DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment submitted on 28 July 2026 has been entered. After entry of the amendment, claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-14 are currently pending in the application.
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 9 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, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 9 fails to further limit claim 8 as it recites “glycerol” however “glycerol” was deleted from claim 8.
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, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PCT International Publication No. WO 2011/070418 A1.
The reference teaches, in claim 1, Method of classification of mineral material, characterized in that said method implements the following steps: a) providing at least one mineral material comprising dolomite, or talc, or titanium dioxide, or alumina , or kaolin, or calcium carbonate or mixtures thereof; (b) provide at least one classification aid additive (i) glycerol, in aqueous or pure form, or (ii) glycerol with one or more of the following: ethylene glycol, mono-propylene glycol, triethylene glycol, an inorganic acid or an inorganic acid salt, formic or citric acid or a salt thereof formic or citric acid, an organic polyacid or an organic polyacid salt, an alkanolamine, a polyethyleneimine, a polyalkylene glycol polymer with a weight-average molecular weight of between 200 g / mole and 20000 g / mole, preferably between 600 g / mole and 6000 g / mole, a carbohydrate having an average root squared radius of gyration equal to or less than the modal radius of the mineral material, one or more poly-glycerols, the one or more agents being in aqueous or pure form, or (iii) comprising one or more poly-glycerols in the absence of glycerol. c) contact, in one or more times, the mineral matter of step a) with the classification aid additive of step b) in one or more dry grinding and / or blending steps. dry; d) performing at least one step of classifying the mineral material obtained according to step c) in a gaseous environment, to obtain at least two particle fractions of different average particle sizes; e) possibly repeating steps c) and / or d) on all or part of the classified mineral matter resulting from step d).
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the calcium carbonate meets the limestone. The classification aid (ii) which is glycerol in combination with a glycol or an alkanolamine meets the claimed grinding additive. As these materials can be used in pure form no water needs to be present and therefore the grinding is a dry grinding. Note that step c) recites “dry grinding”.
As for claim 5, no water needs to be present.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches limestone (i.e. calcium carbonate) that has been dry ground with at least a glycol or alkanolamine component.
Claims 1, 3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canada Patent Specification No. CA 2679294 C.
The reference teaches, on page 3, lines 18-21; Test No. 1; and Test No. 3 found in the examples, the dry grinding of calcium carbonate with diethylene glycol. The ground calcium carbonate can be used in combination with a hydraulic binder base to form a mortar.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches calcium carbonate which meets the limestone component. The reference also teaches diethylene glycol which meets the grinding aid. The composition is dry ground.
As for claim 3, the reference teaches diethylene glycol.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches a mortar.
As for claim 9, the reference teaches diethylene glycol.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT International Publication No. WO 2011/070418 A1.
The reference was discussed previously, above. Further the examples teach that a ball mill is used for grinding.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 6, while the reference does not recite the amount of the glycol or alkanolamine that can be added it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine the necessary amount of the components to produce the desired result. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As for claim 7, the reference teaches the use of a ball mill. As attrition type ball mills are a known type of ball mill it would have been obvious to utilize any type of ball mill such as attrition type ball mill without producing any unexpected results as applicant has not shown that the use of a particular type of mill produces unexpected results absent evidence showing otherwise.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT International Publication No. WO 2011/070418 A1 in view of Canada Patent Application No. 2,780,556 A1.
PCT International Publication No. WO 2011/070418 A1 was discussed previously, above.
Canada Patent Application No. 2,780,556 A1 teaches, in the claims (see especially claims 3-6), the formation of a dry mortar mixture comprising at least one hydraulic and/or latently hydraulic binder and a dispersant. The hydraulic binder may be a cement such as Portland cement (see claim 3) in the amount of 3 to 50% by weight and the composition can include aggregates such as ground limestone in the amount of 5 to 85% by weight.
The instant claims are obvious over the combination of references.
As for claim 10, based on the Canada Patent Application it would have been obvious to form a construction material such as a mortar using the ground calcium carbonate of the PCT reference.
As for claim 11, based on the Canada Patent Application it would have been obvious to form a construction material comprising a cement such as a mortar using the ground calcium carbonate of the PCT reference. As for the amounts, the amounts taught by the Canada Patent Application falls with the claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 13 and 14 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 dry grinding of limestone with methyldiethanolamine.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights