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 .
Prosecution Reopened
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1-18 and are considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below.
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 11-14 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.
In claim 11, the term “the metered addition” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of a metered addition of the additive. To correct, the Examiner suggests changing the word “the” to the word “a” (i.e., “a metered addition”).
In claim 12, the word “the horizontal motion of the printing head” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of the printing head as having a horizontal motion. To correct, the Examiner suggests amending the claim as follows: “…wherein the speed of [[the]] a horizontal motion of the printing head…”
In claim 13, the phrase “the aqueous mineral binder composition” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. There is no previous mention of an aqueous mineral binder composition. It is believed Applicants intended for the combination of the water with the dry mineral binder composition and optional additives to refer to the aqueous mineral binder composition, and the Examiner is interpreting as such. To correct, the Examiner suggests amending the claim as follows: “..and optionally with other additives to form an aqueous mineral binder composition, layer-by-layer application of the aqueous mineral binder composition…” Claim 14 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 13.
In claim 14, the phrase “its height” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is not readily apparent what “its” is referring to. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “its height” to refer to the height of the moulding. To correct, the Examiner suggests amending the claim as follows: “…wherein the [[its]] height of the moulding is at least…”
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.
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 1-11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaivanov et al. (EP-3431172-A1), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Karaivanov”), and with additional reference to a certified human translation of Para. 0111-0112 of Karaivanov (hereinafter referred to as “Certified Human Translation of Para. 0111-0112 of Karaivanov”), in view of Takehiro et al. (JP-2011241095-A), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Takehiro”), and Navarro et al. (EP-3360854-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Navarro”), with evidence from King (King, Hobart M. “Limestone.” Geology.com, geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml.) (hereinafter referred to as “King”) as to the rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 15, and 16.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 16, Karaivanov teaches a dry mineral binder composition for the production of mouldings by means of 3D printing (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 2, teaching a dry mortar/concrete recipe; also see Karaivanov at pg. 3, para. 9, teaching the mortar may be printed using 3D printing), the binder composition comprising:
(i) cement (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 8-9, teaching the composition as containing a binder, such as Portland cement);
(ii) mineral fillers (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 4-5, teaching the composition as containing sands/aggregates/fillers, such as dolomite; also see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 12-14, teaching the composition as containing an additive, such as quartz or limestone);
(iii) at least one aluminium-sulfate-based accelerator (see Karaivanov at pg. 14, para. 18-19, teaching the composition as containing an accelerator, such as Al-sulphate, i.e., aluminum sulfate);
(iv) at least one superplasticizer based on a polycarboxylate ether (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 16-17, teaching the composition as containing an eluent, such as one based on polycarboxylate ether); and
(v) at least one rheology aid (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 20-21, teaching the composition may contain methylcellulose; it necessarily follows that the methylcellulose functions as a rheology aid in the composition, as methylcellulose is a modified cellulose (see instant claim 4); products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, see MPEP § 2112.01(II));
wherein the weight percentages are based on the total weight of the binder composition, wherein the mineral fillers include 20 to 40% by weight (22 to 36%, regarding claim 16), based on the total weight of the binder composition, of fine fillers with a particle size below 0.125 mm (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 4-5, teaching the composition as containing sand/aggregates/fillers with particle sizes preferably ranging from 0 to 0.1-2 mm; this size range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05; also see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 6, teaching the content of the aggregates to range from 20 to 80 wt% in the composition, which overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05; alternatively, in the case that the limestone “additive” of Karaivanov (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 12-14) is also included in the claimed mineral filler range, the weight percentage range still overlaps the claimed range (20% aggregate min + 0.5% additive min = 20.5% mineral filler min; 80% aggregate max + 15% additive max = 95% mineral filler max; this range of 20.5% to 95% still overlaps the claimed range)).
While Karaivanov teaches the composition outlined above, Karaivanov fails to explicitly teach the composition as (1) containing 1 to 10 % by weight of ground calcium carbonate (2 to 5%, regarding claim 15) having a particle size below 0.01 mm, and (2) where the polycarboxylate ether has, per gram of dry polycarboxylate ether, at least 1 mmol of carboxylic acid groups.
