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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 9-14, in the reply filed on April 22, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the inventions as grouped are not independent or distinct because they are closely related and mutually dependent. In particular, applicant argues that the mixture is not a generic or broadly applicable composition, but is specifically configured for use in the claimed method and that the process cannot be practiced with a materially different product. Further, applicant argues the subject matter of the groups substantially overlap such that there is no search or examination burden. These arguments are not persuasive.
As set forth in the requirement, the examiner took the initial position that the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process. This is still understood to be correct. The product claim is directed to a mixture of materials. The recitation in the preamble of the claim that the mixture is “for forming reconstituted limestone construction blocks” is an intended use limitation. It does not limit the scope of the claim (see MPEP 2111.02 I and II). Further, even if one were to conclude the preamble does limit the scope of the claim, it would only limit to the extent that any applicable prior art mixture would have to be capable of being formed into a structure that reads on a reconstituted limestone block. In no scenario are the claims of Group II limited to a construction block or a particular method of making a block; especially not a method that requires a batching plant as claimed or a mobile stamping machine having a structure as claimed and that is operating at a rate as claimed. The method takes a similar mixture of materials and follows a specific process for forming a block. The claimed mixture can be used in completely different methods directed to making other products or it can be used in a somewhat similar, yet still different, methods of making blocks. Either of these scenarios is sufficient for restriction. As was clearly established in the parent application, the details of the method are of particular importance. The instantly claimed material can be used otherwise.
Further, the differences in scope between the groups requires a different field of search and the prior art applicable to the mixture claims would not likely be applicable to the method claims (e.g. The method further requires a particular batching plant, a particularly structured mobile stamping machine, and explicit block production at a particular production rate. These limitations are not likely to all be found in a reference that discloses an applicable mixture). Further still, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. For each of these reasons the argument that the different groups overlap in scope and there would not be a search and examination burden to search and examiner both groups is not persuasive an the examiner maintains there would be a search and examination burden if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
As to claim 11, the claim recites the mixture comprises “80%-93% of the mixture”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear, in the context of the disclosure, whether this is determined on a dry or wet basis (e.g. it is not clear whether the amount of water/liquid included in the mixture is included in this determination or whether it is based only on the dry ingredients) and/or a mass or volume basis and/or whether other materials or components of the mixture that may further be included in the composition (e.g. the claim contains open comprising language and other materials can be found in the mixture) are included or excluded from the calculated amount (e.g. whether it is calculated as crushed limestone/(crushed limestone + cement), whether it is crushed limestone/(crushed limestone + cement + all other dry and/or wet ingredients), or whether something else is intended). Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bashirov (EA 026308).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Bashirov teaches a mixture for forming reconstituted limestone construction blocks (Abstract; page 2 – first paragraph; page 2 – second to last paragraph; page 3 – middle of the page; page 5 – middle of the page; claims 1 and 6) comprising crushed limestone (Abstract; page 2, last paragraph; page 3 – “filler” in the table and middle of the page; page 4, Table – “filler (crushed limestone)”; claims 1 and 3); cement (Abstract; page 2, last paragraph; page 3 – table; page 4, Table – element No. 1; claims 1, 2 and 6); an additive, such as a plasticizer (Abstract; page 3 – “plasticizer” in the Table; page 4 – Table, element (10)) and water (Abstract; page 4 – Table, element (11); claims 1 and 6).
While Bashirov is understood to teach the same intended use of the mixture as set forth above, it is noted that this is not required to meet the claim. The preamble limitation “for forming reconstituted limestone construction blocks” in a first interpretation is not understood to limit the claim (see MPEP 2111.02 I and II) since the body of the claim is able to standalone. In a narrower interpretation, the preamble only limits the claim to the extent that the mixture must be capable of being formed into a construction block as claimed. As set forth above, in any event, Bashirov is understood to teach the claimed mixture.
As to claims 13 and 14, Bashirov teach the particle size of the crushed limestone is within the claimed ranges (page 2, last paragraph; claim 3).
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vilamajo (FR 2584707, IDS Document, with translation provided in parent Application No. 17/694,371).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Vilamajo teaches a mixture comprising crushed (in the form of granulate or powder), cement, additive/plasticizer and water (Abstract; lines 13-24 and 80-89). The mixture is capable of being molded into a variety of products and shapes (lines 72-79), including construction and building products or shapes (line 79). The preamble limitation “for forming reconstituted limestone construction blocks” in a first interpretation is not understood to limit the claim (see MPEP 2111.02 I and II) since the body of the claim is able to standalone. In a narrower interpretation, the preamble only limits the claim to the extent that the mixture must be capable of being formed into a construction block as claimed. Since Vilamajo discloses molding the claimed composition into a variety of products and shapes, it is clear from the teaching of Vilamajo that the basic shape of a block can be formed by the mixture of Vilamajo. In either event, Vilamajo is applicable.
