DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15 and 19-20) in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding weight percentage values, there should be a space between a number and its unit symbol (wt%).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10-11 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding weight percentage values, there should be a space between a number and its unit symbol (wt%), e.g., in claim 1, line 1, “90wt%” should read “90 wt%”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-6, 13 and 19 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 2 recites the limitation "the paper" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the total weight of biomass ashes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Please note, claims 5-6 and 19 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is noted, that for the purpose of claim interpretation, the examiner will treat claim 13 as not limited by the limitation following the phrase “especially”.
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, 7, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild et al. (WO 02066392 A1), hereinafter referred to as WILD.
Regarding claim 1, WILD teaches a dry mortar composition comprising 40 to 90 wt% of aggregates and 10 to 60 wt% of a mineral binder, with respect to the weight of dry mortar composition, said mineral binder comprising at least 70 wt% of biomass ashes and 0-6 wt% of cement with respect to the weight of mineral binder (lines 15-16, p. 10: the blend/mineral binder includes about 30% to 70% wastepaper sludge ash by weight; lines 22-25, p. 10: when Portland cement is present, it is particularly preferred that the Portland cement is present in an amount of no more than about 25% of the blend, by weight; lines 16-18, p. 11: the blend is typically mixed with sand (preferably in a ratio of about 1 part cementitious material to about 3 parts sand) so as to provide a mortar). WILD teaches a dry mortar composition comprising about 25 wt% of binder and about 75 wt% of aggregate. Thus, WILD teaches ranges which overlap or are within the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the biomass ashes comprise ashes obtained from combustion of wastes from the paper and pulp industry (line 28, p. 4: the waste paper sludge ash).
Regarding claim 3, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the biomass ashes comprise biomass ashes having an average chemical composition comprising 5-35 wt% SiO2, 3-20 wt% Al2O3, 0-5 wt% Fe2O3 and 30-70 wt% CaO (lines 22-24, p. 9: wastepaper sludge ash substantially having the composition 19-32.5% SiO2, 12.75-26.5% Al2O3, 0.3-3.5% Fe2O3, 30-56% CaO). WILD teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein an amount of biomass ashes in the mineral binder is 70-95 wt% with respect to the weight of mineral binder (lines 15-16, p. 10: the blend/mineral binder includes about 30% to 70% wastepaper sludge ash by weight). WILD teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein an amount of cement in the mineral binder is 0-4 wt% with respect to the total amount of mineral binder (lines 22-25, p. 10: when Portland cement is present, it is particularly preferred that the Portland cement is present in an amount of no more than about 25% of the blend, by weight). WILD teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mineral binder comprises inorganic oxidizing salts of an alkali metal (lines 1-2, p. 11: inorganic compound such as sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate).
Regarding claim 14, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition according to claim 1, wherein the aggregates are selected from siliceous (lines 16-18, p. 11: the blend is typically mixed with sand (preferably in a ratio of about 1 part cementitious material to about 3 parts sand), calcareous aggregates, dolomitic aggregates and mixtures thereof.
Regrading claim 15, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1 comprising one or more additive chosen from redispersible polymer powders, pigments, defoamers, stabilizers, thickeners, shrinkage reducing agents, hydrophobic agents, plasticizers and superplasticizers (lines 8-9, p. 11: the blend typically includes additives such as superplasticizers and/or retarders).
Claims 1, 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salami et al. (US 20210024416 A1), hereinafter referred to as SALAMI.
Regarding claim 1, SALAMI teaches a dry mortar composition comprising 40 to 90 wt% of aggregates and 10 to 60 wt% of a mineral binder, with respect to the weight of dry mortar composition, said mineral binder comprising at least 70 wt% of biomass ashes with respect to the weight of mineral binder (paragraph [0008]: a mortar composition that includes: (i) a treated palm oil fuel ash, wherein the treated palm oil fuel ash is the only binder present, (ii) a fine aggregate; and paragraph [0070]: other binders which may be optionally included in the mortar composition, but which are preferably excluded from the mortar composition, include any cement and/or pozzolan/burned organic matter residues capable of producing cement-like binding properties). Please note, that the mortar of SALAMI including palm oil fuel ash and aggregate is treated as reading on limitation “dry mortar composition”; and that the limitation “0-6 wt% of cement” is considered optional and not positively required by the claim. Furthermore, SALAMI teaches that the treated palm oil fuel ash is present in an amount of 20 to 30 wt. %, based on a total weight of the mortar composition (paragraph [0009]), and that typically a weight ratio of the fine aggregate to the treated palm oil fuel ash ranges from 1:1 to 2:1 (paragraph [0074]). Thus, SALAMI teaches a dry mortar composition comprising 50-67 wt% of aggregate and 33-50 wt% of binder, wherein the binder comprises up to 100 wt% of palm oil fuel ash, which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 8, SALAMI teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mineral binder comprises, in addition to biomass ashes, activators (paragraph [0072]: exemplary pozzolanic and/or burned organic matter residues may include, but are not limited to, limestone; fly ash; pozzolana) as well as retarders and/or accelerators (paragraph [0088]: the mortar compositions optionally include one or more additives such as an accelerator, a retarder, a plasticizer (e.g., a superplasticizer)).
Regarding claim 9, SALAMI teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 8, wherein the activators are selected from lime, sources of calcium sulfate, slags, metakaolin, silica fume, pozzolana, fly ashes from coal combustion or from oil shale combustion and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0072]: exemplary pozzolanic and/or burned organic matter residues may include, but are not limited to, limestone; fly ash; pozzolana).
Regarding claim 10, please note that the limitation “a total amount of slag is 0-15 wt%” is considered optional and not positively required by the claim. However, SALAMI disclosing that other binders which may be optionally included in the mortar composition, but which are preferably excluded from the mortar composition, include any cement and/or pozzolan/burned organic matter residues capable of producing cement-like binding properties (paragraph [0070]) and that exemplary pozzolanic and/or burned organic matter residues may include slag (paragraph [0072]) is considered reading on the limitation of claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, SALAMI teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mineral binder comprises carboxylic acids or their salts and mixtures thereof (paragraph [0088]: citric acid; tartaric acid; and the like).
Claims 4-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILD in view of Zmamou et al. (Recycling of high qualities of wastepaper sludge ash for production of blended cements and alternative materials. Environmental Technology and Innovation, 23, 2021, 101524), hereinafter referred to as ZMAMOU.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 1. WILD discloses that the XRD analysis of the ash shows that the crystalline phases present in the dry WSA are quartz, anorthite, gehlenite, dicalcium silicate, calcite and some evidence of quicklime; the results given in Table 2 indicate that the amount of soluble silica in the WSA is almost 24%, which indicates that of the silica present, a substantial proportion is reactive, there is a similar amount (about 24%) of insoluble residue present in the WSA sample which comprises quartz, anorthite and gehlenite (see WILD at lines 9-16, p. 9). But WILD is silent with respect to the biomass ashes comprising at least 10 wt% (claim 4), and at least 20 wt% (claim 19) of hydraulic phases, with respect to the total weight of biomass ashes.
However, ZMAMOU discloses that wastepaper sludge ash (WSA) considered as mineral addition was blended with cement, lime and calcined kaolin for the highest possible dosage in WSA, and that samples were prepared with WSA mixtures, WSA content ranged from 30%-95% (see ZMAMOU at Abstract). ZMAMOU teaches that wastepaper sludge ash is mainly composed of calcium oxide (CaO), silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3); according to the presence of oxides and their amount, WSA can be compared to the cement (hydraulic binder); and that WSA is very rich in calcium oxide (>50%) (see ZMAMOU at 3.1. Chemical composition, paragraphs 2-3, p. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated the wastepaper sludge ash of WILD to comprise phases similar to the ash of ZMAMOU since ZMAMOU, similarly to WILD, explicitly teaches wastepaper sludge ash considered as mineral addition and blended with cement (see ZMAMOU at Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have anticipated the wastepaper sludge of WILD to comprise high percentage of hydraulic phase such as calcium oxide, as disclosed by ZMAMOU.
Regarding claim 5, WILD as modified by ZMAMOU teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 4, wherein the hydraulic phases are selected from calcium silicates, calcium aluminates, free lime (CaO) and mixtures thereof (see WILD at lines 9-16, p. 9: lines 9-16, p. 9: gehlenite).
Regarding claim 6, WILD as modified by ZMAMOU teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 5, wherein calcium silicates and calcium aluminates comprise one or more of the following phases: C2S, C3S, C3A, C4AF, C2A2S (see WILD at lines 9-16, p. 9: gehlenite), CA, C12A7 and CA2.
Regarding claim 20, WILD teaches the dry mortar composition as claimed in claim 7. While WILD teaches binder comprising about 70% by weight of wastepaper sludge ash, WILD fails to explicitly teach wherein the amount of biomass ashes in the mineral binder is 75-90 wt% with respect to the eight of mineral binder.
However, ZMAMOU discloses that wastepaper sludge ash (WSA) considered as mineral addition was blended with cement, lime and calcined kaolin for the highest possible dosage in WSA, and that samples were prepared with WSA mixtures, WSA content ranged from 30%-95% (see ZMAMOU at Abstract). ZMAMOU teaches that wastepaper sludge ash is mainly composed of calcium oxide (CaO), silica (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3); according to the presence of oxides and their amount, WSA can be compared to the cement (hydraulic binder) (see ZMAMOU at 3.1. Chemical composition, paragraphs 2-3, p. 4). ZMAMOU discloses a binder mixture comprising 95% WSA and 5% cement (see ZMAMOU at Table 1). Additionally, ZMAMOU teaches that a mixture with a WSA-Cement mass ratio of 95/5 (minimal cement content) developed the highest unconfined compressive strength at 28 days (see ZMAMOU at 5. Conclusions, recommendations and future investigations, paragraph 2, p. 9).
Both WILD and ZMAMOU disclose cementitious compositions comprising wastepaper sludge ash as a cement replacement. 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)). Therefore, 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 from within the range taught by ZMAMOU because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the amount of biomass ashes in binder up to 95 wt% disclosed by ZMAMOU would be suitable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pecha et al. (US 20220298073 A1) discloses cementitious compositions comprising biochar (Abstract).
Al Nageim et al. (WO 2013017893 A1) discloses the use of ashes in substantial relative proportions within a composition (e.g. granular) for a cementitious material (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights