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 specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 is rejected because it is not clear how the silica source may contain
15 x106 repeating units. The mechanical shear from simply stirring the mixture would likely snap the covalent bonds, breaking the chain into smaller pieces. Clarification is required.
Claim 5 is rejected it is not clear that the formula for nanosilica would be encompassed by formula (I).
Claim 6 is rejected because “up to 50 %” is not a ratio.
Claim 12 is rejected because there is not antecedent support in claim 9 for “the aqueous cementitious composition”.
Claim 14 is rejected because there is no antecedent support in claim 1 for “the aqueous cementitious composition”.
Claim 16 is rejected because the language “is less from 1 to 50 nm” is not understood. Clarification is required.
Claim 18 is rejected because “up from 0.1 to 20%” is not a ratio.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected because the term “typically” is a relative term. The intended scope of the claim is not clear. Can there be less than the stated amount? Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giessler-Blank (hereinafter Blank) (US 20100119851-appears on the PTO-892).
Blank teaches the use of at least one water-dispersible, water-redispersible or water-soluble mixture based on at least (i) at least one water-soluble organic polymer and (ii) at least one organosilicon compound for protecting substrates from corrosion, the organosilicon compound being selected from the group consisting of the organofunctional silanes, polysilanes, silane esters, siloxanes, silicones and/or silicic acid esters (see abstract; para 0019). Blank also relates to articles which are based on a substrate according to his invention. Examples are articles comprising prefabricated concrete parts, such as prefabricated houses, tunnels, bridges, roads, house facades and containers (see para [0104]).
The organosilicon compounds have the formula Si(OR')4, R' in each case independently being an alkyl or alkoxyalkylene radical having 1 to 4 C atoms and preferably being methyl or ethyl. Blank teaches that di-, oligo-, and poly-siloxanes of the general formula or empirical formula RcHdSi(OR’)e(OH)fO(4-c-d-e-f)/2 wherein c is 0-3, d is 0-2, e is 0-3, f is 0-3 and the sum of c+d+e+f is at most 3.5, R’ is an alkyl or alkoxyalkylene radical having 1-4 carbon atoms and R is straight or branched alkyl radicals having 1-22 carbon atoms (see para 0022). In this case c, d and f are 0 and e is up to 3 and would read on the present [O-SiR1 3] when R1 is alkoxy. Nonlimiting examples of Blank’s preferred organosilicon compounds are recited at paragraphs [0025] and [0052].
Blank teaches that the organosilicon compounds may be added to cement (see para 0027). The cement, in particular Portland cement, calcium sulfate in the form of alpha- and/or beta-hemihydrate and/or anhydrite and/or high-alumina cement is preferred as the hydraulically setting cement. Pozzolana, such as metakaolin, calcium metasilicate and/or volcanic slag, volcanic tuff, trass, fly ash, blast-furnace slag and/or silica dust, which react hydraulically together with a calcium source, such as calcium hydroxide and/or cement, can be used as the latent hydraulic binder. In particular, lime, generally in the form of calcium hydroxide and/or calcium oxide, can be used as the nonhydraulic binder which reacts under the influence of air and water. In particular, pure Portland cement-based systems or a mixture of Portland cement, high-alumina cement and calcium sulfate are preferred. Also, latent hydraulic and/or nonhydraulic binders may be added (see para [0031]).
Formulations or compositions according to the invention of Blank are for example--but not exclusively--repair mortar, cement-based sealing compounds, grouts, concrete, in particular reinforced concrete, expanded concrete, gas concrete, fiber concrete, steel fiber concrete, cellular concrete, air-placed concrete, underwater concrete, rolled concrete, spun concrete, vacuum concrete, self-compacting concrete (SCC), floor-topping concrete, chip concrete, drain concrete, high-strength and ultra high-strength concrete, glass foam concrete, terracotta, gypsum and/or lime and/or cement renders, repair mortar and full thermal protection mortar (see para [0102]).
Blank meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Blank does not exemplify a mixture wherein the cement, the calcium sulfate hemihydrate and the silica source are all present in the claimed proportions. However, Blank teaches that a mixture may be prepared wherein Portland cement (a hydraulic cement) and calcium sulfate hemihydrate may be combined and that the cement may contain the silica source. This teaching sets forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
With respect to the proportions, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the proportions of the claimed components through routine experimentation for the best results. As to optimization of results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18845769/20260913
Prosecution Insights