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 . 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perrino (EP3842400A1 - corresponding U.S PG Pub 20230015398A1 used for citations), Guynn (U.S Patent 9272953B2), and in view of Kinuthia (U.S PG Pub 20030159624A1).
Regarding claim 1, Perrino, drawn also to the art of a dry mortar composition and a dry cementitious tile adhesive (Abstract), discloses a dry mortar composition wherein 10-50 wt.% of cementitious binder is present and 20-75 wt. % aggregate, and wherein the binder is Portland cement and may comprise a pozzolanic binder especially slag and fly ash (claims 1 & 7). Perrino also discloses the slag and fly ash to be present in a range of 0.5-20 wt.%. [0039]. Perrino has not explicitly disclosed a biomass ash in the range as claimed, however, this is known from Guynn.
Guynn, drawn also to the art of high-strength cement and SCM (i.e. ashes) blends (Abstract), discloses a dry mortar composition with Portland cement less than 60% (claim 13) and SCM more than 40% (claim 13) in a binder mix are mixed with aggregate (claim 18 & 20), discloses the SCM being biomass ash (claim 4). The ranges as disclosed by Guynn form overlapping and encompassing ranges with the instantly claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the composition of Perrino, with the biomass ash in the weight range as disclosed by Guynn, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have improved workability and improved set time and reduced shrinkage (Column 2, lines 10-22).
With regards to the biomass ash being a wood ash or being from waste of paper and pulp, this is further known from Kinuthia.
Kinuthia, drawn also to the art of a cement composition (Abstract), discloses a binder composition of 30-70wt% biomass ash [0048] obtained from wood (paper – [0007]) or paper/pulp [0042-0043] and 25wt% of cement [0049], and discloses the aggregate to binder ratio being 1:3 (binder mix to aggregate ratio is 1:3) [0053].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the composition of Perrino and Guynn, with the biomass ash being as claimed, as disclosed by Kinuthia, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a cementitious composition less detrimental to the environment [0013].
Regarding claims 2, 4, 9, 17-18, the combination of Perrino, Guynn, and Kinuthia have disclosed the weight ranges and ratios for the biomass ashes and cement and the biomass ashes and cement weight range as part of the whole concrete mixture as claimed (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claims 3 & 16, Perrino discloses slag or fly ash being present in the claimed range [0039].
Regarding claim 5, Perrino discloses the cement being CEM 1 [0034].
Regarding claims 6 & 20, Perrino as modified by Guynn and Kinuthia discloses the biomass ash being a wood ash (obtained from paper i.e. wood – see [0007] & [0042-0043] of Kinuthia).
Regarding claims 8 & 21, Kinuthia has disclosed the biomass ash having a chemical content as claimed [0045-0046]
Regarding claim 10, Perrino discloses the aggregates being dolomitic [0049].
Regarding claims 11-12, Perrino discloses an accelerator and redispersible polymer powder being a part of the composition [0067].
Regarding claims 13-15, Perrino discloses the composition in use as a tile adhesive and discloses the steps of applying water to form a paste and then applying the paste to a substrate and then applying a tile (Title; [0094-0097 & 0109-0110].
Regarding claim 19, Guynn discloses the SCM or biomass ash having a D50 in the range of 10um to 30 um (claims 1, 11-12). The range disclosed by Guynn forms an overlapping and encompassing range and thus obviates the range (MPEP 2144.05(I)) It is also noted that such a limitation merely amounts to a change in size limitation and that a change in size is obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 IV (A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see RCE, filed 09/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Perrino, and Cook have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Perrino, Guynn, and Kinuthia.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the references of Cook, Rajamma, and Dodgen have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
