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
During a telephone conversation with Leong Lei on July 7, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-5, directed towards an environment-friendly sound-insulation rubber mortar. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6-7, directed to the process of making the rubber mortar, withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The restriction requirement from the examiner has been withdrawn, and thus the merits of claims 1-7 are examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202210660524.8 and PCT/CN2023/082634, filed on June 12, 2022 and March 21, 2023, respectively.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because minor formatting issues in Figs. 3, 4, and 8. In Figs. 3 and 4, "Mpa" should be corrected to "MPa". In Fig. 8, "f/HZ" should be corrected to "f/Hz". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: mentions towards "PH" in the specification should be corrected to "pH". In Table 1, "KJ/m.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: "PH" in line 5 should be corrected to "pH". 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.
Claims 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation "the waste rubber particles" in lines 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 1 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 1 mentions inclusion of “special glue”. The term “special glue” is not a commonly recognized term in the art that would have clear interpretation or meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is unclear what would clarify a glue as being “special” and where the scope or bounds of the claimed limitation are met. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 6 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 6 mentions inclusion of “special glue”. The term “special glue” is not a commonly recognized term in the art that would have clear interpretation or meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is unclear what would clarify a glue as being “special” and where the scope or bounds of the claimed limitation are met. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite. Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 6.
The term “excessively dry” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “excessively dry” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In step 2 of the claimed method in . Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected dependent claim 6.
The term “fine” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "Fine" references an aggregate prepared in step (1) of referenced .
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 mentions a volume ratio of “the cement to fine aggregate” in lines 2-3. The term “fine aggregate” is unclear in its definition or what components of the mixture outside of cement represent the “fine aggregate”. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite. Paragraph [0042] of the instant disclosure mentions “a volume ratio of the cement to fine aggregate (the river sand and the rubber)”. Therefore, the examiner recommends clarifying the wording of claim 7 to define the “fine aggregate” in light of that interpretation.
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 mentions inclusion of “special glue”. The term “special glue” is not a commonly recognized term in the art that would have clear interpretation or meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is unclear what would clarify a glue as being “special” and where the scope or bounds of the claimed limitation are met. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest art references to the claimed invention are Li (CN112537933A), Chen et al (CN106013726A), Perrino et al (CN113631527A), Sun et al (CN108218319A), Yu et al (CN112551990A), Kruss (CN101400622A), Yang (CN101016759A), D'Alessandro et al (NPL "Experimental assessment of the water content..."), and Heng Li et al (NPL "Effect of Fine Aggregate Particle Characteristics..."). Li et al discloses a similar sound insulating mortar composition whereby cement, river sand, rubber (“elastic vibration damping aggregate”), cellulose ether (water retention thickening agent), water, and dispersible latex powder (tackifying agent) are included, thus all components to that as claimed outside of “special glue”. Li teaches a composition whereby the cellulose ether would be included in an overlapping range as claimed. Sun et al teach why a glue PVA based adhesive would be included to a mortar composition within the relevant parts by mass as claimed. Chen et al provide basis for including cement, water, and river sand within the ranges as claimed. Chen also teaches inclusion of river sand with a fineness modulus between 2.3-2.9. Yu et al provides relevant overlapping ranges as claimed for cement (120-200 parts), river sand (500-650 parts), and cellulose ether (water retention agent 3.5-5 parts). However, there is no clear consistency in the amounts provided to clearly guide and motivate why all the components claimed should be included within the claimed particular ranges. In view of Heng Li et al, one of ordinary skill in the art could be motivated to selecting sand with a fineness modulus of 2.39 or arrival to 2.41 due to the imparted properties disclosed by Heng Li. Perrino teaches inclusion of waste rubber particles of two sizes whereby the two sizes are included at a ratio similar to the ratio as claimed. Perrino teaches inclusion of nonspherical or irregularly shaped rubber as well as motivation for including spherical (thus granular) rubber particles. Perrino also teaches a light aggregate particle density that encompasses the rubber density as claimed and a low water content. However, Perrino does not specifically teach columnar particles for the nonspherical/irregularly shaped rubber. Kruss teaches inclusion of commercially available Elotex or DA-1100 as the redispersible latex emulsion powder within the range as claimed. Further, Elotex’s properties are well published and match the properties as claimed in dependent claim 4. Sun et al teach an analogous sound insulating mortar composition whereby the included river sand has a water absorption rate of 0.5%, thus providing a reference point for a low absorption rate nearby the value as claimed but does not provide rationale as to moving necessarily away from such an absorption rate. Sun does not state why this value in particular is chosen nor what impact on the mortar such a water absorption rate imparts to the composition. Yang et al teach a water content <1% for river sand, but Yang does not provide context nor motivation for modifying the water content to a particular value such as 0.34% as claimed. In view of D’Alessandro et al, one of ordinary skill in the art could be motivated to adjust water content for their potential impact on insulation and strength properties of the prepared mortar, but D’Alessandro does not exactly provide the same rubber-based mortars to the invention as claimed so it is unclear if the effect of water content would necessarily impart the same insulation benefits. Furthermore, D’Alessandro also admits that water content does not necessarily drive the exact insulative properties. Arrival to the exact proportions and properties as claimed in reference to the water absorption rate of 0.38% in the river sand, the river sand water content of 0.34%, and inclusion of columnar rubber particles would not be obvious to piece together from the disclosed references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights