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 attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to Chinese Patent Application No. 202210718346.X is ineffective because the reference is to a foreign application.
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “when the content of ions in flowing water C(SO42-) is ≥ 0.8 g/L and C(Cl-) is ≥ 5.3 g/L” in lines 16-17. These are ranges with an unbounded upper limit, and, therefore, encompass ion contents for each ion so inconceivably high that it cannot reasonably be possible in the present invention. To make a point through hyperbole, the present application does not provide full enablement for a contents of C(SO42-) of 1000 g/L, 8000 g/L or 800,000 g/L (increasable ad nauseam), or of C(Cl-) of 5,000 g/L, 50,000 g/L or 500,000 g/L (increasable ad nauseum) even though these amounts are encompassed in the claimed range.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The phrase “volcanic ash characteristics” in claim 1, line 3, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “volcanic ash characteristics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s recitation of the phrase “volcanic ash characteristics” renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear as to what is required for the cementing material to be considered to have volcanic ash characteristics. For example, is it obtained from volcanic ash? Is it required to have particular properties? Does it set in a particular amount of time/in a particular manner? Clarification is required.
The Examiner notes, a Markush group of cementing material is recited in dependent claim 2; Applicant is advised to delete the phrase “volcanic ash characteristics” from the claims and recite the Markush group of cementing materials within independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the following components" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Deletion of the phrase is advised.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the following components" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Deletion of the phrase “from the following components” is advised.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the size" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flow velocity" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mixing amount" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “auxiliary” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “auxiliary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “auxiliary” in the phrase “each auxiliary material of the component B” in each of lines 19 and 23 is indefinite as Applicant has not previously defined what components are considered “auxiliary” components therein. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “when the content of ions in flowing water C(SO42-) is ≥ 0.8 g/L and C(Cl-) is ≥ 5.3 g/L” in lines 16-17. These are ranges with an unbounded upper limit, and, as such, it is unclear as to the extent of ion content for each of the recited ions Applicant is intending to seek patent protection of; as such, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mixing amount" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the silicate cement comprises one or more of…” Claim 5 depends upon claim 2, wherein a group of cementing materials is recited. Applicant, however, has not defined the cementing material as indeed silicate cement, and, therefore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for such within claim 5. Applicant is advised to include a limitation within claim 5 similar to that which is presented in claim 3, i.e., -wherein the silicate cement is selected and wherein the silicate cement comprises one or more of-.
The term “common” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “common” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “common” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is required for the silicate cement to be considered “common silicate cement” as is instantly claimed.
The phrase “volcanic ash characteristics” in claim 13, lines 3-4, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “volcanic ash characteristics” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s recitation of the phrase “volcanic ash characteristics” renders the claims indefinite as it is unclear as to what is required for the cementing material to be considered to have volcanic ash characteristics. For example, is it obtained from volcanic ash? Is it required to have particular properties? Does it set in a particular amount of time/in a particular manner? Clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the size of the conduit karst cavity" in S1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the water pressure" in S1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the distance" in S1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the means of two-slurry grouting" in S3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 provides for the use of the coastal karst cement-based expanding grouting material, but since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the fields" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high-speed” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high-speed” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is required for a speed required to be considered a “high-speed” railway as claimed.
The term “large-scale” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large-scale” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “large-scale” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is required for the hydraulic and hydroelectric engineering applications to be considered “large-scale.” Must such span a particular area in square miles? An entire country? Continent? Clarification is required.
The phrase “deep mine” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deep mine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase “deep mine” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is required for a mine to be considered “deep” in the context of application of use of the grouting material as claimed. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. V Brenner, 255 F.Supp 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to sufficiently disclose, teach and/or suggest cement-based expanding grouting material comprise of components A and B as instantly claimed.
CN 108484058 A (cited and provided by Applicant with IDS filed 07/29/24) discloses a cementin material comprising components A and B, wherein component A comprises a hydraulic cementing material and water with a water-cement ratio of (0.6-1):1 and a component B that comprises 0.3-1.2% of a water-soluble vegetable gum, 0.2-1% of polymer polyol, 0.2-1.5% of alcohol polysaccharide, 10-44% of water glass and 52.3-86.3% of water. The reference, however, fails to disclose, teach and/or suggest at least wherein component A comprises an expanding agent and component B comprises polyacrylamide and polyacrylic acid derivative salt.
CN 1226531 A discloses a cement mixture that includes polyacrylate as a dispersant, along with an anionic surfactant of sodium dodecyl sulfate. The reference, however, fails to disclose, teach and/or suggest the components as part of an expanding agent according to that which is instantly claimed.
As such, the instant claims are allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela M DiTrani Leff whose telephone number is (571)272-2182. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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.
/Angela M DiTrani Leff/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
ADL
08/11/26
Prosecution Insights