As to claims 13 and 14, Vilamajo teaches a preferred size for the limestone aggregate ranges from 1-2 mm (lines 15-19, 23-24, and 80-82) and a full range of 0-5 mm (lines 80-82). These ranges are understood to anticipate the claimed ranges.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niven et al. (US 2015/0232381).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Niven et al. teach a mixture suitable for forming blocks (paragraphs [0393], [0400], and [0430]) comprising cement (Abstract; paragraphs [0086], [0089]-[0092], [0204]), an aggregate comprising ground/crushed limestone (paragraphs [0132], [0251], [0254], [0255]), water (paragraphs [0003], [0004], [0086], [0088]-[0093], [0096] and [0102]) and an additive, such as a plasticizer (paragraphs [0113], [0117], [0122], [0125], [0189], [0191], [0247], Table 1).
The preamble limitation “for forming reconstituted limestone construction blocks” in a first interpretation is not understood to limit the claim (see MPEP 2111.02 I and II) since the body of the claim is able to standalone. In a narrower interpretation, the preamble only limits the claim to the extent that the mixture must be capable of being formed into a construction block as claimed. As set forth above, Niven et al. is applicable in both events.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shouldice (US 2004/0091317).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Shouldice teaches a mixture for creating blocks (Abstract; paragraph [0006]) comprising a mixture of crushed limestone, cement, water, and an additive, such as a plasticizer or a water repellent additive (paragraphs [0033], [0036], [0037]; Table; Figure 1C)
The preamble limitation “for forming reconstituted limestone construction blocks” in a first interpretation is not understood to limit the claim (see MPEP 2111.02 I and II) since the body of the claim is able to standalone. In a narrower interpretation, the preamble only limits the claim to the extent that the mixture must be capable of being formed into a construction block as claimed. As set forth above, Shouldice is applicable in both events.
As to claim 11, Shouldice exemplifies a batch comprising 2000 lbs. of crushed limestone and 400 lb. of cement powder with small amounts of additives. This is understood, in one interpretation, to disclose an amount of crushed limestone of approximately 83.3% (2000 lbs. / 2400 lbs.) or approximately 82.7% (2000 lbs./2418 lbs. which includes cement and additives in the calculation). See the section 112b rejection set forth above as the claims and specification do not make it clear how additional materials (e.g. sand) should be considered. These calculations do not utilize sand when determining the amount of limestone in the mixture
As to claims 13 and 14, Shouldice utilizes crushed limestone “screenings” (i.e. fines/dust) which is understood by one having ordinary skill in the art to teach and disclose sizes within the claimed range (paragraphs [0036], [0037] and Table). Further, Shouldice suggests selecting the size of the aggregate as may be desired (paragraph [0033]).
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maslehuddin et al. (US 2017/0283319).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Maslehuddin et al. teach a mixture for forming blocks (paragraphs [0088] and [0089]) wherein the mixture comprises crushed limestone (paragraphs [0013]-[0015], [0056], [0057], [0091]-[0093]; Table 3; Table 8), cement (Abstract; paragraphs [0006], [0010]), an additive such as superplasticizer (paragraphs [0018]- [0020], [0073]-[0076], [0091] and [0092]), and water (paragraphs [0024], [0027], [0063]; Tables 1-3 and 8).
As to claims 13 and 14, Maslehuddin et al. disclose the crushed limestone has a particle size as claimed (paragraph [0093] – maximum particle size of 12.5 mm).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Friedel et al. (US 2013/0087080).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Friedel et al. teach a mixture suitable for creating blocks (Abstract; paragraphs [0026], [0058], claim 13) comprising a mixture of crushed/ground limestone as the aggregate (paragraphs [0015], [0025]; claim 4), cement (Abstract; paragraphs [0013], [0024], [0052], [0057]; claims 1, 3, 18 and 19), water (paragraph [0047], [0052], [0057]), and an additive (paragraphs [0011], [0012], [0016], [0019] and [0023]), including a plasticizer (paragraphs [0022], [0049], [0057]; claims 2 and 20).
The preamble limitation “for forming reconstituted limestone construction blocks” in a first interpretation is not understood to limit the claim (see MPEP 2111.02 I and II) since the body of the claim is able to standalone. In a narrower interpretation, the preamble only limits the claim to the extent that the mixture must be capable of being formed into a construction block as claimed. As set forth above, Friedel et al. is applicable in both events.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashirov (EA 026308), as applied to claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 above.
As to claim 11, Bashirov teaches the amount of crushed limestone overlaps the claimed range. At the top of page 3, Bashirov discloses that the amount of “filler” is 20-85% and the amount of “aggregate” is 0-30%. This requires some explanation based on the manner in which the Bashirov reference is written. At some locations in the disclosure, Bashirov refers to both the crushed limestone and sand as fillers. However, it is proper to conclude that the “filler” listed in the table at the top of page 3 is referring only to the crushed limestone. The word “aggregate” appears to be only utilized in this table and is understood to be referring to the sand. As shown in the table on page 4, the sand is exemplified in amounts that range from 10-30% and the amount of “filler (crushed limestone)” is utilized in amounts that range from 45.5-76.3%. If the “filler” in the table on page 3 was referring to the amount of sand, several of the exemplified usages would be out of the disclosed range (e.g. examples 1 and 2 would be out of the range) If the “filler” at the top of page 3 was referring to the combined amount of crushed limestone and sand, example 2 would be above the disclosed range (e.g. Example 2 includes 86.3% when the amount of sand and crushed limestone are combined which is above 85%). As such, it is clear that the “filler” range of 20-85% is referring to the crushed limestone alone. Further, claim 1 provides a listing of materials followed by a respective listing of amounts. It is also sufficiently clear in the claim that the “filler 20-85” is referring to the crushed limestone and the “filler 0-30” is referring to the sand. As such, Bashirov discloses an amount of crushed limestone that overlaps the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Even further, if one were to disagree with the analysis set forth above, the teaching of Bashirov would, in any event, suggest an amount of limestone that renders the claim prima facie obvious. For example, if the combined amounts of sand and limestone were understood to be capped at 85%, selecting the amounts of each would have been a routine expedient and the exemplified amount of 76.3% makes it clear that high and higher amounts of limestone can be used such that 80% as set forth in the claim is rendered prima facie obvious by the teaching of Bashirov.
As to claim 12, Bashirov suggests an amount of additive that overlaps or encompasses the claimed range (Table on page 3 – fiber, lime, titanium oxide, water repellent, dispersible polymer powders are all understood to be applicable under a reasonable interpretation). More specifically, the amount of plasticizer is understood to overlap and render the claimed and disclosed range prima facie obvious (Table on page 3; Examples; claim 1, as calculated by the disclosure of utilizing 0.001-1.5% of plasticizer with 8-25% cement).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilamajo (FR 2584707), as applied to claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 above.
As to claim 11, Vilamajo teaches the amount of limestone ranges from 40%-80% (Abstract; lines 18-22 and 80-87). Whether the claim requires the amount to be on a wet or dry basis, at least the endpoint of 80% in Vilamajo overlaps the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie. If the determination is based on a dry basis, the 5-50% of water in Vilamajo would be removed from the calculation and more of the range of Vilamajo would be within or overlap the claimed range.
As to claim 12, Vilamajo teaches utilizing 0-5% of plasticizer as the additive (Abstract; lines 18-22 and 84-87). The range overlaps or encompasses a somewhat narrower claimed range and renders the amount of additive/plasticizer prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05 I and II A). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have readily determined as a routine expedient how much plasticizer to utilize in view of the teaching of Vilamajo in order to achieve a desired degree of plasticizing effect for the particular composition being processed or the particular product being produced.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niven et al. (US 2015/0232381), as applied to claims 9 and 10 above.
As to claim 12, Niven et al. suggest a range of admixtures/plasticizers that overlaps the claimed range (paragraphs [0113], [0117], [0122], [0125], [0189], [0191], [0247], Table 1). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shouldice (US 2004/0091317), as applied to claims 9-11, 13 and 14 above.
As to claim 12, Shouldice discloses 50 ounces of water-repellent additive may be utilized. This works out to 12.5 ounces per 100 pounds of cement. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the values set forth in the prior art and the claimed range don’t overlap but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case 12 ounces of additive is understood to be so close to 12.5 ounces of additive that one having ordinary skilled in the art would have expected them to provide substantially the same properties. Further, the amounts of water-repellent and plasticizer in the Table of Shouldice are understood to be exemplary. One having ordinary skill in the art would have readily determined an appropriate amount of additive to employ to achieve a desired effect (paragraphs [0033] and [0036] reasonably suggest optimizing/customizing the amounts of these materials to achieve desired properties in the final product. The amount of these materials will have some effect on the result of the produced product as recognized by Shouldice).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maslehuddin et al. (US 2017/0283319), as applied to claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 above.
As to claim 12, Maslehuddin et al. teach the amount of plasticizer overlaps the claimed range (paragraphs [0018]- [0020], [0073]-[0076], [0091] and [0092]; disclosing an amount of 0.5-1.2% of the weight of the cement in paragraph [0092] and also disclosing overlapping ranges of values relative to the composition in the other citations).
Claims 11-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friedel et al. (US 2013/0087080), as applied to claims 9 and 10 above.
As to claim 11, Friedel et al. teach the composition can include 50-90% by weight of the aggregate and that the aggregate can include ground limestone (Abstract; paragraphs [0015] and [0025]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
As to claim 12, Friedel et al. teach the amount of additive, plasticizer or other, overlaps the claimed range (paragraphs [0016], [0022], [0023], [0049], [0057]; claims 2 and 20). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
As to claims 13 and 14, Friedel et al. teach the aggregate, which can be ground limestone has a particle size which overlaps the claimed range (paragraph [0025]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arcadias (FR 2726549) discloses analogous and applicable mixtures comprising up to 85 vol. % crushed limestone with particle sizes as claimed, and further including cement, water and other additives. Inkaya (US 2019/0071355) discloses analogous and applicable mixtures comprising up to 85 wt. % limestone powder and further including cement, water and other additives.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights