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 02/20/2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 15-18 and 26-31 are presently pending; claims 6, 9-14 and 19-25 are canceled; claims 1-5 and 7-8 are withdrawn; claim 15 is amended; claims 15-18 and 26-31 are under examination.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 15-18 over GREGORY in view of DUAN and claims 26-31 over GREGORY in view of DUAN and KHATTAK are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 15-18 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory, David Preston (WO-2020/097693 A1) (hereinafter, “DPG”) in view of Duan, et al. (CN-101239800-A) (hereinafter, “DUAN”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a previous office action), with evidence from SNNC, "Slag Products" (hereinafter, “SNNC”) as to the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 15, DPG teaches a method for forming a geopolymer composition (see DPG generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0024] and [0028]) comprising fly ash (see DPG at paragraph [0018]), granulated blast furnace slag (see DPG at paragraph [0012]) and high-magnesium nickel slag (see DPG at [0024], teaching ferronickel slag, which is a high-magnesium nickel slag as evidenced by SNNC; see SNNC at pg. 1-2) and one or more allotropes of carbon (see DPG at paragraph [0041], teaching carbon nanotubes), wherein the geopolymer composition is free of Portland cement (see DPG at paragraph [0012] and Table 8, teaching that Portland cement is optional and not required, and teaching examples that are free of Portland cement), the method comprising:
(i) providing the one or more allotropes of carbon (see DPG at paragraph [0041], teaching carbon nanotubes);
(ii) combining the one or more allotropes of carbon provided in step i) with fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag and high-magnesium nickel slag (see DPG at paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0024], [0039] and [0041]); and
(iii) combining the resulting mixture with an activator (see DPG at paragraph [0024]).
However, DPG fails to explicitly mention that the method comprises (i) providing a suspension of the one or more allotropes of carbon and a solvent system, the solvent system consisting essentially of one or more solvents; and (ii) combining the suspension provided in step (i) with fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag and high-magnesium slag.
DUAN teaches a method for forming a carbon nanotube reinforced cement-based composite (see DUAN generally at Abstract and paragraph 10), the method comprising: (i) providing a suspension of a carbon allotrope and a solvent system, the solvent system consisting essentially of one or more solvents (see DUAN at paragraph 10; DUAN teaches a method of forming a cementitious composition comprising adding carbon nanotubes to an organic solvent and ultrasonically stirring to mix the nanotubes with the solvent and form a dispersion (i.e., suspension of carbon nanotubes in solvent system, wherein the solvent system consists of the solvent)) and (ii) combining the suspension provided in step (i) with a mixture comprising fly ash and slag (see DUAN at paragraphs 10 and 14, teaching combining the carbon nanotube suspension with a cementitious admixture comprising fly ash and slag). DUAN teaches that this method of forming a solution of dispersed carbon nanotubes before adding the solution the composition combats agglomeration and entanglement of the carbon nanotubes and makes it easier to uniformly disperse the carbon nanotubes in the composition, forming a composite material with improved mechanical properties (see DUAN at paragraphs 5-7 and 17).
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 method of DPG by incorporating a step of forming a suspension of the carbon nanotubes in organic solvent as taught by DUAN (see DUAN at paragraphs 10 and 14) before mixing the carbon nanotubes with the fly ash and slag (see DUAN at paragraphs 10 and 14; see DPG at paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0024], [0039] and [0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of combatting agglomeration and entanglement of the carbon nanotubes and making it easier to uniformly disperse the carbon nanotubes in the composition and forming a composite material with improved mechanical properties (see DUAN at paragraphs 5-7 and 17).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 15 above, DPG in view of DUAN teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the one or more solvents is an organic solvent selected from one or more of alcohols, aldehydes and ketones (see DUAN at paragraph 10; DUAN teaches that the organic solvent may be isopropanol, ethanol or acetone).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16 above, DPG in view of DUAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the one or more solvents comprises acetone (see DUAN at paragraph 10; DUAN teaches that the organic solvent may be acetone).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 15 above, DPG in view of DUAN teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the one or more allotropes of carbon is a carbon nano-structure material (see DPG at paragraph [0041], teaching carbon nanotubes).
Regarding claims 26-29, as applied to claim 15 above, DPG in view of DUAN teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the activator comprises a silicate and a base, as recited by claim 26; wherein the silicate comprises an alkali metal silicate, as required by claim 27; wherein the alkali metal silicate is sodium silicate, as required by claim 28; and wherein the base comprises a basic salt of an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, or ammonia, as required by claim 29 (see DPG at paragraph [0013], teaching that the activator comprises alkali metal hydroxides (i.e., a base, and a basic salt of an alkali metal), alkali metal silicates such as sodium silicate, and combinations thereof).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DPG in view of DUAN, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Khattak, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0031563-A1) (hereinafter, “KHATTAK”).
Regarding claims 30-31, as applied to claim 26 above, DPG in view of DUAN teaches a method according to claim 26, wherein the activator comprises sodium silicate and an alkali metal hydroxide (see DPG at paragraphs [0013]).
DPG fails to explicitly mention that the alkali metal hydroxide is sodium hydroxide.
However, sodium hydroxide is a known alkali activator in geopolymer compositions. KHATTAK teaches a method of forming a geopolymer composition comprising fly ash, slag and carbon nanofiber (see KHATTAK at paragraphs [0016] and [0022]-[0023]) wherein the activator is sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate (see KHATTAK at paragraphs [0016] and [0029]).
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 method of DPG in view of DUAN by simply substituting the unspecified alkali metal hydroxide with sodium hydroxide as taught by KHATTAK (see KHATTAK at paragraphs [0016] and [0029]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing an alkaline activator which will initiate the geopolymerization reaction, forming a hardened binder (see DPG at paragraphs [0004] and [0033]-[0034]; see KHATTAK at paragraphs [0016] and [0029]). Further, KHATTAK teaches that sodium hydroxide is a known alkali metal activator for geopolymer compositions, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “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)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/20/2026 with respect to claim(s) 15-18 and 26-31 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 15-18 and 26-29 over DPG in view of DUAN and for claims 30-31 over DPG in view of DUAN and KHATTAK 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