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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on May 28, 2026.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 are pending. Claims 10-14, 16-20 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondratowicz et al in view of Ducia is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 4-5, 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondratowicz et al in view of Ducia in view of Turcinskas et al and Weinberger is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondratowicz et al (US Patent Application 2018/0029937 (already of record)) in view of Ducia (WO Patent 2011/106815 (already of record)) in view of Hojaji (WO 83/01441).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9, 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, boron or phosphorus oxide and sodium or potassium oxide.
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).
In the same field of endeavor, Hojaji teaches making foamed glass by impregnating fly ash with modifiers including water soluble glass former, water soluble flux and at least one gas generator (Abstract). Hojaji further teaches the addition of about 2.5-20wt% of a water soluble glass former such as B2O3 or P2O5 (which satisfies claimed boron glass network forming element) and about 8-20wt% of water soluble flux including sodium and potassium oxide in order to promote fusion of the fly ash and lower the melting point (which satisfies claimed glass network modifying element) (Pg. 4, Lines 20-24; Pg. 12, Line 28-Pg. 13, Line 12; pg. 14, Lines 18-34, Table 5).
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).
With regard to boron or phosphorus oxide and sodium or potassium oxide, 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 boron or phosphorus oxide and sodium or potassium oxide in the composite of Kondratwoicz et al and Ducia in view of Hojaji in order to provide glass forming elements and fusion promoting elements that lower the melting point of the material as taught in Hojaji.
Claims 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondratowicz et al (US Patent Application 2018/0029937 (already of record)) in view of Ducia (WO Patent 2011/106815 (already of record)) Hojaji (WO 83/01441) as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 8-9 above, and in further view of Turcinskas et al (US Patent Application 2016/0244366 (already of record)) and Weinberger (US Patent Application 2017/0327412 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 4-5, 7, Kondratowicz et al, Ducia and Hojaji disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Kondratowicz et al, Ducia and Hojaji teach the features above. However, Kondratowicz et al, Ducia and Hojaji 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, Ducia and Hojaji 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, 3-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights