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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: specification at page 35 line 6 disclosing “power” appears to have a typographical error and should be “powder”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The header for Table 1, shown below, contain whole words that are not in the same line. The whole words in the table headers should be in the same line.
PNG
media_image1.png
335
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 2, shown below, contain whole words that are not in the same line. The whole words in the table headers should be in the same line.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The header for Table 3, shown below, contain whole words that are not in the same line. The whole words in the table headers should be in the same line.
PNG
media_image3.png
249
714
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 28 be found allowable, claim 30 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 16-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazanec et al. (US 2017/0107153 A1) (“Mazanec” hereinafter) in view of Nied et al. (WO2016206780 (A1), with reference to the machine translation) (“Nied” hereinafter) and Grassl et al. (WO 2019/077050 A1) (“Grassl” hereinafter); as evidenced by Chemical Book (Synthesis and Uses of Anhydrite, 2019) (“Book” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Mazanec teaches a binder composition (see Mazanec at [0011] teaching a composition). The composition is taken to meet the claimed binder composition based on the structure, as outlined below, comprising:
A) Portland cement clinker in an amount of 25 to 94.089 wt%... based on the total weight of the binder composition (see Mazanec at [0012] teaching a) 2 to 90 weight % of Ordinary Portland Cement with respect to the total weight of the composition) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
B) calcium sulfate x H2O in an amount of 5 to 20 wt%... based on the total weight of the binder composition, wherein x is selected from 0 to 2 (see Mazanec at [0013] teaching b) 2 to 80 weight % of a calcium sulfate based binder with respect to the total weight of the composition (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), see Mazanec at [0060] teaching preferable is a composition in which the b) calcium sulfate based binder is selected from the group of… anhydrite). Anhydrite is taken to meet the claimed “wherein x is selected from… 0”, as evidenced by Book (see Book at page 1, paragraph 1 evidencing anhydrite is an anhydrous calcium sulfate with a composition of CaSO4),
F) a component F) selected from the group consisting of… a compound of formula (I)… in an amount of 0.101 to 3.5 wt.%... based on the total weight of the binder composition (see Mazanec at [0014] teaching c) at least one retarder for calcium sulfate based binders, see Mazanec at [0034]-[0035] teaching the component c) preferably contains up to 50 weight %... other than amino acids… preferably the structural units other than amino acids are… polycarboxylic acids, see Mazanec at [0037] teaching preferably the polycarboxylic acids are selected from the group of… dicarboxylic acids… preferred dicarboxylic acids… are tartaric acid, see Mazanec at [0052] teaching preferably the retarder component c) is contained in the composition at a dosage of 0.01 to 5 weight %... with respect to the claim sulfate based binder b)). Tartaric acid is taken to meet the claimed “component F) based on specification at page 8 lines 11-13 disclosing the component F) comprises… tartaric acid. The amount of tartaric acid is 0.0002 to 4 wt % (or (2 x 0.01%) to (80 x 5%)) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)); and
G) dispersant having a charge density of more than 0.80 µeq/g (see Mazanec at [0061] teaching preferable is a composition in which at least one dispersant for Ordinary Portland Cement a) and calcium sulfate based binders b) is contained, see Mazanec at [0076]-[0082] teaching preferable is a composition where the polymeric dispersant… at least one structural unit of the general formula… (Ia), shown below), see Mazanec at [0163] teaching preferable is a composition in which 2 to 10 weight %... of a calcium sulfate based binder b)).
PNG
media_image4.png
244
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
217
509
media_image5.png
Greyscale
General formula (Ia) is taken to meet the claimed “dispersant” and “having a charge density of more than 0.80 µeq/g” based on specification at page 20 lines 23-34, shown below).
PNG
media_image6.png
575
841
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Mazanec does not explicitly teach the claimed “C) an inorganic sulfate source having a solubility higher than 100 g/l at 20°C in an amount of 0.3 to 10 wt.-%; D) polyalcohol and/or metal salts thereof in an amount of 0.2 to 5 wt.-%; E) a carbonate selected of the group consisting of organic carbonate, alkali carbonate, and mixtures thereof, in an amount of 0.3 to 5 wt.-%”, and the claimed dispersant “G)… in an amount of 0.01 to 1 wt.%... based on the total weight of the binder composition”. Mazanec further teaches preferable is a composition in which a calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H) based hardening accelerator for cementitious compositions, preferably for compositions containing Ordinary Portland Cement, is contained (see Mazanec at [0165]).
With respect to C) and D), like Mazanec, Nied teaches accelerating additive for Portland cement (see Nied at [0014] teaching the accelerating additive according to the disclosure is particularly suitable for binders which contain… Portland cement).
Nied further teaches the alkanolamine used as an accelerator (see Nied at [0019])… it has proven effective to dose alkanolamine from 0.005 to 0.5 wt%... based on the cement (see Nied at [0020])… suitable compounds… include alkanolamines such as… triethanolamine (see Nied at [0025]). 0.005 to 0.5 wt% triethanolamine is taken to meet the claimed “D) polyalcohol… in an amount of 0.2 to 5 wt. %” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), based on the specification at page 17 lines 14-24, shown below.
PNG
media_image7.png
298
853
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Nied also teaches the alkanolamine is combined with an… alkali salt… the amount of alkali sulfate is typically in the range of 0.1 to 5 wt%... based on the cement (see Nied at [0023])… 1% potassium sulfate (see Nied at [0051]). 0.1 to 5 wt% potassium sulfate is taken to meet the claimed “C) an inorganic sulfate source having a solubility higher than 100 g/l at 20°C in an amount of 0.3 to 10 wt.%”, based on specification at page 3 lines 28-29 disclosing the inorganic source is an alkali sulfate selected from the group consisting of… potassium sulfate.
Moreover, Nied teaches that alkanolamines from polyalcohols, especially in combination with alkali salts such as sulfates, accelerate the strength development, achieving a balanced ratio of acceleration and strength (see Nied at [0007]).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Nied teaches that 0.005 to 0.5 wt% triethanolamine and 0.1 to 5 wt% potassium sulfate so as to accelerate the strength development of the cement, achieving a balanced ratio of acceleration and strength, and seek those advantages by adding 0.005 to 0.5 wt% triethanolamine and 0.1 to 5 wt% potassium sulfate in the composition as taught by Mazanec.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add 0.005 to 0.5 wt% triethanolamine and 0.1 to 5 wt% potassium sulfate as taught by Nied in the composition as taught by Mazanec so as to accelerate the strength development of the cement, achieving a balanced ratio of acceleration and strength, and to have selected amounts from within the range taught by Nied because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amounts would be suitable.
With respect to E) and G), like Mazanec, Grassl teaches Portland cement (see Grassl at page 19, lines 5-9 teaching the present disclosure also relates to construction material compositions… which comprise at least one hydraulic binder and/or latent hydraulic binder and the set control composition… the hydraulic binder is suitably selected from… Portland cement).
Grassl further teaches a set control composition for cementitious systems comprising… b) at least one of… (ii) a carbonate source (see Grassl at page 2 lines 10-11 and 14)… the carbonate source may be an inorganic carbonate… the inorganic carbonate may be selected from… potassium carbonate (see Grassl at page 3 lines 26-30). Grassl also teaches the weight ratio of component a) to component b) is in general in the range from about 10:1 to about 1:100 (see Grassl at page 4 pages 30-31)… the dosage of the sum of a) and b)… in weight % of inorganic binder is from 0.05 to 20% (see Grassl at page 6 lines 18-19). The amount of b) carbonate is 0.005 to 2% (or (ratio of a:b is 10:1, 0.05 to 20%). 0.005 to 2% potassium carbonate is taken to meet the claimed “E) a carbonate selected of the group consisting of organic carbonate, alkali carbonate, and mixtures thereof, in an amount of 0.3 to 5 wt.%” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), based on specification at page 3 lines 28-29 disclosing the inorganic sulfate source is an alkali sulfate selected from the group consisting of… potassium sulfate.
Furthermore, Grassl teaches the set control composition… additionally comprises at least one dispersant for inorganic binders, especially a dispersant for cementitious mixtures (see Grassl at page 6 lines 21-23)… preferably, the structural unit comprising anionic and/or anionogenic groups is one of general formula (Ia), shown below (see Grassl at page 7 lines 24-34).
PNG
media_image8.png
513
968
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Grassl teaches 1wt% dispersant (see Grassl at page 27 Table 2, and page 28 Table 3). 1 wt% dispersant is taken to meet the claimed dispersant “G)… in an amount of 0.01 to 1 wt.%... based on the total weight of the binder composition” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected amounts for the dispersant from within the range taught by Grassl in the composition as taught by Mazanec because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amount would be suitable.
Regarding claims 17-18, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Nied further teaches wherein polyalcohol… is selected from the group consisting of i) NR1R2R3, wherein R1 to R3 are independently C1-C6-hydroxyalkyl (claims 17-18) (see Nied at [0025] teaching suitable compounds… include alkanolamines such as… triethanolamine).
Regarding claim 19, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Grassl further teaches wherein the carbonate is an alkali carbonate selected from the group consisting of… potassium carbonate (see Grassl at page 3 lines 26-30 teaching the carbonate source may be an inorganic carbonate… the inorganic carbonate may be selected from… potassium carbonate).
Regarding claim 20, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Nied further teaches wherein the inorganic sulfate source is an alkali sulfate selected from the group consisting of… potassium sulfate (see Nied at [0051] teaching potassium sulfate).
Regarding claim 21, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Mazanec further teaches wherein the dispersant has a charge density of more than 1.20 µeq/g (see Mazanec at [0076]-[0082] teaching preferable is a composition where the polymeric dispersant… at least one structural unit of the general formula… (Ia), shown in claims 1 and 22), see Mazanec at [0163] teaching preferable is a composition in which 2 to 10 weight %... of a calcium sulfate based binder b)). General formula (Ia) is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the dispersant has a charge density of more than 1.20 µeq/g” based on specification at page 20 lines 23-34).
Regarding claim 22, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Mazanec further teaches wherein the dispersant is a comb polymer comprising units having acid functions having at least one structural unit of the general formula… (Ia) (see Mazanec at [0076]-[0082] teaching preferable is a composition where the polymeric dispersant… at least one structural unit of the general formula… (Ia), shown below), see Mazanec at [0163] teaching preferable is a composition in which 2 to 10 weight %... of a calcium sulfate based binder b)).
PNG
media_image4.png
244
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
217
509
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Mazanec further teaches wherein the dispersant is a phosphorylated polycondensation product comprising structural units (III) and (IV)… wherein the structural unit (IV) is selected from the structural unit… (IVa) (see Mazanec at [0142]-[0156] teaching a composition where the polymeric dispersant is a phosphorylated polycondensation product comprising structural units (III) and (IV)… where the structural unit (IV) is selected from the structural units… (IVa), shown below).
PNG
media_image9.png
569
524
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
291
494
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
185
489
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Mazanec further teaches wherein the component F) comprises… tartaric acid (see Mazanec at [0037] teaching preferably the polycarboxylic acids are selected from the group of… dicarboxylic acids… preferred dicarboxylic acids… are tartaric acid).
Regarding claim 25, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Mazanec and Nied do not explicitly teach wherein the component F) comprises a salt of formula (I). However, Grassl teaches the set control composition further comprises c) a component selected from… [Symbol font/0x61]-hydroxy carboxylic acids or salts thereof (see Grassl at page 4 line 33 to page 5 line 3)… suitable [Symbol font/0x61]-hydroxy carboxylic acids or salts thereof include… citric acid… gluconic acid, and their salts and mixtures thereof… sodium gluconate is particularly preferred (see Grassl at page 6 lines 11-12). Sodium gluconate is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the component F) comprises a salt of formula (I)” based on specification at page 8 lines 21-26 disclosing the component F) comprises a salt of formula (I)… preferably wherein the salt is sodium gluconate.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that sodium gluconate is suitable for its intended use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use sodium gluconate as taught by Grassl in the composition as taught by Mazanec because sodium gluconate is suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claim 26, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Mazanec further teaches wherein the component F) comprises at least two compounds selected from the group consisting of a compound of formula (I) and a polycondensate of said compound of formula (I) (see Mazanec at [0028] teaching preferably the c) at least one retarder for calcium sulfate based binders, the retarder being a chemical structure… can be obtained in a polycondensation reaction between the amino acids and a further educt of the polycondensation reaction, see Mazanec at [0034] teaching the component c) preferably contains up to 50 weight %... of structural units other than amino acids).
Regarding claim 27, Mazanec in view of Nied and Grassl teach the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, and Mazanec further teaches wherein the binder composition further comprises H) a supplementary cementitious material in an amount of from 0.5 to 68.989 wt% based on the total weight of the binder composition, selected from the group consisting of… limestone (see Mazanec at [0018] teaching preferably the compositions contain fillers… preferred fillers are… limestone… fillers can be preferably present in the composition from 1 weight % to 80 weight %... with respect to the total weight of the composition) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28 and 30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one or ordinary skill in the art the cumulative limitations of the respective independent claims 28 and 30.
Specifically, it is noted that Grassl teaches the use of a set control composition… for prolonging the open time of aqueous compositions containing at least one hydraulic binder and/or latent hydraulic binder (see Grassl at page 23 lines 8-10)… excellent retarding action of the disclosed set control composition (see Grassl at page 2 line 19-20)… a set control composition for cementitious systems comprising a) amine-glyoxylic acid condensate… b) at least one of… (ii) a carbonate source (see Grassl at page 2 lines 10-14)… the carbonate source is selected from organic carbonates (see Grassl at page 3 line 35)… the weight ratio of component a) to component b) is in general in the range from about 10:1 to about 1:100 (see Grassl at page 4 pages 30-31)… the dosage of the sum of a) and b)… in weight % of inorganic binder is from 0.05 to 20% (see Grassl at page 6 lines 18-19)… the set control composition further comprises c) a component selected from… [Symbol font/0x61]-hydroxy carboxylic acids or salts thereof (see Grassl at page 4 lines 33-35 and page 5 line 3)… suitable [Symbol font/0x61]-hydroxy carboxylic acids or salts thereof include tartaric acid, citric acid, glycolic acid, gluconic acid, and their salts and mixtures thereof… sodium gluconate is particularly preferred (see Grassl at page 6 lines 11-13). The amount of b) carbonate as taught by Grassl is 5 x 10-4 to 20% (or (ratio of a:b is 1:100, 0.05 to 20%). However, Grassl does not explicitly teach “RM1) a carbonate… in an amount of rom 30 to 60 wt%”. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Grassl as claimed.
Furthermore, Nied teaches it has now been found that alkanolamines from polyalcohols, especially in combination with alkali salts such as sulfates, accelerate the strength development, achieving a balanced ratio of acceleration and strength (see Nied at [0009]-[0010])… the accelerating additive… is particularly suitable for binders which contain Portland cement and clinker substitute material as cement (see Nied at [0014])… the alkanolamine can also exist as a salt or ester of an organic acid… it has proven effective to dose alkanolamine from 0.005 to 0.5 wt%... based on the cement (see Nied at [0020]). However, Nied does not explicitly teach “RM2) NR1R2R3… in an amount of from 5 to 20 wt%”. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Nied as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of the respective independent claims 28 and 30 as claimed. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of the respective independent claims 28 and 30 are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights