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 February 10, 2026.
Claims 22-26, 32-35 are pending. Claims 27-31 are canceled.
The rejection of claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quapp et al in view of Park et al.
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 35 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 35 recites “said heavy weight aggregate particles” where claim 34 recites “aggregate particles”.
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 22-26, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quapp et al (US Patent 6,166,390 (already of record)) in view of Park et al (US Patent Application 2011/0068291 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 22-26, 34-35, Quapp et al teaches a radiation shielding composition comprising a concrete product comprising uranium aggregate and neutron absorbing component (Col. 2, Lines 64-67). Quapp et al further teaches the addition of epoxy polymers (Col. 5, Lines 19-20). Quapp et al further teaches the neutron absorbing components include boron compounds (Col. 7, Lines 33-34). Quapp et al further teaches the addition of barite or magnetite sands to increase concrete density (Col. 8, Lines 60-67). Quapp et al further teaches a panel (Figures). However, Quapp et al fails to specifically disclose boron nanotubes or boron nitride nanotubes.
In the same field of endeavor, Park et al teaches functional materials which shield electromagnetic effects and radiations comprising polymer matrix and superstrong nanotubes (Abstract). Park et al further teaches superstrong nanotubes inclusions such as boron nanotubes and boron nitride nanotubes that provide mechanical reinforcement and thermal stability for the polymer matrix (Paragraph 40).
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 nanotubes or boron nitride nanotubes in Quapp et al in view of Park et al in order to provide superstrong nanotubes inclusions that provide mechanical reinforcement and thermal stability for the polymer matrix as taught in Park et al, wherein Quapp et al encompasses a boron compound.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quapp et al (US Patent 6,166,390 (already of record)) in view of Park et al (US Patent Application 2011/0068291 (already of record)) as applied to claims 22-26, 34-35 above, and further in view of Kim et al (WO Patent 2019/056092).
Regarding claim 32, Quapp et al and Park et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Quapp et al and Park et al teach the features above. However, Quapp et al fails to specifically disclose BNNT particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al teaches boron nitride nanotube nanoparticle composites used for BNNT-reinforced composites for shielding materials (Abstract, Paragraph 77).
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 BNNT particles in Quapp et al and Park et al in view of Kim et al as substitution of one boron nitride material for another would achieve the predictable results of providing shielding properties to the composite panel material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quapp et al (US Patent 6,166,390 (already of record)) in view of Park et al (US Patent Application 2011/0068291 (already of record)) as applied to claims 22-26, 34-35 above, and further in view of Kang et al (WO Patent 2012/015472).
Regarding claim 33, Quapp et al and Park et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Quapp et al and Park et al teach the features above. However, Quapp et al fails to specifically disclose BNNT fibers.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al teaches fiber mats of boron nitride nanotube are used as toughening and shielding materials (Abstract, Paragraphs 30-31).
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 BNNT fibers in Quapp et al and Park et al in view of Kang et al as substitution of one boron nitride material for another would achieve the predictable results of providing shielding and toughening properties to the composite panel material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al (US Patent Application 2014/0225039) in view of Park et al (US Patent Application 2011/0068291 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 34-35, Chiang et al teaches a radiation shielding composite material comprising radiation absorption material (Abstract, Paragraph 2). Chiang et al further teaches a radiation shield composite comprising a matrix material and radiation shielding material dispersed in the matrix material (Paragraph 8). Chiang et al further teaches the matrix material includes a polymer or ceramic material such as an epoxy (which satisfies claimed polymer concrete) (Paragraph 28). Chiang et al further teaches the radiation shield material comprises a carrier such as nanowire, nanorod, nanotube or nanofiber and clusters of boron particles (Paragraphs 31-34). Chiang et al further teaches the radiation shielding composite material having plate shape (which satisfies claimed panel) (Paragraph 56). However, Quapp et al fails to specifically disclose boron nanotubes or boron nitride nanotubes.
In the same field of endeavor, Park et al teaches functional materials which shield electromagnetic effects and radiations comprising polymer matrix and superstrong nanotubes (Abstract). Park et al further teaches superstrong nanotubes inclusions such as boron nanotubes and boron nitride nanotubes that provide mechanical reinforcement and thermal stability for the polymer matrix (Paragraph 40).
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 nanotubes or boron nitride nanotubes in Chiang et al in view of Park et al in order to provide superstrong nanotubes inclusions that provide mechanical reinforcement and thermal stability for the polymer matrix as taught in Park et al, wherein Quapp et al encompasses nanotube materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Quapp et al in view of Park et al, Applicant argues that Quapp et al teaches a conventional concrete and there are many differences between the cement concrete of the prior art and the claimed invention. Applicant further argues that Quapp et al teaches using the polymer as a coating and not as a binder. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument for the same reasons provided below. Applicant has failed to limit the claims with regard to the differences between Quapp et al and the instant invention. Furthermore, with respect to Applicant’s argument that the Quapp et al teaches the polymer as coating instead of a binder, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as although Quapp et al teaches the polymer as a coating, the polymers or epoxy still has functionality as a binder. It is well known that epoxy will function as a binder. Furthermore, the rejection is based on Quapp et al in view of Park et al, where Park et al also teaches a polymer matrix (Abstract).
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed February 10, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 22-26 based upon the obviousness rejection as set forth in the last Office action because: Applicant argues that there are differences in the ingredients, solidification process, microstructure, shield performance and structural performance. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that there are differences in the ingredients as Quapp et al teaches a concrete, polymer and aggregate particles which are the same ingredients as the instant claims. With regard to the differences in the solidification process, microstructure, shield performance and structural performance, these differences are not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant specification recites, a polymer concrete where thermoset or thermoplastic polymers in lieu or mixed with cement are used as the binder.
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 March 7, 2026