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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Specification
The use of the terms WACKER VINNAPAS 8031H and WACKER VINNAPAS 8034H in specification at [0022], [0039], [0045], [0051], [0057], [0063], [0069], [0075], [0081] and [0089], which are trade names or a marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 106542792 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Li” hereinafter) in view of Xue et al. (CN 113943137 A, with reference to US 2023/0167026 A1, as the translation) (“Xue” hereinafter) and Bichler et al. (US 2017/0320778 A1) (“Bichler” hereinafter); as evidenced by Sundaralingam et al. (Quarry dust as river sand replacement in cement masonry blocks: Effect on mechanical and durability characteristics, 2022) (“Sundaralingam” hereinafter) with respect to claim 1, and as evidenced by Process Systems (Mesh Sizing Chart, 2016) (“Process” hereinafter) with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a similar material (see Li at [0008] teaching a similar simulation material), which is taken to meet the claimed similar material based on the structure as outlined below,
for a rock slope model test under water-rock interaction (this recitation is directed towards the intended use of this similar material. MPEP states that, "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" (see MPEP § 2111.02 II)),
wherein the similar material is prepared from raw materials comprising the following components:
an iron powder (see Li at [0009] teaching iron concentrate, see Li at [0010] teaching iron concentrate: not greater than 100 mesh). Iron concentrate is taken to meet the claimed iron powder based on specification at [0017] disclosing the iron powder has a standard mesh size of 100 mesh to 200 mesh,
a quartz sand (see Li at [0009]-[0010] teaching sand… sand: ordinary river sand). Sand is taken to meet the claimed quartz sand as evidenced by Sundaralingam (see Sundaralingam at page 3, left column, paragraph 2 evidencing for both quarry dust and river sand, quartz is the dominant mineral and it constitutes to more than 90% by mass),
a barite powder (see Li at [0009] teaching barite powder),
a gypsum (see Li at [0009] teaching gypsum),
glycerin (see Li at [0009] teaching glycerin), and
water (see Li at [0009] teaching water).
Li does not explicitly teach i) a gypsum retarding agent, and ii) a dispersible polymer powder.
With regards to i), like Li, Xue teaches a similar material comprising quartz sand, barite powder and gypsum (see Xue at [0009] and [0012] teaching a rock similar material… including an aggregate, a cementing material, and an additive, wherein the aggregate includes quartz sand, barite powder… and the cementing material includes… gypsum… the additive includes a gypsum retarder). Xue further teaches the gypsum retarder is used to better control a gypsum setting time (see Xue at [0040]). The gypsum retarder is taken to meet the claimed i) “a gypsum retarding agent”.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Xue teaches that gypsum retarder is used to better control a gypsum setting time, and seek those advantages by adding gypsum retarder in the similar simulation material as taught by Li.
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 gypsum retarder as taught by Xue in the similar simulation material as taught by Li so as to better control the gypsum setting time.
With regards to ii), like Li, Bichler teaches a composition comprising gypsum (see Bichler at [0086]-[0088] and [0090] teaching a composition in powder form comprising… an inorganic powder… at least one polymer of the disclosure… the composition… in powder form, see Bichler at [0095] teaching the inorganic binder may in particular be gypsum… the expression “gypsum” is used synonymously in the present context with calcium sulfate, and the calcium sulfate may be present in its various anhydrous and hydrated forms with and without water of crystallization). Bichler teaches the present disclosure envisages the use of the polymer… as an admixture for inorganic binder compositions… the polymer… may more particularly be used as a dispersant in inorganic binder (see Bichler at [0080]). The dispersant polymer powder is taken to meet the claimed ii) “a dispersible polymer powder”.
Bichler further teaches the use of the polymer… as an admixture for inorganic binder compositions, and a composition in powder form comprising an inorganic binder and the polymer of the disclosure… to give inorganic suspensions of solids enhanced workability, i.e., kneadability, spreadability, sprayability, pumpability or flowability, they often have admixtures added to them, in the form of dispersants or plasticizers (see Bichler at [0001]-[0002]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Bichler teaches that dispersant polymer powder enhanced workability, i.e., kneadability, spreadability, sprayability, pumpability or flowability of inorganic suspensions of solids, and seek those advantages by adding dispersant polymer powder in the similar simulation material as taught by Li.
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 dispersant polymer powder as taught by Bichler in the similar simulation material as taught by Li so as to enhance workability, i.e., kneadability, spreadability, sprayability, pumpability or flowability of inorganic suspensions of solids.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Xue and Bichler teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Li in view of Xue and Bichler further teach wherein the similar material is prepared from the raw materials comprising the following components in parts by weight… the parts by weight of the raw materials meets the following relationship:
a part of the iron powder, c part of the barite powder, a = 0.4×(a + c) to 0.7×(a + c) (see Li at [0009] teaching iron concentrate 7.11%-11.14%... barite powder 4.98%-8.48%). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the relationship of a (or iron)/c (or barite) = 0.7 to 2.3. a (or iron)/ c (or barite) is 0.84 (or 7.11/8.48) to 2.24 (or 11.14/4.98) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
b part of the quartz sand, b = 0.1 to 0.4 (see Li at [0009] teaching sand 37.15%-42.70%). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount is equivalent to 0.3715 (or 37.15 ÷ 100) to 0.4240 (or 42.70 ÷ 100) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
d part of the gypsum, d = 0.005 to 0.015 (see Li at [0009] teaching gypsum 1.78%-3.72%). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount is equivalent to 0.0178 (or 1.78 ÷ 100) to 0.0372 (or 3.72 ÷ 100). 0.0178 is close to the claimed 0.015, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (see MPEP § 2144.05). In this instance, there are no expected differences in properties between similar material as taught by Li in view of Xue and Bichler and the claimed similar material,
e part of the glycerin, e = 0.01 to 0.05 (see Li at [0009] teaching glycerin 0.73%-1.65%). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount is equivalent to 0.0073 (or 0.73 ÷ 100) to 0.0165 (or 1.65 ÷ 100) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
f part of the water, f = 0.05 to 0.1 (see Li at [0009] teaching water 11.41%-16.94%). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount is equivalent to 0.1141 (or 11.41 ÷ 100) to 0.1694 (or 16.94 ÷ 100) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
g part of the gypsum retarding agent, g = 0.05 d to 0.3 d. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that 0.05 d (or 0.5 x 0.0178 = 0.00089) to 0.3 d (or 0.3 x 0.0372 = 0.1116) (see Xue at [0040] teaching a mass of the additive is 0.1-3%). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount is equivalent to 0.001 (or 0.1 ÷ 100) to 0.03 (3 ÷ 100) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
h part of the dispersible polymer powder, h = 0.001 to 0.015 (see Bichler at [0088] teaching B) 0.01 to 4 wt% of at least one polymer). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount is equivalent to 0.0001 (or 0.01 ÷ 100) to 0.04 (or 4 ÷ 100) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and
a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h = 1 (One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the sum is 0.6327 to 0.9163, or 0.6 to 1 (see MPEP 2144.05(I))).
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Xue and Bichler teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Li further teaches wherein the iron powder has a standard mesh size of 100 mesh to 200 mesh (see Li at [0010] teaching iron concentrate: not greater than 100 mesh) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
the quartz sand has a standard mesh size of 50 mesh to 100 mesh (see Li at [0010] teaching sand… not greater than 20 mesh) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The sizes for 50 mesh to 10 mesh are smaller than 20 mesh as evidenced by Process (see Process at page 1 mesh 20 is 0.0331 inches… mesh 50 is 0.0117 inches… mesh 100 is 0.0059 inches), and
the barite powder has a standard mesh size of 200 mesh to 400 mesh (see Li at [0010] teaching barite powder: not greater than 325 mesh) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Xue and Bichler teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Li does not explicitly teach wherein the gypsum is at least one selected from the group consisting of an α-type high-strength gypsum and a β-type building gypsum.
However, Bichler teaches that the inorganic binder may in particular be gypsum… the expression “gypsum” is used synonymously in the present context with calcium sulfate, and the calcium sulfate may be present in its various anhydrous and hydrated forms with and without water of crystallization… natural gypsum substantially comprises calcium sulfate dihydrate (“dihydrate”)… the natural form of calcium sulfate free of water of crystallization is encompassed by the expression “anhydrite”… as well as the naturally occurring forms, calcium sulfate is a typical byproduct of industrial processes, and is then referred to as “synthetic gypsum”… a typical example of a synthetic gypsum from industrial processes is flue gas desulfurization… synthetic gypsum, however, may equally also be formed as the byproduct of phosphoric acid or hydrofluoric acid production processes… typical gypsum (CaSO4×2 H2O) can be calcined, with the water of crystallization being removed… products of the wide variety of different calcining processes are α- or β-hemihydrate… β-Hemihydrate results from rapid heating in open vessels, accompanied by rapid evaporation of water, forming voids… α-Hemihydrate is produced by the dewatering of gypsum in closed autoclaves… the crystal habit in this case is relatively impervious, and so this binder requires less water for liquefaction than does β-hemihydrate… on the other hand, hemihydrate undergoes rehydration with water to form dihydrate crystals… gypsum hydration customarily takes from several minutes to hours, resulting in a shortened working time as compared with cements, which require several hours to days for complete hydration… these qualities make gypsum a useful alternative to cements as binders in a wide variety of areas (see Bichler at [0095]).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that α- or β- gypsum are suitable for its intended use. α- or β- gypsum is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the gypsum is at least one selected from the group consisting of an α-type high-strength gypsum and a β-type building gypsum”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use α- or β- gypsum as taught by Bichler as gypsum in the similar simulation material as taught by Li because both are suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Xue and Bichler teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Xue further teaches wherein the gypsum retarding agent is at least one selected from the group consisting of… an alkaline phosphate retarding agent (see Xue at [0040] teaching the gypsum retarder is one or more selected from the group consisting of… an alkaline phosphate).
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