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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 23, 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of excessive length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In claims 1, 3, and 7, the noun “alkali” is interpreted as referring to “a compound having a function of increasing the pH of the hardening aid solution by being added to the solution” (see Paragraph [0036] of the Specification); i.e., a base, such as for instance a salt (e.g., a hydroxide salt) of an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal (see claim 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0084882 to Gong et al. (hereinafter “Gong”).
Regarding claim 1, Gong teaches a hardening aid solution (an “activator solution” used to control the hardening or setting time for geopolymer compositions, see ¶¶ 0038-0039, 0091; Abstract). Gong teaches that the hardening aid solution comprises Si element (sodium silicate), an alkali (sodium hydroxide), and a dispersing medium containing water (¶¶ 0091, 0093).
Gong teaches that a dissolution concentration of the Si element is 20000 mass ppm or more: Gong discloses embodiments comprising 579.0 g sodium silicate, 98.3 g NaOH, and 672.9 g water, with the sodium silicate having a mass ratio of SiO2/Na2O of “about 2.40” (see ¶ 0091 and Table 3); thus, the hardening aid solution of Gong includes
(579.0 g sodium silicate) x ([2.4 g SiO2]/[3.4 g Na2O∙SiO2]) = 408.7 g SiO2
(408 g SiO2) x ([28.085 g/mol Si]/[60.08 g/mol SiO2]) = 191.05 g Si
(579.0 g sodium silicate + 98.3 g NaOH + 672.9 g H2O) = 1,350.2 g solution
Therefore, Gong discloses a dissolution concentration of Si element of 191.05 g Si in 1,350.2 g solution, or (191.05/1,350.2) = 0.141, or 14.1 wt.%, equal to 140000 mass ppm.
Gong teaches wherein the number of moles of the alkali present in 1 kg of the dispersing medium is 2 mol/kg or more: Gong discloses embodiments comprising 98.3 g NaOH in 672.9 g water (see Table 3), giving a number of moles of the alkali (NaOH) present in 1 kg of the dispersing medium (H2O) of 3.65:
([98.3 g NaOH]/[672.9 g H2O]) = 146 g NaOH per 1,000 g H2O
146 g NaOH x (1 mol NaOH/39.997 g NaOH) = 3.65 mol NaOH per kg H2O
Gong teaches wherein the hardening aid solution is used for hardening a powder comprising a ceramic powder containing Si element at least on the surface thereof (see ¶ 0062, teaching wherein the hardening aid solution is used for hardening fly ash comprising at least 65 wt.% amorphous aluminosilicate).
Gong does not explicitly teach wherein an absolute value of an amount of change in a dissolution concentration of Si element in a solution obtained by diluting the hardening aid solution by 2 times based on the mass using an aqueous KOH solution having a concentration of 3 mol/L is 2000 mass ppm or less, between before and after a heat dissolution test including heating the solution at a solution temperature of 80°C for 5 hours, and then allowing the solution to stand in an ambient environment at 25°C for 1 hour. However, given the compositional similarity of the Gong hardening aid solution and the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the hardening aid solution disclosed by Gong would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention—including behavior as a result of dilution and a heat dissolution test under specified conditions—since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Gong teaches the hardening aid solution of claim 1, as set forth above. Given the compositional similarity of the Gong hardening aid solution and the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the hardening aid solution disclosed by Gong would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention—including wherein a silicate ion has a Q3 rate of 45% or less. Products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). In this instance, the prima facie case is bolstered by the teachings of Gong, which specifies that “the activator solution is dominated by the Q0, Q1, and Q2 type silicate species” (¶ 0085), thereby indicating that the Q3 species makes up a small proportion of the hardening aid solution, within the range of 45% or less recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Gong teaches the hardening aid solution wherein the alkali is a hydroxide of an alkali metal (sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide) (¶ 0091).
Regarding claim 4, Gong teaches the hardening aid solution wherein the ceramic powder containing Si element at least on the surface thereof comprises a ceramic powder having an amorphized surface and containing Si element at least on the surface thereof (see ¶ 0062, teaching wherein the hardening aid solution is used for hardening fly ash comprising at least 65 wt.% amorphous aluminosilicate).
Regarding claim 5, Gong teaches the hardening aid solution wherein the ceramic powder having an amorphized surface and containing Si element at least on the surface thereof comprises fly ash having an amorphized surface (¶ 0062, teaching wherein the hardening aid solution is used for hardening fly ash comprising at least 65 wt.% amorphous aluminosilicate).
Regarding claim 7, Gong teaches the hardening aid solution wherein the number of moles of the alkali present in 1 kg of the dispersing medium is 3.65 moles NaOH (see above, p. 4; and see Table 3), which is within the claimed range of 6 mol/kg or less.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong.
Regarding claim 6, Gong teaches the hardening aid solution of claim 1, as set forth above (see pp. 3-5). Gong teaches wherein the dissolution concentration of Si element is 140000 mass ppm (see above, p. 3), which is close to the claimed limit of 120000 mass ppm or less. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suwan et al., “Effect of manufacturing process on the mechanisms and mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer in ambient curing temperature,” Materials and Manufacturing Processes 32(5) [2017], pp. 461-467 (“Suwan”) teaches alkaline solutions mixed with alumina-silicate prime materials to form a cement paste (Abstract). Suwan discloses a hardening aid solution (i.e., activator solution) comprising 15 mol/kg NaOH in water and 48.20 wt.% sodium silicate (p. 462).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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 R. ORLANDO can be reached at (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.
/P.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731