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 claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 08/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 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.
Claim 5 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 5 contains the limitation “aggregate”. It is unclear what “aggregate” refers to: is it a distinct component of the claimed concrete forming composition or are the elements of a binder, admixture and water provided in “aggregate” form. Clarification is required.
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 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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 108043357).
Citations to Liu et al., below, refer to the machine translation document provided with this office action.
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses a magnetic single core-shell porous calcium silicate particle including:
A particle of core of Fe3O4/SiO2 (i.e. a metal oxide including a transition metal or metalloid: Fe and Si, respectively)
A shell of calcium silicate (i.e. an inorganic compound including calcium) provided on the surface of the particle core of Fe3O4/SiO2 (Abstract and Examples 1-6)
Wherein the diameter of particle is in the nanometer range (see Claim 1) and is therefore a core-shell nanoparticle, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the core which is coated with the calcium silicate includes SiO2 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the outer shell/surface of the particle includes calcium silicate. (Abstract and Examples 1-6).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronlof et al. (WO 2014/053699).
Regarding claims 1-3, Kronlof et al. discloses a calcium silicate hydrate coated particle material (Abstract). The particle may include materials such as limestone, gypsum, titanium dioxide, silicate, silica dust and metakaolin (page 5, lines 26-32) which would therefore meet the limitation of “a core including a metal oxide”. The calcium silicate hydrate would meet the limitation of a shell positioned on the surface of the core including an inorganic compound including calcium, as claimed.
Kronlof et al. further discloses that the particles may be provided in the form of particles below 10 nm and less than 10 micrometers (page 6, lines 10-17 and page 10, lines 11-14), which would meet the limitation of “nanoparticles” as claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, the calcium silicate hydrate coated particles can be included in a cement mixture with a hydraulic binder, water (aqueous slurry) and may be present in the form of agglomerates. (page 4, lines 14-15, page 8, lines 21-34).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronlof et al. (WO 2014/053699) in view of Nicoleau et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2015/0197448).
Kronlof et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Kronlof et al. does not explicitly teach that the shell further includes a polycarboxylate ether-based compound.
Nicoleau et al. teaches a hardening accelerator for the preparation of cement which includes a water-soluble calcium and silicate compound in an aqueous solution with a plasticizer suitable for hydraulic binders. (Abstract). Nicoleau et al. teaches providing an apatite seed for the growth of calcium silicate hydrate on the surface thereof (i.e. a core/shell morphology where apatite in the core and the calcium silicate is the shell). (par. [0097]). Nicoleau et al. teaches that the plasticizer includes compounds such as reaction products of carboxylic monomer having polyether macromer functionalities, thereby producing a polycarboxylate ether. (par. [0120]-[0121] and Example 1). The plasticizer is therefore included with the calcium silicate material (par. [0092] and [0177]) and the inclusion of the plasticizer allows for improve workability of the cementitious binder material. (par. [0001]-[0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the calcium silicate material of Kronlof et al. in the presence of a plasticizer such as polycarboxylate ether, thereby providing a shell material on the substrate particle which would include polycarboxylate ether, as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a plasticizer of polycarboxylate ether in the calcium silicate shell material of Kronlof et al. in order to be able to provide a hardening accelerator for a cementitious composition that has improved workability by controlling the consistency at a specific water/binder ratio, as taught by Nicoleau et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/30/2026