Regarding (1), Karaivanov teaches their composition may include an additive, including fine flours of limestone (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 13; note that the term “micronutrients” at pg. 13, para. 13 of Karaivanov is a machine translation error, and actually should read “fine flours,” as shown in the Certified Human Translation of Para. 0111-0112 of Karaivanov (para. 0111-0112 of untranslated Karaivanov corresponds to pg. 13, para. 13-15 of the machine translation of Karaivanov)). Moreover, it is well-known that limestone contains at least 50 wt% or more of calcium carbonate, as evidenced by King at pg. 3, last paragraph at bottom. Accordingly, given that Karaivanov teaches their additive to be present in an amount of 0.5 to 15% in their composition (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 14), it necessarily follows that in the case that limestone is used as an additive, the amount of calcium carbonate ranges from 0.25% at a minimum to 15% at a maximum in the composition of Karaivanov (0.5% limestone content minimum • 0.5 calcium carbonate ratio minimum = 0.25% calcium carbonate content minimum in composition; additionally, 15% is the maximum amount of calcium carbonate in the case that the limestone used is 100% calcium carbonate). Thus, Karaivanov necessarily teaches their composition may contain calcium carbonate (via the limestone additive) in an amount ranging from 0.25% to 15%, which overlaps the claimed ranges, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Moreover, with regard to the particle size of the calcium carbonate, Takehiro teaches a premix mortar composition (see Takehiro at pg. 2, para. 5). Takehiro further teaches the composition may contain a calcium carbonate powder, and that the particle size of the calcium carbonate powder is preferably 45 µm or less from the viewpoint of improving flow retention before curing after long-term storage and improving compressive strength (see Takehiro at pg. 3, para. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the particle size of the limestone (i.e., calcium carbonate) in the composition of Karaivanov to range from 45 µm or less. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve flow retention before curing after long-term storage and to improve compressive strength (see Takehiro at pg. 3, para. 5).
This range of 45 µm or less is equivalent to a range of 0.045 mm or less, which overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding (2), Navarro teaches a mortar composition containing a polycarboxylate ether-based superplasticizer (see Navarro at para. 0023), and that an example commercial superplasticizer includes ViscoCrete 225P (see Navarro at para. 0032).
Karaivanov teaches their composition may contain a polycarboxylate ether eluent, i.e., flow agent (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 16-17).
In this case, ViscoCrete 225P is a known polycarboxy-based superplasticizer suitable for use as a superplasticizer/fluidizing agent in a mortar-type composition (as exemplified by Navarro at para. 0032), and thus its use in the composition of Karaivanov would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ViscoCrete 225P as the polycarboxylic acid-based fluidizing agent/eluent in the composition of Karaivanov, as the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Moreover, combining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143.
Following the above modification, the composition of modified Karaivanov contains ViscoCrete 225P as a superplasticizer/fluidizing agent, which is the same superplasticizer utilized by Applicants in their Examples (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 30, lines 14-15). There is a reasonable expectation that the ViscoCrete 225P material of the prior art demonstrates the claimed “mmol of carboxylic acid groups” property based on its identical structural to the ViscoCrete 225P exemplified in Applicant’s example(s) (“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties,” see MPEP § 2112.01(II)). Accordingly, a prima facie case exists because the prior art teaches the claimed composition in the expectation that they would have similar properties.
Regarding claim 2, see Karaivanov at pg. 14, para. 18-20, teaching the composition as containing an accelerator, such as Al-sulphate, i.e., aluminum sulfate, in an amount ranging from 0.05 to 2%; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 16-18, teaching the composition as containing an eluent, such as one based on polycarboxylate ether, in an amount ranging from 0.05 to 2%; this range falls completely within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 20-21, teaching the composition may contain methylcellulose, i.e., a modified cellulose.
Regarding claim 5, see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 24-25, teaching the composition may contain a stabilizer/thickener, such as starch ethers; the stabilizer/thickener of Karaivanov functions as a first rheology aid, while the methylcellulose of Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 20-21 functions as a second rheology aid.
Regarding claim 6, see Karaivanov at pg. 14, para. 7-8, teaching the composition may contain a defoamer, such as one based on mineral oil (i.e., an oil-based antifoam).
Regarding claim 7, modified Karaivanov teaches the composition according to claim 1 outlined above, wherein the composition comprises:
-10 to 50% by weight of the cement (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 8-10, teaching a composition of the binder (e.g., Portland cement) to range from 10 to 80%, which overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05),
-0 to 10% by weight of at least one latently hydraulic binder (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 12-14, teaching the composition may contain a latent hydraulic pozzolanic additive in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 15%, which overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05; alternatively, if the limestone used as the additive in the claim 1 rejection above is not a latent hydraulic binder, then the composition contains 0% of the claimed latently hydraulic binder, which still falls within the claimed range),
-45 to 85% by weight of the mineral fillers (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 6, teaching the content of the aggregates to range from 20 to 80 wt% in the composition, which overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05; alternatively, in the case that the limestone “additive” of Karaivanov (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 12-14) is also included in the claimed mineral filler range, the weight percentage range still overlaps the claimed range (20% aggregate min + 0.5% additive min = 20.5% mineral filler min; 80% aggregate max + 15% additive max = 95% mineral filler max; this range of 20.5% to 95% still overlaps the claimed range)),
-0.1 to 2% by weight of the aluminium-sulfate-based accelerator (see Karaivanov at pg. 14, para. 18-20, teaching the composition as containing an accelerator, such as Al-sulphate, i.e., aluminum sulfate, in an amount ranging from 0.05 to 2%; this range overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05),
-0.02 to 5% by weight of the superplasticizer (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 16-18, teaching the composition as containing an eluent, such as one based on polycarboxylate ether, in an amount ranging from 0.05 to 2%; this range falls completely within the claimed range).
-0.01 to 2% by weight of the at least one rheology aid (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 20-22, teaching the composition may contain methylcellulose in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 0.5%, which falls within the claimed range; also see Karaivanov at pg. 13, last three paragraphs, teaching the composition may contain a stabilizer/thickener in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 0.5%),
-0.01 to 1% by weight of at least one antifoam (see Karaivanov at pg. 14, para. 7-9, teaching the composition may contain a defoamer in an amount ranging from 0.02 to 0.5%), and
-0 to 10% by weight of other additives, based on the total weight of the dry binder composition (see Karaivanov at pg. 13-14; the only other additives not mentioned above are the redispersion powders (i.e., polymer adhesives) at pg. 14, para. 2-5, the wetting and dispersing agents at pg. 14, para. 11-13, the reducing agent at pg. 14, para. 15-17, the retarder at pg. 15, para. 1-2, the fibers at pg. 15, para. 4-6, and the pigment at pg. 15, para. 8-10; if the concentrations taught for each of these components in Karaivanov are added together, the total amount of such components range from 0.315% to 42.7% (0.1% redispersion powder min + 0.005% wetting and dispersing agent min + 0.1% reducing agent min + 0.01% retarder min + 0.05% fiber min + 0.05% pigment min = 0.315% total min; 10% redispersion powder max + 0.2% wetting and dispersing agent max + 7% reducing agent max + 0.5% retarder max + 5% fiber max + 20% pigment max = 42.7%% total max); this range of 0.315% to 42.7% overlaps the claimed range, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4, teaching the dry mortar composition as being mixed with water; also see Karaivanov at pg. 10, para. 2, teaching Fig. 6, which shows a mixing tool crankshaft that repeatedly mixes the mortar composition as it passes through; Fig. 6 is shown below, where the mixing tool crankshaft is labeled 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
636
251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given this mixing tool crankshaft repeatedly rotates about its central axis to mix the mortar composition, it necessarily follows that the mixing is “continuous;” alternatively, it is noted that the limitation “where the mixing takes place in a continuous mixer" is considered a product-by-process limitation. It is the examiner's position that the recited limitation does not impart any distinct structural characteristics to the claimed composition. Consequently, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). see MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 9, see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4 and pg. 11, para. 5, teaching the aqueous mineral composition as being 3D printed; also see Fig. 4 of untranslated Karaivanov at pg. 20, showing the production of moldings by 3D printing.
Regarding claim 10, modified Karaivanov teaches a process for the application of a mineral binder composition (see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4 and pg. 11, para. 5, teaching the aqueous mineral composition as being 3D printed), comprising the steps of:
-provision of a dry mineral binder composition according to Claim 1, of water, and optionally of at least one other additive (see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4, teaching the dry mortar and water as being mixed together; also see Karaivanov at pg. 15, para. 1-2, teaching the composition as also containing a retarder; thus, Karaivanov necessarily teaches the provision of the dry mineral composition, water, and a retarder additive; alternatively, see Karaivanov at pg. 15, para. 15-16, teaching the addition of an additive, such as a retarder, may be supplied to the nozzle to be mixed with the mortar separately, also see Fig. 3 below);
-addition, by a feed device, of the dry mineral binder composition, of the water, and optionally of the at least one other additive into a mixing device (see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4, teaching the dry composition and water as being mixed together; it necessarily follows that the components are added by some sort of “feed device” by virtue of placing the components together and mixing them; moreover, it necessarily follows that “mixing” the components involves some kind of mixing device to blend the components together);
-mixing of the dry mineral binder composition with the water and optionally with the at least one other additive in the mixing device to give an aqueous mineral binder composition (see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4, teaching the dry mortar and water as being mixed together; thus, the retarder in the composition, the other components of the composition, and the water are mixed together; alternatively, see Karaivanov at pg. 15, para. 15-16, teaching the addition of an additive, such as a retarder, may be supplied to the nozzle to be mixed with the mortar and water separately, also see Fig. 3 below showing the “Additiv” may be added separately);
-with use of a conveying device, introduction of the aqueous mineral binder composition through a conveying line into a printing head that is movable in at least one direction in space (see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4-6, teaching the mixed concrete/mortar as being pumped through a mortar pump via a breaker valve to the main opening 2; also see Fig. 3 below, showing the mortar as being conveyed from the breaker valve 36 to the nozzle 21 and eventually to the discharge opening (i.e., the printing head) 6:
PNG
media_image2.png
502
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
also see Karaivanov at pg. 12, para. 8 and pg. 16, para. 9, teaching the print head nozzle can move in a horizontal direction; also see Fig. 4 of untranslated Karaivanov at pg. 20, showing the print nozzle as moving horizontally in space);
-application of the aqueous mineral binder composition by the movable printing head (see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4, teaching the mortar composition as being dispensed from the discharge opening; also see Fig. 4 of untranslated Karaivanov at pg. 20, showing the print nozzle as discharging the mortar composition).
Regarding claim 11, modified Karaivanov teaches the process according to claim 10 outlined above, wherein
-at least one other additive is added together with the water to the dry mineral binder composition, where the at least one other additive comprises another polycarboxylate ether, a retarder and/or another rheology aid (see Karaivanov at pg. 15, para. 1-2, teaching the composition as containing a retarder; thus, Karaivanov necessarily teaches that with the combination of the mineral composition with water, the retarder is added together with the water to the composition; alternatively, see Karaivanov at pg. 15, para. 15-16, teaching the addition of an additive, such as a retarder, may be supplied to the nozzle to be mixed with the mortar and water separately, also see Fig. 3 above showing the “Additiv” may be added separately), and
-where the metered addition of the at least one other additive is adjusted as required by printing conditions (Karaivanov does not mention adjusting the metered addition of the retarder; given the claimed limitation claims “as required,” it necessarily follows that teachings without a metered addition may still read on the claimed limitation, given that the adjustment is not required).
Regarding claim 13, see Karaivanov at pg. 8, para. 4, teaching the printing of the mortar composition from a discharge opening; also see Karaivanov at pg. 15, para. 18, teaching the mortar as hardening after emerging from the discharge opening; also see Fig. 4 of untranslated Karaivanov at pg. 20, showing the production of a molding formed by layering the mortar composition.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaivanov in view of Takehiro and Navarro, as applied to claims 10 and 13 above, and further in view of Panda et al. (Panda, Biranchi, and Ming Jen Tan. “Experimental study on mix proportion and fresh properties of fly ash based geopolymer for 3D concrete printing.” Ceramics International, vol. 44, no. 9, June 2018, pp. 10258–10265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.03.031) (hereinafter referred to as “Panda”).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, while modified Karaivanov teaches the process (and moulding) according to claim 10 (claim 13) outlined above, modified Karaivanov fails to explicitly teach the speed of the horizontal motion of the printing head during the application of the aqueous mineral binder composition to be at least 20 mm per second, and the height of a produced moulding to be at least 0.5 m, where the height is obtained from the sum of all thicknesses of the layers applied in vertical direction.
However, it is well-known that the 3D printing of similar concrete-like compositions may be performed at 80 mm/s, and further may produce a molding with a height of 0.6 m (60 layers of 10 mm thickness layers [Wingdings font/0xE0] 0.01 m per layer • 60 layers = 0.6 m height total) (see Panda at pg. 10264, left column, para. 1 and Fig. 12).
In this case, a 3D printing speed of 80 mm/s and a molding height of 0.6 m are known in the art (as exemplified by Panda at pg. 10264, left column, para. 1 and Fig. 12), and thus the use of such a speed and the production of such a height in the 3D printing process of modified Karaivanov would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the printing speed of Karaivanov to be 80 mm/s and the height of the produced molding to be 0.6 m, given such metrics are known to suitably be used in a similar process in the art (see Panda at pg. 10264, left column, para. 1 and Fig. 12). Combining known elements to obtain predictable results is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP § 2143.
This value of 80 mm/s for the printing speed and 0.6 m for the height fall completely within the claim 12 and 14 ranges.
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the speed of printing and height of the printed molding depending on desired applications, e.g., faster speed for quicker printing or slower speed for more careful application; and a larger height for tall structures/buildings or shorter height for smaller structures. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have adjusted, by routine experimentation, the speed of the printing head and height of the molding to fall within the claimed ranges in order to optimize such applications. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaivanov in view of Takehiro and Navarro, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sukekiyo et al. (JP-H0891885-A), with reference to the included machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “Sukekiyo”)
Regarding claim 17, while modified Karaivanov teaches the composition according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Karaivanov fails to explicitly teach the composition as further comprising a latent hydraulic binder or pozzolanic binder that is selected from at least one of the group consisting of metakaolin and silica fume.
However, Sukekiyo teaches a cement composition comprising Portland cement, silica fume, and limestone powder (see Sukekiyo at pg. 4, para. 2). Sukekiyo further teaches the silica fume to have an effect of increasing the strength of the hardened body of the cement (see Sukekiyo at pg. 2, para. 6). Moreover, Sukekiyo teaches examples where the ratio of the silica fume to the limestone powder is 1:1 (see untranslated Sukekiyo at pg. 10, last page at the bottom, showing examples where the ratio of Portland cement : silica fume : limestone powder is 80 : 10 : 10). Moreover, Sukekiyo teaches the amount of silica fume used should be controlled to have enough to improve strength but not too much where the use is too expensive/uneconomical (see Sukekiyo at pg. 5, para. 7).
Karaivanov teaches their dry mortar composition may contain an additive such as limestone, and further teaches latent hydraulic pozzolanic additives such as silicas may be used (see Karaivanov at pg. 13, para. 12-13).
In this case, it is well-known that silica fume may be added together with Portland cement and limestone powder to improve the strength of a concrete (see Sukekiyo at pg. 2, para. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silica fume together with the limestone powder as the additive of modified Karaivanov (e.g., in a 1:1 ratio). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the strength of the hardened body of the cement (see Sukekiyo at pg. 2, para. 6).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaivanov in view of Takehiro and Navarro, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Byrd (US-20160060169-A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Byrd”).
Regarding claim 18, while modified Karaivanov teaches the composition according to claim 1 outlined above, modified Karaivanov fails to explicitly teach the composition as including a superabsorber polymer.
However, Byrd teaches superabsorbent polymers in concretes can be used to improve the curing of the concrete, promote strength, mitigate against shrinkage, and reduce slump during the curing process (see Byrd at para. 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a superabsorber polymer in the composition of modified Karaivanov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the curing of the concrete, promote strength, mitigate against shrinkage, and reduce slump during the curing process (see Byrd at para. 0088).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey E Barzach whose telephone number is (571)272-8735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 5 pm.
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 on 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731