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
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/09/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 17, 18, 20 and 22-23 are presently pending; claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-14, 13(2)-17(2), 19, 21 and 24 are canceled; claims 17, 18, 20 and 22-23 are withdrawn; claim 1 is amended; claims 1, 3, 6 and 8 are under examination.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 3 and 6 over MISAWA in view of FENG and LABIB and claim 8 further in view of ZHAO are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of claim interpretation, “fine” as recited in claim 1 (see claim 1 at line 5) is interpreted as meaning having a particle size of smaller than 4.75 mm, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the specification at pg. 1, lines 27-29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham, et al., "Strength and permeation characteristics of cement mortar with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregates", Construction and Building Materials Vol. 167, pp. 700-706, published online 22 Feb. 2018 (hereinafter, “ABRAHAM”) in view of Feng (CN-109485345-A) (hereinafter, “FENG”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a previous office action) and Labib, “Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites”, Cement Based Materials, published online 10 October 2018 (hereinafter, “LABIB”).
Regarding claim 1, ABRAHAM teaches a cementitious material consisting of a cement, a fine reclaimed asphalt pavement, and water (see ABRAHAM at Abstract and §2.1 - §2.4).
However, ABRAHAM does not explicitly teach a first or second recycled fiber reinforcement material.
FENG teaches a cementitious material comprising cement, water, and a first recycled carbon fiber and second steel fiber (see FENG at Abstract and paragraph 29). FENG teaches that including a combination of both a recycled carbon fiber and a steel fiber improves tensile stress, prevents expansion of macroscopic cracks, enhances compressive strength and tensile strength, and increases the flexural strength, toughness, impact force, durability and service period of concrete (see FENG at Abstract and paragraphs 6, 8, 29-31 and 72). FENG discloses that the carbon fibers are recycled, thereby mitigating environmental pollution (see FENG at paragraphs 5 and 29), but does not mention that the steel fibers are recycled.
However, it is known in the art that recycled steel fibers are used to reinforce concrete. LABIB teaches that using steel fibers recycled from waste tires has beneficial environmental and economic impacts and significantly decreases the brittle behavior of cement-based materials by improving their toughness and post-cracking resistance while helping to save natural resources, decreasing pollution of the environment and saving energy (see LABIB at §5.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cementitious material of ABRAHAM by including a first recycled carbon fiber and a second steel fiber, as taught by FENG (see FENG at Abstract and paragraph 29), and using steel fibers recycled from tires as the steel fiber, as taught by LABIB (see LABIB at §5.3). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving tensile stress, preventing expansion of macroscopic cracks, enhancing compressive strength and tensile strength, and increasing the flexural strength, toughness, impact force, durability and service period of the concrete while mitigating environmental pollution as taught by FENG (see FENG at Abstract and paragraphs 5-6, 8, 29-31 and 72) and improving toughness and post-cracking resistance while helping to save natural resources, decreasing pollution of the environment and saving energy as taught by LABIB (see LABIB at §5.3).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, ABRAHAM in view of FENG and LABIB teaches a cementitious material according to claim 1, wherein the second recycled fiber reinforcement material is recycled carbon fiber (see FENG at Abstract and paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1 above, ABRAHAM in view of FENG and LABIB teaches a cementitious material according to claim 1, wherein the first recycled fiber reinforcement material is recycled steel fiber from scrap tires (see FENG at Abstract; see LABIB at §5.3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABRAHAM in view of FENG and LABIB as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (CN-105256709-A) (hereinafter, “ZHAO”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a previous office action).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, ABRAHAM in view of FENG and LABIB teaches a cementitious material according to claim 1. ABRAHAM teaches a ratio of the cement to the fine aggregate (RAP) of 1:3 (i.e., 25% cement) and a water-to-cement ratio of 0.44, i.e., approximately 18% cement in the total mixture (see ABRAHAM at §2.2), but does not mention volume percentage.
ZHAO teaches a fiber-reinforced concrete cement composite comprising cementitious material, fibers, aggregate and water, wherein the cement comprises 20% by volume of the cement composite material (see ZHAO at Abstract and paragraph 117). ZHAO teaches that using 20% by volume of cement can form an ultra-high performance concrete cement composite having enhanced mechanical properties such as high strength and toughness (see ZHAO at Abstract and paragraphs 66 and 117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cementitious material of ABRAHAM in view of FENG and LABIB by utilizing cement in an amount of 20% by volume as taught by ZHAO (see ZHAO at paragraph 117). One of ordinary skill in the art would could have used cement in an amount of 20% by volume with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of forming a usable, high-performance concrete cement composite (see ZHAO at Abstract and paragraphs 66 and 117).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/09/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references as set forth in the grounds of rejection above.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1, 3 and 6 over ABRAHAM in view of FENG and LABIB and for claim 8 over ABRAHAM in view of FENG, LABIB and ZHAO as set forth above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights