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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 10/31/2025:
claims 1-12 are currently pending;
the 112(b) rejection to claims 8-9 are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims. However, new 112(b) rejections for the newly added claims are outlined below; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are maintained for at least the reasons as set forth herein.
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 10 and 12 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 10 line 2 recites “the cement slurry formed from the cementing system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cement slurry” in the claim and it is not clear if the “cement slurry” is the same or different from the “cementing system”.
Examiner will treat the claimed “cement slurry” to be the same as the “cementing system”, which appears to be consistent with specification at [0027].
Examiner suggests clarifying the claim so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 12 line 2 recites “the set cement”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is not clear if the “set cement” is the same or different from the “cementing system”.
Examiner will treat the claimed “set cement” to be the same as the “cementing system”, which appears to be consistent with specification at [0027].
Examiner suggests clarifying the claim so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20210012705 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Lee” hereinafter) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110054440 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Zhang” hereinafter); as evidenced by Ecoquery (Silica sand production, 1999) (“Ecoquery” hereinafter) with respect to claims 1 and 3 only.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an ultra-high temperature resistant cementing system (see Lee at [0019] teaching high-strength mortar composition), which is taken to meet the claimed limitation based on the structure as outlined below,
with excellent pumpability performance (the high-strength mortar composition as taught by Lee is expected to be capable of having excellent pumpability performance),
for use in well cementing operations under high-temperature and high-pressure conditions (these limitations are directed towards the intended use of the claimed ultra-high temperature resistant cementing system. MPEP teaches "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" (see MPEP § 2111.02 II)),
which is composed of a solid component, wherein the solid component consists of cement, silica sand, fly ash and slag powder (see Lee at [0019] teaching 15 to 30 parts by weight cement, 57 to 70 parts by weight of sand, 2 to 5 parts by weight of fly ash, 5 to 10 parts by weight of slag, see Lee at [0033] teaching the slag may be a fine powder of blast furnace slag). Sand is taken to meet the claimed silica sand as evidenced by Ecoquery (see Ecoquery at page 2 paragraphs 2-3 evidencing the use of silica sand… building sand: used as aggregate for concrete); and
a liquid component, wherein the liquid component is composed of water and additives (see Lee at [0019] teaching 0.2 to 1 part by weight of modified clay as a viscosity regulator, and 0.02 to 0.1 part by weight of a fluidizing agent, see Lee at [0021] teaching the high-strength mortar composition… is mixed with water, see Lee at [0028] teaching wherein the admixture comprises a fluidizing agent and a viscosity regulator). The crack-preventing agent, viscosity regulator and fluidizing agent are taken to meet the claimed additives;
wherein the solid component consists of 14-70% cement, 3-80% silica sand, 3-80% fly ash and 3-80% slag powder by weight percentage (see Lee at [0019] teaching 15 to 30 parts by weight cement, 57 to 70 parts by weight of sand, 2 to 5 parts by weight of fly ash, 5 to 10 parts by weight of slag. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the total amount of solid component as taught by Lee is 79-115 parts. There are 13-38% by weight cement (or ((15-30) ÷ (79-115)) x 100)), 50-89% by weight sand (or ((57-70) ÷ (79-115)) x 100)), 2-6% by weight fly ash (or ((2-5) ÷ (79-115)) x 100)) and 4-13% by weight slag (or ((5-10) ÷ (79-115)) x 100)) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and
a weight ratio of… silica sand to fly ash is (0.05-24): 1 (see Lee at [0019]. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the weight ratio of sand (57-70) to fly ash (2-5) is (11-35) (or (57 ÷ 5) to (70 ÷ 2)) : 1 (see MPEP 2144.05(I));
Lee does not explicitly teach i) wherein the liquid component consists of 70-90% water and 10-30% additive by weight percentage, and ii) wherein a weight ratio of the solid component to the liquid component is 1: (0.23-0.83). However, Lee teaches mortar compositions composed of the components of conventional mortar compositions as described… are mixed with a large amount of water in order to obtain a viscosity that allows workability (see Lee at [0035]).
With respect to i), like Lee, Zhang teaches a mortar composition comprising cement, fly ash, slag, additives and water (see Zhang at [0012] teaching the cement slurry… comprising the following raw material components and their weight contents: oil well cement… 430 parts; slag powder… 430 parts; fly ash… 140 parts... fluid loss reducer… 28-32 parts; early strength agent… 10-12 parts; expansion agent… 4-6 parts; dispersant… 10-12 parts; retarder… 6-8 parts; water… 600-920 parts). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the total amount of additives is 58-70 parts (or (28-32) + (10-12) + (4-6) + (10-12) + (6-8)) and the total amount of the additive and water is 658-990 ((58-70) + (600-920)). There are 60-140% by weight water (or ((600-920) ÷ (658-990)) x 100)) and 6-11% additives ((or ((58-70) ÷ (658-990)) x 100)), which is taken to meet the claimed i) wherein the liquid component consists of 70-90% water and 10-30% additive by weight percentage (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, 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).
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 60-140% by weight water and 6-11% by weight additives as taught by Zhang in the mortar composition of Lee because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed quantities would be suitable for mortar compositions composed of components of conventional mortar compositions in order to obtain a viscosity that allows workability.
With respect to ii), as mentioned, Lee teaches mortar compositions composed of the components of conventional mortar compositions as described… are mixed with a large amount of water in order to obtain a viscosity that allows workability (see Lee at [0035]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that amount of the liquid component (or water and additives) is a result effective variable that could be optimized to provide a mortar compositions composed of the components of conventional mortar compositions so as to obtain a viscosity that allows workability.
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 optimized amount of the liquid component (or water and additives) as taught by Lee in view of Zhang in order to provide a mortar compositions composed of the components of conventional mortar compositions so as to obtain a viscosity that allows workability and arrive at the claimed ii) wherein a weight ratio of the solid component to the liquid component is 1: (0.23-0.83).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Lee further teaches the cement constituting the above mortar composition may be any of commonly used cements… may be appropriately selected and used considering economic efficiency and workability (see Lee at [0030]). Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the cement is class G oil well cement. However, Zhang teaches the oil well cement is oil well G grade cement (see Zhang at [0013])… grade G oil well cement is a cement material commonly used in oil gas well cementing construction… it can meet different well temperature requirements by being appropriately mixed with admixtures… it is also available on the market and easy to purchase.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that oil well G grade cement is a suitable cement for mortar compositions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use oil well G grade cement as taught by Zhang in the mortar composition as taught by Lee because it is suitable for its intended use, available on the market and easy to purchase, and can meet different well temperature requirements by being appropriately mixed with admixtures.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Lee further teaches wherein a content of SiO2 in the silica sand is more than 95% (see Lee at [0019] teaching sand). Sand is taken to meet the claimed silica sand as evidenced by Ecoquery (see Ecoquery at page 2 paragraphs 2-3 evidencing the use of silica sand… building sand: used as aggregate for concrete, and see Ecoquery at page 1, section general comment evidencing silica sand is a special sand with a SiO2 (quartz)-content of more than 85% (w/w) (see MPEP 2144.05(I))).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Lee further teaches wherein a particle size D90 of the silica sand ranges from 38.6 to 206 µm (see Lee at [0031] teaching to use sand having a particle size of 5.6 or less (see MPEP 2144.05(I))… if sand having a particle size that is too large is used, material separation and the strength of the mortar may be reduced and surface roughness may increase).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the fly ash is fly ash of coal-fired power plant. However, Zhang teaches the fly ash is fly ash from a coal-fired power plant (see Zhang at [0032]).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that fly ash is fly ash from a coal-fired power plant is suitable for mortar compositions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use fly ash is fly ash from a coal-fired power plant as taught by Zhang in the mortar composition as taught by Lee because it is suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the additive contains a retarder; wherein the additive further contains at least one of a suspending agent, a dispersing agent, a fluid loss reducer and a defoaming agent. However, Zhang teaches the raw material components… dispersant… retarder (see Zhang at [0012]), which is taken to meet the claimed wherein the additive contains a retarder; wherein the additive further contains at least one of… dispersing agent.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate dispersant and retarder are suitable additives for mortar compositions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use dispersant and retarder additives as taught by Zhang in the mortar composition as taught by Lee because both dispersant and retarder are suitable additives for its intended use.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches a preparation method for preparing… cementing system (see Lee at [0054] teaching a mortar composition was prepared by mixing),
ultra-high temperature resistant cementing system with excellent pumpability performance according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection based on Lee in view of Zhang),
comprising the following steps: step 1, mix cement, silica sand and slag powder according to a proportion to obtain a solid component A; step 2, weigh the fly ash to obtain a solid component B; step 3, mix water and additives according to a proportion to obtain a liquid component C; step 4, mix the solid component obtained in step 1 and the liquid component obtained in step 3 according to the proportion, and adding the solid component B obtained in step 2 into it, and then stirring at the speed of 3000 rpm for 35 seconds after the addition, and obtaining a high-temperature resistant cementing system (see Lee at [0054] teaching a mortar composition was prepared by mixing an admixture composed of… cement… sand… fly ash… blast furnace slag… crack-preventing agent… modified clay… and fluidizing agent… when pouring mortar, the composition and water mixed).
MPEP states that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C). In this instance, the method of preparing the mortar composition as taught by Lee is taken to meet the claimed preparation method because the method as taught by Lee produced a mortar composition with fully mixed components, and there is no evidence indicating that the claimed steps 1-4 and the mixing speed in step 4 are critical, absent new and unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, and Lee further teaches wherein in step 4, fly ash is added under the condition that other solid and liquid components are mixed (see Lee at [0054] teaching a mortar composition was prepared by mixing an admixture composed of… cement… sand… fly ash… blast furnace slag… crack-preventing agent… modified clay… and fluidizing agent… when pouring mortar, the composition and water mixed, and as mentioned in claim 8 rejection, the method of preparing the mortar composition as taught by Lee is taken to meet the claimed preparation method because the method as taught by Lee produced a mortar composition with fully mixed components, and there is no evidence indicating that the claimed step 4 in claim 8 and 9 are critical, absent new and unexpected results).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Lee in view of Zhang further teach wherein the cement slurry formed from the cementing system has a thickening time of more than 6 hours and an initial consistency of 23.8 Bc to 33.6 Bc (since the mortar composition as taught by Lee in view of Zhang and the claimed ultra-high temperature resistant cementing system in claims 1 and 10 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., wherein the cement slurry formed from the cementing system has a thickening time of more than 6 hours and an initial consistency of 23.8 Bc to 33.6 Bc) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Lee in view of Zhang (see MPEP 2112.01)).
Alternatively, the claimed “wherein the cement slurry formed from the cementing system has a thickening time of more than 6 hours and an initial consistency of 23.8 Bc to 33.6 Bc” is being treated as being taught by Lee in view of Zhang because the mortar composition as taught by Lee in view of Zhang is expected to be capable of forming the claimed the cement slurry that has a thickening time of more than 6 hours and an initial consistency of 23.8 Bc to 33.6 Bc.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Lee in view of Zhang further teach wherein the cementing system is cured under a temperature of 200 oC and a pressure of 50 MPa (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitations because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Lee in view of Zhang (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitations is a cement, see claim 1 rejection based on Lee in view of Zhang).
Alternatively, the claimed “wherein the cementing system is cured under a temperature of 200 oC and a pressure of 50 MPa” is being treated as being taught by Lee in view of Zhang because the mortar composition as taught by Lee in view of Zhang is expected to be capable of being cured under a temperature of 200 oC and a pressure of 50 MPa.
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and Lee in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the set cement… has a compressive strength greater than 35 MPa (since the mortar composition as taught by Lee in view of Zhang and the claimed ultra-high temperature resistant cementing system in claims 1 and 11-12 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., compressive strength greater than 35 MPa) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Lee in view of Zhang (see MPEP 2112.01)),
set cement… obtained after curing under 200 oC and 50 MPa (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitations because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Lee in view of Zhang (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitations is a cement, see claim 1 rejection based on Lee in view of Zhang). Alternatively, the claimed “wherein the cementing system is cured under a temperature of 200 oC and a pressure of 50 MPa” is being treated as being taught by Lee in view of Zhang because the mortar composition as taught by Lee in view of Zhang is expected to be capable of being cured under a temperature of 200 oC and a pressure of 50 MPa.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garg et al. (A review on ground granulated blast-furnace slag as a cement replacing material, IJERM, 2016) (“Garg” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Zhang teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the slag powder is S75 grade, S95 grade, or S105 grade slag powder. However, Lee teaches the slag may be a fine powder of blast furnace slag (see Lee at [0033]).
Like Lee and Zhang, Garg teaches slag (see Garg at Title teaching a review on ground granulated blast-furnace slag as a cement replacing material). Garg also teaches the present technical report focuses on investigating characteristics of concrete with partial replacement of cement with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) (see Garg at Abstract). Garg also teaches in China, GGBS is classified into three grades: namely S75, S95 and S105 (see Garg at page 215, left column, column 2), which is taken to meet the claimed the slag powder is… S75 grade.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate S75 ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is suitable for mortar compositions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use S75 ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as taught by Garg in the mortar composition as taught by Lee in view of Zhang because it is suitable for its intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discusses that the combination of Lee, Zhang and Ecoquery fail to teach or suggest the claimed ultra-high-temperature resistant cementing system, nor would a person of ordinary skill in the art have been motivated to combine the cited teachings with a reasonable expectation of success because i) the application claims a cementing system specifically designed for well cementing operations under high-temperature and high-pressure (HPHT) conditions… Lee is directed to a cement-based high-strength mortar composition… problems solved by Lee are unrelated to those of the present application… Zhang relates to a low-temperature, early-strength cement slurry system that operates around 40 oC; ii) the cited references provide no guidance that adjusting the relative ratios of silica sand, fly ash, and slag powder within the specific ranges recited in claim 1 would produce the unexpected results; and iii) Applicant’s experimental data show that the claimed composition provides a cement slurry with a thickening time exceeding 6 hours, a consistent initial viscosity range, and a cured compressive strength above 35 MPa after 90 days under 200 oC and 50 MPa, with no strength retrogression and stable pore structure (see Applicant’s arguments at page 6 paragraph 2 to page 8 paragraph 1).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes, with respect to i) and ii) above, the claimed invention in independent claim 1 belong to the statutory class of product. As such, only the structure of the examined claims is considered, and the prior art reference Lee, Zhang and Ecoquery has reasonably met the product structure/limitations as claimed. As outlined in the previous office action and rejection above, Lee teaches the relative ratios of silica sand, fly ash, and slag powder within the specific ranges recited in claim 1. Lee and Zhang teach that amount of the liquid component (or water and additives) is a result effective variable that could be optimized to provide a mortar compositions composed of the components of conventional mortar compositions so as to obtain a viscosity that allows workability.
With respect to ii) and iii), Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with what is claimed in independent claim 1 and should demonstrate the criticality of the claimed ranges (see MPEP 716.02(d)). Additionally, since mortar composition as taught by Lee in view of Zhang and the claimed ultra-high temperature resistant cementing system in claim 1 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., a thickening time exceeding 6 hours, a consistent initial viscosity range, and a cured compressive strength above 35 MPa after 90 days under 200 oC and 50 MPa, with no strength retrogression and stable pore structure) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Lee in view of Zhang (see MPEP 2112.01).
As such, the prior art rejections are maintained.
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 MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights