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 October 27, 2025.
Claims 1-7, 10-12, 15-17, 19-25 are pending. Claims 7, 19 are withdrawn.
The objection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11-13, 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crane.
The rejection of claims 8, 10, 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conner et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Crane in view of Noland.
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane in view of Newton is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane in view of Li et al.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane in view of Ma et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 11-12, 17, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crane (Activated Carbon Preconditioning to Reduce Contaminant Leaching in Cement-Based Stabilization of Soils (already of record)).
Regarding 1-6, 11-12, 17, 25, Crane teaches powdered activated carbon is often added with cement to enhance the stabilization and solidification of materials contaminated with organic compounds by adsorption or organic contaminants including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as the most common (Abstract; Pg. 1, Lines 10-11). Crane teaches the simultaneous addition and separate addition of 1% powdered activated carbon and 5% Portland Cement (the activated carbon inherently adsorbs hydrocarbons from soil and the Portland Cement inherently encapsulates the activated carbon and prevents release of the adsorbed hydrocarbons) (Pg. 6, Materials and Methods; Pg. 14; Pg. 16). Crane further teaches water content of the soil between about 5 and about 13% (Table 1). Crane further teaches type I Portland cement (Abstract, Pg. 2).
Crane teaches the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Crane anticipates the claims.
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 3, 15, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (Activated Carbon Preconditioning to Reduce Contaminant Leaching in Cement-Based Stabilization of Soils (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-6, 11-12, 17, 25 above, and in further view of Noland (US Patent Application 2017/0333962 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 3, 15, 22, Crane discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Crane teaches the features above. However, Crane fails to specifically disclose the surface area of the activated carbon.
In the same field of endeavor, Noland teaches a composition for use in remediation of soil containing hydrocarbons (Abstract). Noland further teaches the composition includes activated carbon having a surface area between 800-2000m2/g that is capable of adsorbing hydrocarbons (Paragraph 19).
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 surface area of the activated carbon in Crane in view of Noland in order to provide an activated carbon capable of adsorbing the hydrocarbon contaminants.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (Activated Carbon Preconditioning to Reduce Contaminant Leaching in Cement-Based Stabilization of Soils (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-6, 11-12, 17, 25 above, and in further view of Li et al (Tailoring of Surface Oxygen Containing Functional Groups and Their Effect on Adsorptive Denitrogenation of Liquid Hydrocarbons Over Activated Carbon (already of record)).
Regarding claim 16, Crane discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Crane teaches the features above. However, Crane fails to specifically disclose the grafted activated carbon.
In the same field of endeavor, Li et al teaches oxidative modification of activated carbon provides dramatic improvement of adsorption performance of hydrocarbons (Pg. 1243, Conclusion).
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 grafted activated carbon in Crane in view of Li et al in order to provide enhanced adsorption performance of the activated carbon.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (Activated Carbon Preconditioning to Reduce Contaminant Leaching in Cement-Based Stabilization of Soils (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-6, 11-12, 17, 25 above, and in further view of Hattori et al (JP 2003-164846).
Regarding claim 21, Crane discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Crane teaches the features above. However, Crane fails to specifically disclose the particle size of the activated carbon.
In the same field of endeavor, Hattori et al teaches dispersing activated carbon in water for enhanced adsorption (Paragraph 8). Hattori et al further teaches the particle size of the activated carbon is 100µm or less (Paragraph 12).
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 an activated carbon of 100µm or less in Crane in view of Hattori et al in order to provide a stable dispersion of the activated carbon in water as taught in Hattori et al.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (Activated Carbon Preconditioning to Reduce Contaminant Leaching in Cement-Based Stabilization of Soils already of record)) as applied to claims 1-6, 11-12, 17, 25 above.
Regarding claim 23, Crane discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Crane teaches the features above. However, Crane fails to specifically disclose the total content of activated carbon and binder is 2-5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided total content of activated carbon and binder is 2-5% in Crane as Crane teaches 1% activated carbon and 5% Portland cement, which is close enough to 5wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.051; absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results. Furthermore, the Portland cement and activated carbon to for adsorption of hydrocarbons and adjusting the ratio of the two components would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. Where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). A prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties. In re Boesch 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (Activated Carbon Preconditioning to Reduce Contaminant Leaching in Cement-Based Stabilization of Soils (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-6, 11-12, 17, 25 above, and in further view of Ma et al (An innovative method for the solidification/stabilization of PAHs-contaminated soil using sulfonated oil (already of record)).
Regarding claim 23, Crane discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Crane teaches the features above. However, Crane fails to specifically disclose the total content of activated carbon and binder is 2-5%.
In the same field of endeavor, Ma et al teaches stabilization/solidification is employed for soil contaminated with organic materials/polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Abstract, Table 1) with the addition of 4%Portland cement and 1% activated carbon or 2 %Portland cement and 1% activated carbon (Pg. 744, Right Column; Table 2)
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 disclose the total content of activated carbon and binder is 2-5% in Crane in view of Ma et al as Crane already encompasses the addition of Portland cement and activated carbon and Ma et al teaches adjusting the ratio of the Portland cement and activated carbon provides higher adsorption/leaching of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane (Activated Carbon Preconditioning to Reduce Contaminant Leaching in Cement-Based Stabilization of Soils (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-6, 11-12, 17, 25 above, and in further view of Pal et al (US Patent Application 2002/0111525).
Regarding claim 24, Crane discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Crane teaches the features above. However, Crane fails to specifically disclose Type II and III Portland Cement.
In the same field of endeavor, Pal et al teaches chemical fixation of soils (Abstract) including chemical treatments with the use of Portland cement (Paragraph 17). Pal et al teaches Type I, II and III Portland Cement (Table II and III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Type II or Type III Portland Cement in Crane in view of Pal et al in order to provide chemical fixation/adsorption of contaminants of soils. Simple substitution of one Portland Cement for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner et al (US Patent 5,536,898 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 10, 20, Conner et al teaches adding the mixture of 20% Portland cement and 10% activated carbon in water to soil with contaminants including aromatic hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (wherein the Portland Cement inherently encapsulates the activated carbon after adsorption of hydrocarbons in the soil) (Example 6; Col. 16-17, Tables). Conner et al further teaches the method is useful for the treatment of contaminated soils in the presence or absence of water or other liquids (Col. 5, Lines 31-33). Conner et al fails to teach a composition comprising 70-80wt% of hydraulic binder and 20-30wt% of activated carbon.
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 a composition comprising 70-80wt% of hydraulic binder and 20-30wt% of activated carbon in Conner et al as Conner et al teaches a mixture of 20wt% Portland Cement and 10wt% of activated carbon in water and that the method is useful for the treatment of contaminated soils in the presence of absence of water; hence, it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide the composition free of water, which would encompass a composition comprising 66.67wt% of Portland Cement and 33.33wt% activated carbon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 27, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the anticipation rejection over Crane, Applicant argues that Crane does not disclose the addition of the activated carbon and hydraulic binder together results in the adsorption of hydrocarbons on the activated carbon. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because this is inherent to the composition/method. With respect to the mass ratio, this limitation is not recited in the instant claims.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Conner et al, the anticipation rejection is withdrawn; however, an obviousness rejection has been applied. With respect to Applicant’s arguments that Conner et al teaches the activated carbon is ineffective in reducing TCA values except in certain cases, this limitation is not recited in the instant claims.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Crane in view of Noland, Applicant argues that Crane teaches simultaneous addition of the cement and PAC produces a reduction of adsorption of hydrocarbons. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument as the instant claims do not require a specific amount of hydrocarbon adsorption. Furthermore, Crane also teaches separate addition of the PAC and cement.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Crane in view of Li et al, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 February 16, 2026