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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 29, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-14, 16-20 are pending. Claim 15 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberger is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberger in view of Wang is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “wherein the mixture comprises a glass network-forming element other than silicon, a glass network intermediate element and a glass network-modifying element, and: the glass network-forming element other than silicon is selected from: boron, germanium, and phosphorus; the glass network intermediate element is selected from: titanium, aluminium, zirconium, beryllium, magnesium and zinc; and/or the glass network-modifying element is selected from: calcium, lead, lithium, sodium and potassium.”; this renders the claim indefinite because the first part of the claim recites “and” and the second part of the claim recites “and/or”, it is unclear if all 3 components are required or only one component is required. The Examiner construes the limitation as only one component is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondratowicz et al (US Patent Application 2018/0029937) in view of Ducia (WO Patent 2011/106815).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 9, Kondratowicz et al teaches forming a geopolymer composite comprising mixing an aluminosilicate component with an alkaline silicate solution to form a gel, adding an additive component to form a filled gel, mixing of the filled gel with water to form a filled geopolymer, curing, drying, milling and subsequent drying (Paragraphs 43-49). Kondratowicz et al further teaches the aluminosilicate is one or more of metakaolin, kaolin, metafly ash, furnace slag, silica fume and pozzolan (which satisfies claimed aluminum glass network intermediate element) (Paragraph 55). Kondratowicz et al further teaches the alkaline silicate is sodium silicate or potassium silicate (Paragraph 63). Kondratowicz et al further teaches the additive includes one or more of fumed silica, minerals having perovskite structure, carbon black, graphite and hydromagnesite (wherein fumed silica satisfies claimed reactive silica) (Paragraphs 58-62). Kondratowicz et al further teaches the curing/geopolymerization process is continued for 6-48 hours and drying after to evaporate any excess water from 60-90C (which satisfies claimed during curing the mixture undergoes polymerization to form an inorganic polymer network prior to formation or a solid precursor and satisfies claimed heating the granular material to a temperature of no great than 1100C) (Paragraphs 50, 73-74). Kondratowicz et al further teaches mixing 572 kg of a mixture comprising metakaolinite and calcium silicate in an optimum weight ratio and 457 kg of sodium water glass were mixed with 250 kg or petroleum coke and 163 l of water, cured, crushed/milled and heated (which satisfies claimed curing at a temperature no greater than 250C) (Example 1). Kondratowicz et al further teaches 45-65wt% of water in glasswater (Paragraph 227). However, Kondratowicz et al fails to specifically disclose an expanded geopolymer composite and the mixture comprises about 10-90wt% silicate material, about 5-25wt% alkali and about 15-50wt% water.
In the same field of endeavor, Ducia teaches a mineral foam comprising water glass, at least one aluminosilicate, hydroxide, SiO2 or Al2O3 (Abstract). Ducia further teaches the waterglass is preferably soda water glass or potassium silicate glass, since these promote the formation of foam by the removal of water from these foam-like solid alkali silicate masses (Paragraph 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expected an expanded geopolymer composite in Kondratowicz et al in view of Ducia et al as Kondratowicz et al teaches the same method as the instant claims and also teaches a composite comprising waterglass, wherein Ducia et al teaches waterglass promotes the formation of foam by the removal of water from the foam-like solid alkali silicate masses.
With regard to the mixture comprises about 10-90wt% silicate material, about 5-25wt% alkali and about 15-50wt% water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mixture comprises about 10-90wt% silicate material, about 5-25wt% alkali and about 15-50wt% water as with glasswater comprising about 45% water, Example 1 comprises about 25wt% water, about 20wt% of alkali compound and about 40wt% silicate material (Example 1).
Claims 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondratowicz et al (US Patent Application 2018/0029937) in view of Ducia (WO Patent 2011/106815) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9 above, and in further view of Turcinskas et al (US Patent Application 2016/0244366) and Weinberger (US Patent Application 2017/0327412 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 4-5, 7, Kondratowicz et al and Ducia disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Kondratowicz et al and Ducia teach the features above. However, Kondratowicz et al and Ducia fail to specifically disclose glass silicates.
In the same field of endeavor, Turcinskas et al teaches expanded geopolymer composite comprising foamed glass, glass beads and glass fibers (Abstract, Paragraphs 66, 73-74).
In the same field of endeavor, Weinberger teaches expanded granular material comprising glass powder, waterglass, blowing agent and metakaolin (Abstract). Weinberger teaches an exemplary expanded glass granule comprising 69.7 SiO2, 2.1 Al2O3, 12.7 Na2O, 2.5 K2O, 1.8MgO, 9 CaO, 0.2 FeO3 and balance other oxides (Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided glass silicates in the expanded geopolymer composite of Kondratowicz et al and Ducia in view of Turcinskas et al and Weinberger in order to provide glass fillers and expandable material in the composite material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 November 29, 2025