DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (CN 110436874 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as SHAO.
Regarding claim 1, SHAO teaches a phosphogypsum-based material (paragraph [2]: phosphogypsum-based self-leveling mortar), comprising the following raw materials in parts by weight: 0.2-0.8 parts of water, 0.01-0.3 parts of a cement, 0.01-0.6 parts of a fly ash, 0-0.6 parts of a stone powder, 0-3 parts of a sand and 0-5 parts of a stone; and
further comprising the following raw materials in parts by weight: one part of any one or a combination of two or more selected from the group consisting of phosphogypsum, a modified phosphogypsum, and a modified phosphogypsum powder (paragraphs [9-10]: 40-60 parts of phosphorus building gypsum, 15-22 parts of cement, 10-24 parts of fly ash, 3-10 parts of stone powder, 1.5-4 parts of redispersible powder type, and cellulose ether 0.05 -0.15 parts, nano carbon fiber 0.02-0.06 parts, water retaining agent 0.3-0.8 parts, water reducing agent 0.1-1.3 parts, anti-settling agent 0.1-0.4 parts, defoaming agent 0.01-0.08 parts, fine sand aggregate 30-42; and 13% to 15% of the total weight of the water). SHAO teaches a composition comprising 0.7-1 parts of phosphogypsum, 0.2-0.4 parts water, 0.25-0.37 parts cement, 0.17-0.4 parts fly ash, 0.05-0.17 parts of stone powder and 0.5-0.7 parts sand. Thus, SHAO teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges. 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Please note, the limitations “0-0.6 parts of a stone powder”, “0-3 parts of a sand”, “0-5 parts of a stone” and “0-0.5 parts of any one selected from the group consisting of a basalt fiber, graphite, and a steel fiber” are optional and not positively required by the claim.
While SHAO is silent with respect to the disclosed phosphogypsum-based material being backfill material, SHAO teaches material comprising constituents in amounts that overlap with the claimed ranges. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when using the composition of SHAO as a backfill material. 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 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regrading claim 3, SHAO teaches the phosphogypsum-based backfill material according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the water to (the cement + the modified phosphogypsum + the modified phosphogypsum powder) or a mass ratio of the water to (the cement + the fly ash + the stone powder) is less than or equal to 0.5 (paragraphs [9-10]: 40-60 parts of phosphorus building gypsum, 15-22 parts of cement, 10-24 parts of fly ash, 3-10 parts of stone powder, and 13% to 15% of the total weight of the water). SHAO teaches a composition comprising 0.25-0.37 parts cement, 0.17-0.4 parts fly ash, 0.05-0.17 parts of stone powder and 0.2-0.4 parts of water. Thus, SHAO teaches a mass ratio of the water to (the cement + the fly ash + the stone powder) of 0.2-0.85, which overlap and render obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, SHAO teaches the phosphogypsum-based backfill material according to claim 1, wherein the cement is a Portland cement (paragraph [11]: the cement is ordinary Portland cement).
Regarding claim 6, SHAO teaches the phosphogypsum-based backfill material according to claim 1, wherein a fineness degree and a specific surface area of the fly ash meet grade I and II requirements in a fly ash specification (paragraph [12]: the fly ash is ordinary second fly ash).
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (CN 101648412 A) wit reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as FANG.
Regarding claim 1, FANG teaches a phosphogypsum-based backfill material (Abstract: gypsum construction product), comprising the following raw materials in parts by weight: 0.2-0.8 parts of water, 0.01-0.3 parts of a cement, 0.01-0.6 parts of a fly ash; and
further comprising the following raw materials in parts by weight: one part of any one or a combination of two or more selected from the group consisting of phosphogypsum, a modified phosphogypsum, and a modified phosphogypsum powder, and
0-0.5 parts of any one selected from the group consisting of a basalt fiber, graphite, and a steel fiber (paragraph 1, p. 4: construction gypsum, padding powder, reinforced fibre, plasticizing agent, coagulator, water-proof agent and according to the weight percentage of 50-85%, 0-40%, 0-5%,0-5.0%, 0-3%, 0-20% and 10-25%; paragraph 2, p. 4: phosphogypsum; paragraph 3, p. 4: the padding powder refers to the inorganic ore powder, such as fly ash and stone powder; paragraph 4, p. 4: the reinforced fibre refers to the steel fibre; and paragraph 7, p. 4: the water-proof agent refers to the Portland cement). FANG teaches a gypsum construction composition comprising 0.6-1 parts of gypsum/phosphogypsum, 0-0.47 parts of padding powder/fly ash, 0-0.06 parts of fibre, 0-0.24 parts of water-proof agent/cement and 0.11-0.29 parts of water. Thus, FANG teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges.
Please note, the limitations “0-0.6 parts of a stone powder”, “0-3 parts of a sand” and “0-5 parts of a stone” are optional and not positively required by the claim.
While FANG is silent with respect to the disclosed gypsum construction material being backfill material, FANG teaches material comprising constituents in amounts that overlap with the claimed ranges. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when using the composition of FANG as a backfill material. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 2, FANG teaches the phosphogypsum-based backfill material according to claim 1, wherein the basalt fiber, the graphite, or the steel fiber has a length of less than or equal to 50 mm (paragraph 4, p. 4: the reinforced fibre refers to the steel fibre; the short cutting length is 50-5 mm). FANG teaches range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, FANG teaches the phosphogypsum-based backfill material according to claim 1, wherein a mass of the steel fiber or the basalt fiber is 10% to 20% of a mass of the phosphogypsum or the modified phosphogypsum, and a mass ratio of the fly ash to the cement is in a range of (1-3):1 (paragraph 1, p. 4: construction gypsum, padding powder, reinforced fibre, plasticizing agent, coagulator, water-proof agent and according to the weight percentage of 50-85%, 0-40%, 0-5%,0-5.0%, 0-3%, 0-20% and 10-25%; paragraph 2, p. 4: phosphogypsum; paragraph 3, p. 4: the padding powder refers to the inorganic ore powder, such as fly ash and stone powder; paragraph 4, p. 4: the reinforced fibre refers to the steel fibre; and paragraph 7, p. 4: the water-proof agent refers to the Portland cement). FANG teaches composition comprising 0.6-1 parts of gypsum/phosphogypsum, 0-0.47 parts of padding powder/fly ash, 0-0.06 parts of fibre, 0-0.24 parts of water-proof agent/cement. Thus, FANG teaches a mass of the steel fiber or the basalt fiber being 6% to 10% of a mass of the phosphogypsum, and a mass ratio of the fly ash to the cement being in a range of 1.95:1, which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, FANG teaches the phosphogypsum-based backfill material according to claim 1, wherein the stone powder has a particle size D90 of 25 µm to 150 µm (paragraph 8, p. 2: various kinds of inorganic mineral powder, such as stone powder, the fineness must control the grain diameter is less than 3 mm). FANG teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hu et.al. (CN 113061012 A) discloses a novel composite green building material, which solves the problems in the prior art and has low cost, high resource utilization rate and excellent performance. A building material comprises the following components in parts by weight: 0.2 to 1 portion of water, 0 to 0.3 portion of cement, 1 portion of phosphogypsum material, 0 to 0.6 portion of marble powder or white marble powder, 0 to 3 portions of sand and 0.01 to 0.5 portion of graphite or fiber (see provided machine translation at page 3).
Hu et al. (CN 113004008 A) discloses a phosphorus gypsum-based grouting material comprising the following raw materials: water 10-30 parts, cement 20-30 parts, fly ash 20-30 parts, phosphorus gypsum 40-60 parts, sand 35-45 parts, steel fibre 0-18 parts, limestone 5-25 parts, water reducing agent 0.05-0.4parts, early strength agent 0.02-0.4 (see provided machine translation at paragraphs 7-8, p. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Amber 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.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights