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 II, claims 9-12, in the reply filed on 8/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115038676 to Li et al. (“Li”, English machine translation of record).
Regarding independent claim 9 and claim 11, Li teaches a desert sand engineered cementitious composite (DSECC) comprising (the cementitious composite of Li, para [0006] [0013]-[0027] [0096], [0156][0157], Table 1):
- a cement binder (para [0035] [0096], suitable cement binders include lime, and/or ordinary Portland cement, meeting the claimed limitations of claim 11);
- fly ash (para [0042] [0119]);
- unprocessed desert sand (para [0131], [0211], suitable aggregates include sand/unprocessed sand)
- crumb rubber (para [0132], scrap rubber);
- a water reducer (para [0127], water reducer);
- polymer fibers selected from the group consisting of polyethylene fibers, polypropylene fibers, and a combination thereof (para [0043]- [0045] suitable polymer fibers includes polyethylene fibers, polypropylene fibers); and
- water (para [0096] [0139] [0211], inclusion of water).
Li does not specifically teach the instantly claimed respective amount of the cement binder, fly ash, unprocessed desert sand, crumb rubber, water reducer and the polymer fibers in the specific manner as instantly claimed.
Li teaches the inclusion of suitable cement binder (para [0035] [0096]). Li teaches the amount of cement binder is a result effective variable and varied depending on the binder used and the cement mixture weight (para [0023]-[0028, [0035] [0102]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to amount of cement binder of the DSECC (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of cement binder through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., strength, and/or workability, flowability, etc.) of the cementitious composite once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., in an amount ranging from 390 to 410 kg/m3 of the DSECC of claim 9. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Li teaches the inclusion of suitable fly ash (para [0042] [0119]). Li teaches the amount of fly ash is a result effective variable and varied depending on the fly ash used and the cement mixture weight (para [0042] [0119] [0121]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to amount of fly ash of the DSECC (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of fly ash through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., strength, and/or toughness, workability, ductility, etc.) of the cementitious composite once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., in an amount ranging from 800 to 900 kg/ m3 of the DSECC of claim 9. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Li teaches the inclusion of suitable aggregates such as sand/unprocessed desert sand (para [0132]). Li teaches the amount of aggregates of sand is a result effective variable and affects the cement composite’s strength, strain capacity and/or density (para [0131]- [0133]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to amount of sand/unprocessed sand of the DSECC (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of sand through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., strength, strain capacity and/or density, etc.) of the cementitious composite once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., in an amount ranging from 380 to 390 kg/ m3 of the DSECC of claim 9. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Li teaches the inclusion of suitable aggregates such as crumb rubber (para [0132]). Li teaches the amount of aggregates of rubber is a result effective variable and affects the cement composite’s strength, strain capacity and/or density (para [0131]- [0133]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to amount of crumb rubber of the DSECC (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of crumb rubber through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., strength, strain capacity and/or density, etc.) of the cementitious composite once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., in an amount ranging from 25 to 35 kg/ m3 of the DSECC of claim 9. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Li teaches the inclusion of suitable water reducer (para [0127]). Li teaches the amount of water reducer is a result effective variable and affects the cement composite’s workability, strength, and/or pumpability (para [0127] [0128]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to amount of water reducer of the DSECC (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of water reducer through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., workability, strength, and/or pumpability, etc.) of the cementitious composite once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., in an amount less than 10 kg/ m3 of the DSECC of claim 9. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Li teaches the inclusion of suitable polymer fibers (para [0043]- [0045] suitable polymer fibers includes polyethylene fibers, polypropylene fibers). Li teaches the amount of polymer fiber is a result effective variable and affects the cement composite’s workability, and/or pumpability, strength, rheology (para [0124] [0161]).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to amount of polymer fiber of the DSECC (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of polymer fiber through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., workability, and/or pumpability, strength, rheology, etc.) of the cementitious composite once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., between 15 and 25 kg/ m3 of the DSECC of claim 9. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Li teaches the inclusion of water (para [0096] [0139] [0211], inclusion of water). But Li does not specifically teach the inclusion of water forming a remaining amount of the DSECC as instantly claimed.
Li teaches the inclusion of water (para [0096] [0139] [0211], inclusion of water). Li teaches the water content is a result effective variable and affects the cement composite’s workability, and/or viscosity, cohesion and allow for thicker applications (para [0139]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of water through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., workability, and/or viscosity, cohesion and allow for thicker applications, etc.) of the cementitious composite once produced, which would have arrived at a workable amount that falls within the broad range as instantly claimed, i.e., forming a remaining amount of the DSECC of claim 9 (the remaining amount, in addition to the amount of the cement binder, fly ash, unprocessed desert sand, crumb rubber, water reducer and the polymer fibers as discussed above). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Li does not teach or require that its DSECC must include viscosity reducers, and thus, is considered as meeting the claimed limitations, i.e., free of viscosity reducers.
Regarding claim 12, because the DSECC of Li and the instantly claimed DSECC are identical or substantially identical in composition, and also because the amount range for each component of the DSECC are substantially overlap those claimed, one would expect that the DSECC of Li would possess same or similar properties as that of the instantly claimed DSECC, i.e., having a tensile strength ranging between 11 and 13 MPa and a ductility ranging between 8 and 13 percent. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alhozaimy et al. (US 9,039,830) that teaches a cement composition containing red dune sand powder, limestone powder, aggregate and water, concrete products made therefrom and methods for making such products (col. 1, lines 5-14). Maslehuddin et al. (US 10,308,553) that teaches a structural lightweight concrete composition comprising i) cement, ii) a fine aggregate, iii) a natural coarse aggregate, iv) a synthetic coarse aggregate comprising a polymeric material, v) an industrial waste byproduct in the form of fine particles, vi) a superplasticizer, and vii) water (col. 2, lines 5-20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights