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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
It is not seen as to how the future use of the composition further limits the composition itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canada Patent Specification No. CA 1221113 A.
The reference teaches, in Example 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
357
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the gypsum meets the gypsum component. The sand meets the natural sand component. The gypsum retarder (Retardan P) meets the modified amino acid component and the polymer powder (Vinapol ® 1070) meets the polymer comprising vinyl acetate. The composition is capable of being used as a grout.
As for claim 3, the composition is mixed with water. It would follow that that the flowability would be determined by the amount of water added.
As for claim 7, no metal is added.
As for claim 9, the flexural tensile strength and the compressive strength meets the claimed ranges.
As for claim 10, the gypsum meets the gypsum component. The sand meets the natural sand component. The gypsum retarder (Retardan P) meets the modified amino acid component and the polymer powder (Vinapol ® 1070) meets the polymer comprising vinyl acetate. The composition is mixed with water and is capable of being used as a grout.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagen et al (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0121303 A1).
The reference teaches, in Comparative Example 3, a tile adhesive composition. The composition is suitable for use as gypsum mortars, coating material, adhesive mortars, bedding mortars, plasters, etc. (see paragraph [0042]).
PNG
media_image2.png
416
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the Hard plaster of Paris meets the calcium sulfate component. The silica sand meets the natural sand component. The Retardan P retardant meets the modified amino acid and the VINNAPAS 4023 N meets the polymer of vinyl acetate. The composition is capable of being used as a grout.
As for claim 3, the composition is mixed with water. It would follow that that the flowability would be determined by the amount of water added.
As for claim 7, no metal is added.
As for claim 8, the composition is cement free.
As for claim 10, the Hard plaster of Paris meets the calcium sulfate component. The silica sand meets the natural sand component. The Retardan P retardant meets the modified amino acid and the VINNAPAS 4023 N meets the polymer of vinyl acetate. The composition is mixed with water and is capable of being used as a grout.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Europe Patent Specification No. EP 1785406 A1.
The reference teaches, in Example 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
281
1205
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the alpha calcium sulfate meets the calcium sulfate component. The silica sand meets the natural sand. The calcium salt of an amino acid known as B ® meets the modified amino acid and the latex of vinyl acetate/vinyl versatate meets the polymer of vinyl acetate. The composition is capable of being used as a grout.
As for claim 7, no metal is present.
As for claim 8, the composition is cement-free.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canada Patent Specification No. CA 1221113 A.
The reference was discussed previously, above. Further the reference teaches, on page 8, lines 14+, that water is added to the composition is such an amount that the composition is given a consistency suitable for applying a surface layer.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claims 4 and 5, while the reference does not recite the same amount of water, it does teach that the water is added to produce a given consistency and therefore the amount of water is considered to be a result effective variable. 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). Therefore, it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of water absent evidence showing otherwise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the components in the claimed amounts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights