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
The amendment filed on 8/25/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 08/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that “all claims of Groups II-VI depend from Group I claims either directly or indirectly,” and that therefore Groups I and II-VI are not independent and distinct. This is not found persuasive for the reasons that follow.
The premise of the traversal is factually incorrect. Not every claim of Groups II-VI requires the waterproofing composition of claim 1, even after the amendment:
(a) Independent claim 19 (Group II) recites that the first swellable layer comprises “the waterproofing composition according to claim 1; or a layer of swellable clay sandwiched between two hydrophobic binder layers” (emphasis added). The second alternative requires neither the amounts recited in claim 1 (at least 15 wt.% and no greater than 85 wt.% swellable clay, and/or at least 0.1 wt.% and no greater than 70 wt.% super absorbent polymer, based on the total weight of a waterproofing composition) nor a composition in which a binder and a swellable filler are combined. Claim 19, and claims 20-29 which depend from it, therefore encompass articles that contain no composition according to claim 1.
(b) Claim 34 (Group VI) recites applying “a waterproofing article according to claim 19” and therefore incorporates the same alternative that does not require the composition of claim 1.
(c) Amended claim 33 (Group V) recites forming a first functional layer “by depositing a waterproofing composition according to claim 1 onto a reinforcing layer or by depositing a swellable filler sandwiched between two layers of hydrophobic binders onto a reinforcing layer” (emphasis added). The second alternative does not require the composition of claim 1 and does not limit the swellable filler to a clay or a super absorbent polymer in the amounts of claim 1.
Thus, only amended claim 30 (Group III) and amended claim 31 (Group IV) require all of the limitations of claim 1.
Further, reference to, or incorporation of, claim 1 does not by itself defeat distinctness. Whether inventions are independent or distinct is determined by applying the relationship-specific tests of MPEP §§ 806.05(c)-(j), not by the form in which a claim is drafted. MPEP §§ 806.05(f) and 806.05(h) expressly provide for restriction between a product and a process of making or using that product, even though such process claims ordinarily recite the product. Moreover, the rejoinder practice of MPEP § 821.04 exists precisely because withdrawn claims may depend from, or otherwise require all the limitations of, an elected claim; that practice would be unnecessary if a claim requiring all the limitations of an elected claim could never be restricted from it. Applicant’s remarks do not address the applicable tests for any group. Each relationship to elected Group I is addressed below.
Group I (composition, claims 1-18) and Group II (article, claims 19-29) are related as subcombination and combination (MPEP § 806.05(c)). Inventions in this relationship are distinct if (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations. Here, (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination, because claim 19 is satisfied by a first swellable layer that is a layer of swellable clay, in any amount, sandwiched between two hydrophobic binder layers. That alternative requires neither the weight percentages of claim 1 nor that the swellable filler be combined with the binder in a single composition; the combination is thus of the form ABbr, whereas the subcombination is Bsp. (2) The subcombination has separate utility: the composition of claim 1 can be used by itself, without any reinforcing layer or other layer of the article, for example as a liquid-applied, self-leveling joint or crack sealant, a caulk, an extruded or poured-in-place water stop, or a coating applied directly to a substrate. See, e.g., Fan et al. (CN 1425716 A), translation p. 2 (water-swellable asphalt applied in the liquid state, self-leveling, usable where solid materials cannot reach); Kempenaers et al. (US 2015/0113894 A1), ¶¶ [0047], [0059] (bentonite- and super-absorbent-polymer-containing compositions formed into stand-alone water stop bodies). The inventions are distinct.
Group I (composition, claims 1-18) and Group III (article, claim 30) are related as intermediate and final products (MPEP § 806.05(b)). Claim 1 is drawn to a waterproofing composition, i.e., a material made up of a hydrophobic binder and a swellable filler. Amended claim 30 is drawn to a laminated waterproofing article in which the composition of claim 1 appears in a different form: it has been formed (e.g., by coating, calendering or extruding) into a first or second functional layer that is bonded to a reinforcing layer and covered on one side by a backing layer, the second functional layer additionally having particulate material embedded in its surface. The composition of claim 1 is thus an intermediate product that is converted into a structural element of the final product of claim 30. Intermediate and final products are distinct if (1) they are mutually exclusive, i.e., do not overlap in scope, (2) they are not obvious variants, and (3) the intermediate product as claimed is useful to make other than the final product. MPEP §§ 806.05(b), 806.05(j). Each condition is met here:
(a) Mutually exclusive. The composition of claim 1 is a material, not a multilayer article; as claimed it has no backing layer, reinforcing layer, second functional layer or embedded particulate layer. Conversely, the laminated article of claim 30 is not a composition, but a structure in which the composition has been shaped into a layer and combined with other layers. No single product falls within the scope of both claim 1 and claim 30.
(b) Not obvious variants. Claim 30 requires a specific multilayer architecture—a backing layer, a reinforcing layer overlying the first functional layer opposite the backing layer, a second functional layer on the opposite side of the reinforcing layer, and a particulate layer embedded in the surface of the second functional layer—that is neither required by nor suggested by the claimed composition per se, and that has its own design, mode of operation and effect (e.g., the embedded particulate layer providing a surface for bonding to post-cast concrete). The claimed composition, in turn, is complete without any layered structure.
(c) The intermediate is useful to make other than the final product. The composition of claim 1 can be used to make products other than the article of claim 30, for example a liquid-applied, self-leveling joint or crack sealant, an extruded or poured-in-place water stop, a coating applied directly to a substrate, or a single-layer swellable sheet having no backing, reinforcing or embedded particulate layer. See, e.g., Fan et al. (CN 1425716 A), translation p. 2 (water-swellable asphalt applied in the liquid state, self-leveling); Kempenaers et al. (US 2015/0113894 A1), ¶¶ [0047], [0059] (bentonite/SAP compositions formed into stand-alone water stop bodies). Indeed, applicant’s own claim 19 recites a different article (a first swellable layer adjacent a reinforcing layer, with no backing or particulate layer required) that can be made from the composition.
Groups I and III are therefore distinct. Applicant’s amendment of claim 30 to recite the composition of claim 1 does not change this relationship; it confirms that the composition is an intermediate from which a layer of the final article is formed. The article of claim 30 is classified and searched separately (B32B 27/12; laminated waterproofing sheets), whereas the elected composition is classified in C09D 195/00 (C08L 95/00). Because claim 30 requires all the limitations of claim 1, applicant is advised that if claim 1 is subsequently found allowable, claim 30 will be considered for rejoinder. See MPEP § 821.04(a).
Group I and Group IV (claim 31) are related as product and process of making (MPEP § 806.05(f)). The inventions are distinct if either (1) the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product, or (2) the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process. Amended claim 31 is directed to a method of making “a waterproofing composition according to claim 1” comprising “mixing a hydrophobic binder and a swellable filler.” The amendment does not change the relationship, because the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process. Claim 1 does not require that the swellable filler be dispersed in the binder; the specification describes a substantially uniform dispersion only as one embodiment (¶ [0041]), and the disclosure itself describes placing swellable material on or between binder layers (e.g., a layer of swellable clay sandwiched between hydrophobic binder layers, claim 19; granules deposited on a functional layer, FIG. 7 and ¶ [0028]). The composition of claim 1 can therefore be made, for example, (i) by laminating or co-extruding discrete binder and swellable-filler layers, or by broadcasting swellable clay and/or super absorbent polymer granules onto a heated binder layer so that they become embedded in its surface, without mixing the binder and the filler; or (ii) by forming the super absorbent polymer in situ, e.g., by polymerizing and crosslinking an acrylic monomer distributed in the binder, rather than mixing a pre-formed super absorbent polymer into the binder. The inventions are distinct.
Group I and Group V (claim 33) are related as product and process of using the product (MPEP § 806.05(h)). The inventions are distinct if either (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product, or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. Claim 33 uses a waterproofing composition (in its first alternative) to make a waterproofing article. Here, (1) the process as claimed can be practiced with a materially different product: the second alternative of claim 33 deposits “a swellable filler sandwiched between two layers of hydrophobic binders” onto a reinforcing layer, which requires no composition according to claim 1, no particular amount of filler, and neither a swellable clay nor a super absorbent polymer specifically (any swellable filler suffices). In addition, (2) the composition as claimed can be used in a materially different process, e.g., poured or injected in the liquid state into a joint or crack as a self-leveling sealant, extruded as a stand-alone water stop, or applied as a coating directly to a substrate without any reinforcing layer. Either showing is sufficient; both are present. The inventions are distinct.
Group I and Group VI (claim 34) are related as product and process of using the product (MPEP § 806.05(h)). (1) The process of claim 34 can be practiced with a materially different product, because the article of claim 19 applied in that process may comprise the alternative layer of swellable clay sandwiched between two hydrophobic binder layers rather than any composition according to claim 1. (2) The composition of claim 1 can be used in a materially different process, e.g., post-applied to an already-cured concrete surface, applied to a roof deck, or used as a joint sealant or water stop, rather than applied as part of a sheet article to a building substrate or concrete form with a releasable material facing the area into which concrete is subsequently cast. The inventions are distinct.
The burden findings of the requirement mailed 06/25/2026 are maintained and are not altered by the amendments. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art as shown by their different classification (C09D 195/00 and C08L 95/00 for the elected composition; B32B 2307/73, B32B 27/12 and B32B 37/14 for the articles and the method of making articles; C04B 41/009 and E04B 1/66 for methods of waterproofing concrete structures) and require different fields of search and search strategies. For example, the withdrawn claims require searching layered sheet constructions having backing, reinforcing and embedded particulate layers, lamination and deposition process steps, and installation steps of applying a membrane to formwork and casting concrete against it, none of which is required to search the elected composition. See MPEP § 808.02. The relationships among non-elected Groups II-VI need not be revisited at this time, because each of those groups is withdrawn from consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 19-31, 33 and 34 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 Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) In claim 13, “at least 0.01 mass gain %/cps no greater than 20 mass gain %/cps” should read “at least 0.01 mass gain %/cps and no greater than 20 mass gain %/cps.”
(b) In claim 15, “silica” is recited twice, and “hydrate cement” appears to be intended as “hydrated cement” (compare claim 25). The terms “sly ash” and “rock flower” are addressed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 18 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.
Claims 5 and 13:
Claims 5 and 13 recite that “the waterproofing composition has” a swelling per viscosity factor SVB (bentonite) and SVP (super absorbent polymer), respectively. The specification defines SVB as “the change in maximum swelling per change in viscosity with the increase of the bentonite loading in the waterproofing composition,” and SVP as “the change in maximum swelling per change in viscosity as you increase the super absorbent polymer loading for a particular binder,” and attributes these factors to “the hydrophobic binder” (¶¶ [0077]-[0078]). The claims are indefinite for at least the following reasons:
(1) A single waterproofing composition has a single filler loading. It does not have a “change” in maximum swelling per “change” in viscosity with increasing loading; that ratio can only be obtained by preparing and testing a series of different compositions. The claims do not identify which series of compositions (which loadings, and what binder and other components held constant) must be prepared to determine whether a given composition meets the claim, or whether the claimed value is a property of the claimed composition or of its binder alone (¶¶ [0077]-[0078]). One of ordinary skill therefore cannot determine whether a particular composition infringes.
(2) The specification measures viscosity at 375 °F at two different shear rates, 39.8/s and 6.3/s (¶ [0285]), and the viscosity of a filled, polymer-modified asphalt depends on shear rate. The claims specify neither the temperature nor the shear rate, so the same composition can yield different SVB and SVP values depending on the measurement conditions selected. Where a claimed parameter can be measured by different methods that yield different results, and neither the claim nor the specification identifies which method governs, the claim is indefinite. Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp. (Canada), 803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP § 2173.05(b).
(3) Claim 1, from which claims 5 and 13 depend, encompasses compositions containing no bentonite (e.g., a different swellable clay, or a super absorbent polymer alone) and compositions containing no super absorbent polymer. Further, the specification describes SVB only for compositions “comprising PMA with variable bentonite and no SAP” (¶ [0077]). It is unclear how SVB is to be determined for a composition that contains no bentonite or that also contains a super absorbent polymer, or how SVP is to be determined for a composition that contains no super absorbent polymer.
Claim 7:
Claim 7 recites that “the composition comprises a critical filler concentration, Cf of at least 10 wt.% and no greater than 80 wt.%.” The specification describes Cf as the filler concentration above which a number of property changes are observed, such as improved swelling consistency, a larger increase in swelling per amount of additional swellable filler, and a larger increase in viscosity per amount of filler (¶ [0073]), and determines it from a plot of a property (e.g., viscosity) versus filler content for a series of compositions (¶ [0285]; FIG. 6). Cf is thus a threshold characteristic of a binder/filler system, not an ingredient or amount that a composition can “comprise.” It is unclear whether claim 7 requires (a) that the actual filler content of the composition be 10-80 wt.%, (b) that the filler content of the composition be at or above its Cf, or (c) merely that the Cf of the binder/filler system, determined from a series of other compositions, lie between 10 and 80 wt.%. Further, the specification indicates that Cf may be identified from different properties (swelling consistency, swelling increase or viscosity increase, ¶ [0073]), which need not yield the same concentration, and the claim does not identify which property, or which measurement conditions, govern. The metes and bounds of claim 7 are therefore unclear.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites an STi of at least 0.1 days and no greater than 50 days. STi is “the time it takes for a particular composition to reach an inflection point in a swelling over time plot” (¶ [0082]). Claim 10, however, encompasses all compositions of claim 1, including compositions that do not exhibit delayed swelling; the specification states that only some of the tested compositions exhibit a delayed swell time and that some applications call for a composition that swells as fast as possible (¶ [0287]). A swelling curve that rises immediately and then levels off has no inflection point, and a curve with more than one change in curvature has more than one. The claim and specification do not explain how STi is determined in those cases, so it is unclear whether such compositions fall within the claim.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites an ST100 of at least 0.1 days and no greater than 10 days. The specification defines ST100 inconsistently. Paragraph [0083] defines it as the time for a composition “to increase in by 100% mass based on the mass of the swellable filler in the composition,” whereas the Examples describe it as “the time to swell 100% . . . determined from the plot of swelling (Δ Mass (%)) as a function of the amount of the swellable filler in the waterproofing composition” (¶ [0287]), and swelling (Δ Mass (%)) is elsewhere calculated relative to the mass of the sample before soaking (¶ [0282]). It is unclear whether the 100% mass increase is measured relative to the mass of the entire composition sample or relative to the mass of the swellable filler in it. These alternatives yield materially different times, and the claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim 15:
(1) Claim 15 recites “the filler.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim: claim 14 recites “an inert filler” and claim 1 recites “a swellable filler,” and it is unclear to which filler, or to both, “the filler” refers.
(2) The parenthetical “(e.g. fume silica, amorphous silica)” renders the claim indefinite. Exemplary claim language such as “e.g.” or “for example” may leave unclear whether the examples are required limitations. MPEP § 2173.05(d).
(3) The terms “sly ash” and “rock flower” have no recognized meaning in the art and are not defined in the specification, which merely repeats them (¶ [0065]). Although these terms may have been intended as “fly ash” and “rock flour,” the claim as written does not clearly identify the materials claimed.
(4) The term “a renewable filler” is not defined in the specification, which merely lists it (¶ [0065]), and the specification provides no standard for determining whether a given filler is “renewable” (e.g., bio-based origin, recycled origin, or some other attribute). The scope of the term is therefore unclear.
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites “wherein the filler comprises a combination of at least one multivalent cationic salt and at least one monovalent cationic salt.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the filler” in the claim, because claim 14, from which claim 18 depends, recites “an inert filler” and claim 1 recites “a swellable filler.” The specification states that “the fillers, both swellable and inert” may comprise this combination (¶ [0087]), but claim 18 refers to a single “filler.” It is therefore unclear whether the multivalent and monovalent cationic salts must both be part of the inert filler, or may be provided by any filler of the composition (e.g., a sodium bentonite swellable filler together with a calcium-containing inert filler).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2006/0096503 A1, “Lee”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee alone or in view of one or more of Kim (US 2017/0226343 A1, “Kim”), Drigo et al. (US 2010/0317773 A1, “Drigo”), and Kempenaers et al. (US 2015/0113894 A1, “Kempenaers”).
Claim 1 is anticipated by Lee. Lee discloses an asphalt waterproof composition, i.e., a waterproofing composition (Lee, abstract; ¶¶ [0003], [0016]; claim 17), comprising:
(a) A hydrophobic binder comprising a polymer modified asphalt comprising asphalt and a polymer additive. Lee’s composition comprises about 10-15 parts asphalt (straight, blown, natural, compound or cut-back asphalt, ¶ [0018]) combined with about 25-40 parts of a waste tire chips melting solution, i.e., styrene-butadiene rubber extracted from waste tire chips, which is combined with the asphalt and the bentonite “by bridging structure of rubber” (¶¶ [0011], [0014], [0016], [0021]), together with about 1-3.5 parts of an elasticity increasing agent and about 20-50 parts oil (¶¶ [0014], [0016], [0019]). Styrene-butadiene rubber and recycled rubber are “polymer additives” as that term is used by applicant (instant specification ¶ [0048]). Lee’s rubber-modified asphalt is therefore a polymer modified asphalt comprising asphalt and a polymer additive, and it is hydrophobic.
(b) A swellable clay. Lee’s composition contains about 10-20, preferably about 13-17, parts sodium bentonite, which has a high swelling capacity and swells to 13-16 times its volume upon reacting with water (¶¶ [0014], [0016], [0025]; claims 15-17, 20).
(c) A super absorbent polymer. Lee’s composition contains about 1-5, preferably about 2-4, parts of a high polymer resin that is “sodium acrylate gel, sodium polyacrylate, polyvinylalcohol as a hydrophilic high polymer (SAP)” (¶¶ [0024], [0025]; claims 11, 12, 19). Lee teaches that the bentonite and the high polymer resin swell by hydrophilic reaction so as to self-repair cracks, punctures and debonded portions of the waterproof layer (¶¶ [0012], [0027]).
Amounts. Lee expresses each component amount “by weight” (¶¶ [0014], [0016]; claim 17), and amounts selected within Lee’s own ranges total approximately 100, so that Lee’s amounts correspond to weight percentages of the total composition. For example, selecting a value within each of Lee’s preferred ranges (¶¶ [0020], [0023], [0025]) gives the following composition:
Component (Lee)
Lee preferred range (parts by wt.)
Selected (parts)
wt.% of total
Asphalt
12-13
12
12.0
Oil
30-40
30
29.9
Filler
6-10
6
6.0
Elasticity increasing agent
2-2.5
2
2.0
Surface-active agent
0.2-0.3
0.2
0.2
Waste tire chips melting solution (SBR)
30-35
30
29.9
Sulfur
0.7-0.8
0.7
0.7
Sulfur vulcanizing agent (e.g., zinc oxide)
0.07-0.8
0.07
0.07
Antiaging agent
0.2-0.3
0.2
0.2
Sodium bentonite (swellable clay)
13-17
17
16.9
High polymer resin (SAP)
2-4
2
2.0
Total
100.37
100
This composition contains about 16.9 wt.% swellable clay (within the claimed 15-85 wt.%) and about 2.0 wt.% super absorbent polymer (within the claimed 0.1-70 wt.%). Anticipation (35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)). Lee’s SAP range of about 1-5 wt.% (preferably 2-4 wt.%) lies entirely within the claimed range of 0.1-70 wt.%, and Lee’s preferred bentonite range of about 13-17 wt.% is narrow and falls largely (15-17 wt.%) within the claimed range of 15-85 wt.%, such that compositions within Lee’s preferred formulation, as tabulated above, necessarily fall within the claimed ranges. Lee therefore describes the claimed ranges with sufficient specificity to anticipate claim 1. See MPEP § 2131.03(II); Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corp., 783 F.3d 865 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Obviousness, in the alternative (35 U.S.C. 103). More generally, Lee’s bentonite range of about 10-20 wt.% (preferably 13-17 wt.%) overlaps the claimed range of 15-85 wt.%, and Lee’s SAP range of about 1-5 wt.% lies entirely within the claimed range of 0.1-70 wt.%. 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 Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bentonite and SAP amounts within the overlapping portion of the ranges, e.g., 15-17 wt.% bentonite and 2-4 wt.% SAP, because Lee expressly prefers those amounts (¶ [0025]) and because a larger bentonite content increases the swelling-based self-repair that Lee seeks (¶¶ [0012], [0027]).
Lee refers to its high polymer resin as a “water soluble” resin, but Lee expressly identifies it as a hydrophilic high polymer “(SAP),” e.g., sodium acrylate gel or sodium polyacrylate, that swells upon contact with water to seal the waterproof layer (¶¶ [0012], [0024], [0026]-[0027]). Lee’s SAP therefore meets the claimed “super absorbent polymer” as defined in the instant specification (¶ [0058]), and Lee alone anticipates claim 1. In the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103, to the extent that Lee’s polymer is considered not to be crosslinked or otherwise water-insoluble, Kim teaches adding to an asphalt waterproof composition a crosslinked polyacrylate salt—a highly absorbable polymer consisting of a copolymer of sodium acrylate with acrylic acid—which is swollen by water absorption to fill the pores of the asphalt and thereby prevent water penetration (Kim ¶¶ [0061]-[0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kim’s crosslinked sodium polyacrylate as Lee’s SAP, because Kim teaches that this material is suitable for the very purpose for which Lee adds its SAP, namely swelling with water inside an asphalt waterproofing composition to block water. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327 (1945); MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 2 is anticipated by Lee. Lee’s swellable clay is sodium bentonite (¶ [0025]; claims 15, 20).
Claim 3 is anticipated by Lee. Lee’s binder comprises a polymer modified asphalt, i.e., asphalt modified with styrene-butadiene rubber from waste tire chips and an elasticity increasing agent (¶¶ [0011], [0014], [0016], [0021]); see the discussion of claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kempenaers. Lee teaches that its sodium bentonite swells 13-16 times its volume and that the composition self-repairs by swelling of the bentonite and SAP (¶¶ [0012], [0025], [0027]), but does not report a maximum swelling percentage of the composition measured as in the instant specification. Lee’s composition—a rubber-modified, oil-softened asphalt binder containing about 15-17 wt.% sodium bentonite and about 2-4 wt.% sodium polyacrylate SAP—is substantially identical to the claimed composition, so the claimed maximum swelling percentage is presumed to be inherent, and the burden shifts to applicant. In re Best; MPEP § 2112.01(I). In addition, Kempenaers, which is directed to swellable waterproofing compositions of bentonite and super absorbent polymer in a hydrophobic elastomer/plasticizer matrix, teaches compositions containing 40% or 30% bentonite and 3% super absorbent polymer with swelling percentages of 150% and 250%, respectively (Kempenaers ¶ [0059], Table 1, Examples #1 and #2), and teaches that the expansion is chosen depending on the components of the composition (¶ [0041]), i.e., that swelling is a result-effective variable. Kempenaers further teaches that excessive or premature expansion can dislodge a swellable waterproofing element (¶¶ [0009], [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the bentonite and SAP contents of Lee to obtain a maximum swelling percentage within the claimed range, e.g., 150-250%, to provide sufficient swelling for self-sealing while avoiding excessive expansion. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012); MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Claims 5 and 13 are anticipated by Lee, with the claimed properties being inherent, or in the alternative are obvious over Lee. MPEP § 2112(III). As best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the swelling per viscosity factors SVB and SVP are defined as the change in maximum swelling per change in viscosity as the bentonite or super absorbent polymer loading of a particular binder is increased (instant specification ¶¶ [0077]-[0078]), i.e., they are properties determined by the binder and the swellable filler. Lee’s binder is of the same type as applicant’s—asphalt modified with a styrene-butadiene polymer additive and softened with oil (compare Lee ¶¶ [0016], [0019], [0021] with instant specification ¶¶ [0048], [0051])—and Lee’s swellable fillers (sodium bentonite and sodium polyacrylate SAP) are the same as applicant’s (instant specification ¶¶ [0057]-[0058]). Lee’s composition is thus substantially identical to the claimed composition, and the claimed SVB of 0.001-0.05 mass gain %/cps and SVP of 0.01-20 mass gain %/cps are presumed inherent. The burden shifts to applicant to show otherwise. In re Best; In re Spada; MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Drigo. Lee teaches combining asphalt with elastic rubber and adding an “elasticity increasing agent” (¶¶ [0005], [0014]), but does not name styrene-butadiene-styrene rubber. Drigo teaches that waterproofing membrane formulations comprise industrial bitumen, a mineral filler and a thermoplastic polymer (¶ [0003]), the thermoplastic polymer preferably being selected from a group including styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer (¶ [0023]), and exemplifies a bituminous waterproofing formulation containing a mixture of low-density polyethylene and styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer (¶ [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use SBS as the elasticity increasing agent, or as an additional polymer modifier, of Lee’s asphalt, because Drigo shows that SBS is an art-recognized polymer modifier for bituminous waterproofing formulations, and its use for that known purpose would have yielded the predictable result of an elastomer-modified waterproofing asphalt. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007); MPEP §§ 2143(I)(A), 2144.07.
Claim 7 is anticipated by Lee, with the claimed property being inherent, or in the alternative is obvious over Lee. MPEP § 2112(III). As best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the critical filler concentration Cf is the filler concentration (swellable or inert) above which certain property changes are observed for a given binder (instant specification ¶ [0073]); it is thus a property of the binder/filler system. Lee’s binder and fillers are substantially identical to those claimed (see claims 1 and 5 above), and the total filler content of Lee’s composition (e.g., 6 parts filler + 17 parts bentonite + 2 parts SAP, about 25 wt.%, exclusive of the carbon black carried by the waste tire solution) itself lies within the claimed 10-80 wt.%. The claimed Cf is presumed inherent, and the burden shifts to applicant. In re Best; MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 8 is anticipated by Lee. Lee’s swellable filler comprises both the swellable clay (sodium bentonite) and the super absorbent polymer (SAP) (¶¶ [0014], [0016], [0024]-[0025]); see claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim. Lee’s SAP is sodium acrylate gel or sodium polyacrylate (¶ [0024]; claim 12), but Lee does not state that it is a copolymer. Kim teaches that a crosslinked polyacrylate salt super absorbent for an asphalt waterproof composition “consists of a copolymer of sodium acrylate with acrylic acid” (Kim ¶ [0062]), i.e., a polyacrylate copolymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kim’s crosslinked sodium acrylate/acrylic acid copolymer as Lee’s sodium polyacrylate SAP, because Kim teaches that it swells by water absorption within an asphalt waterproof composition to fill pores and prevent water penetration (Kim ¶¶ [0061]-[0063]), the same function it serves in Lee. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kempenaers. As best understood in view of the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Lee teaches controlling the swelling speed of its composition, e.g., by adding further water soluble high polymer resin “to control the swelling speed” and by adding an “elastic and swelling speed controlling agent” (¶ [0026]; claims 4, 6). The rate of swelling is thus a recognized result-effective variable. Kempenaers teaches that a swellable waterproofing element that expands immediately upon contact with the water of wet concrete tends to be dislodged (“snake” or curl) (¶¶ [0009], [0016]), and that bentonite-based compositions reach maximum expansion within 3-30 days after immersion, with an expansion of at least 120% within 3-30 days being preferred (¶ [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the swelling rate of Lee’s composition (e.g., via the amounts of SAP and swelling speed controlling agent taught by Lee) so that swelling is not immediate but proceeds over a period of days, thereby arriving at an STi of 0.1-50 days and an ST100 and ST1/2 of 0.1-10 days. In re Aller; In re Applied Materials; MPEP § 2144.05(II). Further, because Lee’s composition is substantially identical to the claimed composition, the claimed swell-timing values are presumed inherent. In re Best; MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 14 is anticipated by Lee. Lee’s composition further comprises about 8-12, preferably 6-10, parts of a filler (¶¶ [0014], [0016], [0020]; claim 17), which is an inert filler distinct from the swellable bentonite and SAP.
Claim 15: Anticipation. Claim 15 is anticipated by Lee. Lee’s composition comprises carbon black, which is carried by the styrene-butadiene rubber of the waste tire chips melting solution (¶ [0021]), and zinc oxide, used as the sulfur vulcanizing agent (¶ [0022]; claim 9); carbon black and zinc oxide are each recited in claim 15 and are particulate solids dispersed in Lee’s composition. Obviousness, in the alternative. Lee does not identify the species of its 8-12 parts of filler. Drigo teaches that the mineral filler typical of bituminous waterproofing formulations is calcium carbonate, i.e., ground limestone, and that other mineral fillers such as talc, clays, diatomaceous earths and cement are also used (Drigo ¶¶ [0003], [0005]). Kim teaches that a filler in an asphalt waterproof composition improves dimensional stability and abrasion resistance and is preferably selected from bentonite, silica, calcium carbonate, talc, barium sulfate and aluminum hydroxide (Kim ¶¶ [0045], [0047]). Kempenaers teaches non-swellable fillers such as carbonates, talc, quartz and amorphous silica in bentonite/SAP swellable waterproofing compositions (Kempenaers ¶¶ [0047], [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of these conventional fillers—e.g., limestone (calcium carbonate), talc, silica, aluminum hydroxide (aluminum trihydrate), diatomaceous earth or cement—as Lee’s unspecified filler, because the references teach that these fillers are suitable for bituminous and bentonite/SAP waterproofing compositions and improve dimensional stability and abrasion resistance. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim and/or Kempenaers. The carbon black of Lee (¶ [0021]) contains no multivalent cations, but Lee does not identify the species of its 8-12 parts of inert filler. It would have been obvious to use silica or quartz (Kim ¶ [0047]; Kempenaers ¶¶ [0047], [0059]), which likewise contains no multivalent cations, as Lee’s filler for the reasons given for claim 15.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim and/or Kempenaers, for the reasons given for claim 16. Silica (Kim ¶ [0047]; Kempenaers ¶¶ [0047], [0059]) and carbon black (Lee ¶ [0021]) are essentially insoluble in water. The instant specification identifies silica as a filler that does not dissociate or only slightly dissociates in water, i.e., has a dissociation constant K < 10⁻¹¹ (¶ [0065]). Because the prior art filler is the same material, it necessarily has the claimed dissociation constant. In re Spada, 911 F.2d at 709; MPEP § 2112.01(II).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Drigo and/or Kim. Lee’s bentonite is sodium bentonite (¶ [0025]), a clay whose exchangeable cation is the monovalent sodium ion; the instant specification likewise identifies sodium bentonite as a source of monovalent cations (¶ [0066]). Lee’s SAP is sodium polyacrylate (¶ [0024]), also a monovalent cationic salt. Lee’s composition further comprises zinc oxide (¶ [0022]), and Lee lists calcium rosinate together with sodium rosinate and sodium oleinate as usable components (¶ [0019]). Moreover, using calcium carbonate as Lee’s filler, as taught by Drigo (¶ [0003]) and Kim (¶ [0047]) for the reasons given for claim 15, yields a composition whose fillers comprise at least one multivalent cationic salt (calcium carbonate) and at least one monovalent cationic salt (sodium bentonite and/or sodium polyacrylate).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (CN 1425716 A, “Fan”; citations are to the English machine translation provided herewith) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan alone or in view of one or more of Kempenaers et al. (US 2015/0113894 A1, “Kempenaers”), Kim (US 2017/0226343 A1, “Kim”), and Drigo et al. (US 2010/0317773 A1, “Drigo”).
Claim 1 is anticipated by Fan. Fan discloses an “absorbent intumescent type waterproof asphalt,” i.e., a waterproofing composition, for underground engineering, underwater engineering and civil building waterproofing (Fan, translation p. 1, Abstract and “the technical field”). Fan’s composition is prepared by heating asphalt, adding styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer (SBS) with high-speed shearing, adding a base oil softener, and simultaneously adding bentonite and polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin (translation p. 1, Abstract; p. 2, “technical contents”; p. 2, “Claims,” claim 1), in amounts of asphalt 25-95%, SBS 1-15%, base oil 2-10%, polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin 1-20% and bentonite 1-30% (translation p. 2, “technical contents” and claim 1). Fan thus discloses:
(a) a hydrophobic binder comprising a polymer modified asphalt comprising asphalt and a polymer additive—the SBS-modified asphalt (“modified asphalt”) softened with base oil (translation p. 2, “Specific execution examples”); SBS is a polymer additive as that term is used by applicant (instant specification ¶ [0048]);
(b) a swellable clay—bentonite; and
(c) a super absorbent polymer—polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin, the bentonite and resin providing water absorbing expansion and self-sealing against water (translation p. 2, “Specific execution examples”).
Amounts. Fan’s specific example prepares a modified asphalt by adding to the asphalt SBS in an amount of 15% of the asphalt and base oil in an amount of about 10% of the asphalt weight, and then adds to the modified asphalt polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin in an amount of 8% of the modified asphalt and bentonite in an amount of 20% of the modified asphalt (translation p. 2, “Specific execution examples”). On the basis of 100 parts asphalt, the example composition is:
Component (Fan example)
Basis stated by Fan
Parts
wt.% of total
Asphalt
—
100
62.5
SBS
15% of asphalt
15
9.4
Base oil softener
10% of asphalt
10
6.25
(Modified asphalt subtotal)
(125)
(78.1)
Polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin
8% of modified asphalt
10
6.25
Bentonite
20% of modified asphalt
25
15.6
Total
160
100
Fan’s example therefore contains about 15.6 wt.% swellable clay (within the claimed 15-85 wt.%) and about 6.25 wt.% super absorbent polymer (within the claimed 0.1-70 wt.%), based on the total weight of the composition. (Even if Fan’s 8% and 20% were instead read as percentages of the total composition, the amounts of SAP and bentonite would still fall within the claimed ranges.) A specific example in the prior art that is within a claimed range anticipates the range. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP § 2131.03(I). Fan’s example thus discloses every limitation of claim 1, and claim 1 is anticipated. In the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103, Fan’s general ranges for bentonite (1-30%) and SAP (1-20%) overlap or lie within the claimed ranges, which independently establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329; MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 2 is anticipated by Fan. Fan’s swellable clay is bentonite (translation p. 1, Abstract; p. 2, “Specific execution examples”).
Claim 3 is anticipated by Fan. Fan’s binder is a polymer modified asphalt, namely asphalt modified with SBS (translation p. 2, “Specific execution examples”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Kempenaers. Fan teaches that its composition has a “moderate water absorbing capacity” and self-sealing properties to water (translation p. 2, “Specific execution examples”) but does not report a maximum swelling percentage measured as in the instant specification. Fan’s composition—an SBS-modified, oil-softened asphalt containing about 15.6 wt.% bentonite and about 6.25 wt.% polyacrylic acid SAP—is substantially identical to the claimed composition, so the claimed maximum swelling percentage is presumed inherent and the burden shifts to applicant. In re Best; MPEP § 2112.01(I). In addition, Kempenaers teaches bentonite/SAP swellable waterproofing compositions in a hydrophobic matrix having swelling percentages of 150% and 250% (Kempenaers ¶ [0059], Table 1, Examples #1 and #2), that the expansion is chosen depending on the components (¶ [0041]), and that excessive or premature expansion can dislodge the swellable element (¶¶ [0009], [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the bentonite and SAP contents of Fan—whose stated goal is a “moderate” water absorbing capacity—to obtain a maximum swelling percentage within the claimed range, e.g., 150-250%. In re Aller; In re Applied Materials; MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Claims 5 and 13 are anticipated by Fan, with the claimed properties being inherent, or in the alternative are obvious over Fan. MPEP § 2112(III). As best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), SVB and SVP are properties determined by the binder and the swellable filler (instant specification ¶¶ [0077]-[0078]). Fan’s binder is the same type as applicant’s, namely asphalt modified with SBS and softened with an oil (compare Fan, translation p. 2, “Specific execution examples,” with instant specification ¶¶ [0048], [0051]), and Fan’s swellable fillers (bentonite and polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin) are the same as applicant’s (¶¶ [0057]-[0058]). Fan’s composition is thus substantially identical to the claimed composition, and the claimed SVB of 0.001-0.05 mass gain %/cps and SVP of 0.01-20 mass gain %/cps are presumed inherent; the burden shifts to applicant. In re Best; In re Spada; MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 6 is anticipated by Fan. Fan’s polymer additive is styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer (SBS), i.e., a styrene-butadiene-styrene rubber (translation p. 1, Abstract; p. 2, “Specific execution examples”; p. 2, claim 1)
Claim 7 is anticipated by Fan, with the claimed property being inherent, or in the alternative is obvious over Fan. MPEP § 2112(III). As best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Cf is a property of the binder/filler system (instant specification ¶ [0073]). Fan’s binder and fillers are substantially identical to those claimed, and the total filler content of Fan’s example (bentonite + SAP = 35/160, about 21.9 wt.%) lies within the claimed 10-80 wt.%. The claimed Cf is presumed inherent, and the burden shifts to applicant. In re Best; MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 8 is anticipated by Fan. Fan’s swellable filler comprises both bentonite and polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin, which are added simultaneously (translation p. 1, Abstract; p. 2, “Specific execution examples”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Kim and/or Kempenaers. Fan’s SAP is a polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin (translation p. 2, “Specific execution examples”), but Fan does not state that it is a copolymer. Polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resins are crosslinked acrylic polymers; Kim evidences that such a crosslinked polyacrylate super absorbent “consists of a copolymer of sodium acrylate with acrylic acid” (Kim ¶ [0062]), i.e., a polyacrylate copolymer, and Kempenaers likewise identifies cross-linked polyacrylic acid as a swellable polymer for waterproofing compositions (Kempenaers ¶ [0047]). To the extent Fan’s resin is not considered a polyacrylate copolymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use, as Fan’s polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin, Kim’s crosslinked sodium acrylate/acrylic acid copolymer, because Kim teaches that this material swells by water absorption within an asphalt waterproof composition to fill pores and prevent water penetration (Kim ¶¶ [0061]-[0063]), the same function it serves in Fan. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Kempenaers. As best understood in view of the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Fan does not report swell-timing values. Because Fan’s composition is substantially identical to the claimed composition, the claimed STi (0.1-50 days), ST100 (0.1-10 days) and ST1/2 (0.1-10 days) are presumed inherent. In re Best; MPEP § 2112.01. In addition, Kempenaers teaches that a swellable waterproofing element that expands immediately upon contact with the water of wet concrete tends to be dislodged (¶¶ [0009], [0016]) and that bentonite-based compositions reach maximum expansion within 3-30 days after immersion, with an expansion of at least 120% within 3-30 days being preferred (¶ [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the swelling rate of Fan’s composition (e.g., through the relative amounts of SBS-modified asphalt binder, bentonite and SAP) so that swelling proceeds over a period of days rather than immediately, thereby arriving at the claimed swell-timing values. In re Aller; In re Applied Materials; MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Drigo, Kim and/or Kempenaers. Fan does not disclose an inert filler. Drigo teaches that waterproofing formulations comprising bitumen and a thermoplastic polymer conventionally comprise a mineral filler, typically calcium carbonate (Drigo ¶ [0003]), exemplified by a formulation of bitumen, SBS-containing thermoplastic polymer and 35% calcium carbonate (¶ [0063]). Kim teaches that a filler in a polymer-modified asphalt waterproof composition improves the dimensional stability and abrasion resistance of the composition (Kim ¶¶ [0045], [0047]). Kempenaers teaches that non-swellable fillers are included together with bentonite and super absorbent polymer in swellable waterproofing compositions, e.g., 26% and 33.5% non-swellable filler with bentonite and 3% SAP, while still achieving swelling of 150-250% (Kempenaers ¶¶ [0047], [0059], Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an inert mineral filler to Fan’s composition, as is conventional for polymer-modified bituminous waterproofing compositions, in order to improve dimensional stability and abrasion resistance as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation that the composition would remain swellable as shown by Kempenaers. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416; MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Drigo, Kim and/or Kempenaers. The references teach, as fillers, calcium carbonate (i.e., limestone), talc, diatomaceous earths and cement (Drigo ¶¶ [0003], [0005]); silica, calcium carbonate, talc and aluminum hydroxide, i.e., aluminum trihydrate (Kim ¶ [0047]); and carbonates, talc, quartz, amorphous silica and carbon black (Kempenaers ¶¶ [0047], [0059], [0066]). It would have been obvious to use any of these known fillers in Fan’s composition for the reasons given for claim 14. MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Kim and/or Kempenaers (together with Drigo as applied to claim 14). It would have been obvious to select silica or quartz (Kim ¶ [0047]; Kempenaers ¶¶ [0047], [0059]) as the inert filler, for the reasons given for claims 14 and 15. Silica contains no multivalent cations.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Kim and/or Kempenaers, for the reasons given for claim 16. Silica is essentially insoluble in water, and the instant specification identifies silica as a filler that does not dissociate or only slightly dissociates in water, i.e., has a dissociation constant K < 10⁻¹¹ (¶ [0065]). Because the filler rendered obvious for claim 16 is the same material, it necessarily has the claimed dissociation constant. In re Spada, 911 F.2d at 709; MPEP § 2112.01(II).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Drigo and Kim. Using calcium carbonate as the inert filler of Fan, as taught by Drigo (¶¶ [0003], [0063]) and Kim (¶ [0047]) for the reasons given for claim 14, provides a multivalent cationic salt. Using, as Fan’s polyacrylic acid super-absorbent resin, Kim’s crosslinked polyacrylate salt, which is a copolymer of sodium acrylate and acrylic acid (Kim ¶ [0062]), for the reasons given for claim 9, provides a monovalent (sodium) cationic salt. The resulting composition comprises a combination of at least one multivalent cationic salt and at least one monovalent cationic salt.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
