpose, or intended use of the claimed “at least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt” and does not add to the structure. As such, this recitation is being treated as being taught by Beroll. Alternatively, see Beroll at [0108] teaching the long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition… is used for activating the setting and hardening of a curable aqueous-phase aluminous cement component used for chemical fastening of anchoring means in mineral surfaces), and
a curable aluminous cement component A (see Beroll at [0107] teaching a two-component mortar system comprising a curable aqueous-phase aluminous cement component), and
an initiator component B (see Beroll at [0027]-[0028] teaching the term “long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition”… is also referred to as component B with regard to a two-component mortar system… a long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition),
for initiating the curing process (this recitation is alluding to state a purpose, or intended use of the claimed “initiator component B” and does not add to the structure. As such, this recitation is being treated as being taught by Beroll),
wherein component A further comprises at least one blocking agent selected from the group consisting of… phosphoric acid (see Beroll at [0099] teaching the cement component may be blocked by a blocking agent selected from the group consisting of… phosphoric acid), and
wherein component B comprises an activator (see Beroll at [0028] teaching a long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition comprising… at least one activator component).
Regarding claim 2, Beroll teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Beroll further teaches wherein the aluminous cement component A is an aluminous cement component based on an aqueous-phase calcium aluminate cement (see Beroll at [0096] teaching the cement component… is based on an aqueous-phase aluminous cement (CA)… the calcium aluminate cement).
Regarding claim 3, Beroll teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Beroll further teaches wherein the initiator component B further comprises at least one retarder, at least one mineral filler, and water (see Beroll at [0028] teaching at least one retarder… at least one mineral filler… and water).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 13, Beroll teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Beroll further teaches wherein the least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt to accelerate curing of the cement is constituted of at least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt selected from the group consisting of… sulfates (claim 5), wherein the least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt to accelerate curing of the cement is… lithium sulfate (claim 6), and wherein the least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt to accelerate curing of the cement is… lithium sulfate (claim 13) (see Beroll at [0031] teaching the accelerator component is constituted of at least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt selected from the group consisting of… sulfates… lithium metal salt… lithium sulfate).
Regarding claim 7, Beroll teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and Beroll further teaches wherein the activator comprises at least one alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt, the at least one retarder is selected from the group consisting of… citric acid… and the at least one mineral filler is selected from the group consisting of… limestone fillers (see Beroll at [0028] teaching at least one activator component comprising at least one alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt… at least one retarder selected from the group consisting of… citric acid… at least one mineral filler selected from the group consisting of… limestone fillers).
Regarding claim 8, Beroll teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Beroll further teaches wherein the activator only comprises sodium hydroxide (see Beroll at [0029] teaching the activator component… selected from the group consisting of… sodium metal salt… sodium hydroxide).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beroll.
Regarding claim 9, Beroll teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Beroll further teaches wherein the at least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt to accelerate curing of the cement is in at product obtained by mixing components A and B, and is present in a range of from about 0.05 wt.% to 10.0 wt.% (see Beroll at [0031] teaching the accelerator component is constituted of at least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt… comprises at least… from about 0.01 wt% to about 25 wt%) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The claimed “is in at product obtained by mixing components A and B” is being treated as product-by-process limitations because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Beroll (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitations is a mixture, see Beroll at [0093]-[0095] teaching the method… comprises the steps of… i) adding the long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition… to an aqueous-phase aluminous cement component, and… ii) mixing it).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beroll as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seip (US 2018/0319712 A1) (“Seip” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Beroll teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Beroll further teaches the term “long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition”… is also referred to as component B with regard to a two-component mortar system… long-term stabilized aqueous initiator composition comprising… at least one accelerator component comprising at least one water-soluble alkali and/or alkaline earth metal salt… the accelerator component is constituted of at least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt selected from the group consisting of… sulfates… lithium metal salt… lithium sulfate… the cement component may be blocked by a blocking agent selected from the group consisting of… metaphosphoric acid (see Beroll at [0027]-[0029], [0031] and [0099]). However, Beroll does not explicitly teach wherein the least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt to accelerate curing of the cement is comprised in the curable aluminous cement component A of the inorganic mortar system.
Like Beroll, Seip teaches a curing accelerator comprising lithium sulfate for a composition comprising calcium aluminate cement and a blocking agent metaphosphoric acid, and a second component comprising an activator sodium hydroxide (see Seip at [0010]-[0016] and [0030] teaching A) provision of an aqueous paste-like first component (a) by… (a1) mixing of at least one fast-curing hydraulic biner and… (a2) at least one retardant selected from… metaphosphoric acid… (a3) addition of a curing accelerator selected from… lithium sulfate… B) addition of a second component (b) comprising at least one activator… binder comprises… aluminate cements, preferably calcium aluminate cement… the second component (b) comprises an activator… such as sodium hydroxide). A component comprising aluminate cement comprising at least one retardant metaphosphoric acid and curing accelerator lithium sulfate is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt to accelerate curing of the cement is comprised in the curable aluminous cement component A of the inorganic mortar system”.
Additionally, Seip teaches that lithium sulfate… known curing accelerators… it was therefore surprising that lithium sulfate… can be comprised in the paste-like first component, without the fast-curing hydraulic binder setting prematurely (see Seip at [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add lithium sulfate as taught by Seip in the curable aluminous cement component A as taught by Beroll without the fast-curing hydraulic binder setting prematurely because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed “wherein the least one alkali and/or earth alkaline metal salt to accelerate curing of the cement is comprised in the curable aluminous cement component A of the inorganic mortar system” is are critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Seip to choose add lithium sulfate as taught by Seip in the curable aluminous cement component A as taught by Beroll without the fast-curing hydraulic binder setting prematurely.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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 R 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights