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 . 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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Duffy US 2014/0270953 in view of Merritt US 5,000,789.
Duffy discloses a method of soil stabilization comprising:
Providing a soil treating machine (P) having: cutting edge (1) and augers (2) configured
to paved and/or subgrade material (A) from a surface; a transfer device (3)
configured to transfer material removed by the cutting edge; a hopper (13),
configured to receive the removed material (A) from the transfer device (23).
A pair of reservoirs (13a) disposed on respective sides of the hopper, Fig. 1; [075].
A spray bar assembly (12, 14) configured to spray additives, such as binder, [0060] onto
the removed material (A) as said material enters the hopper (13).
Wherein the cutting edge, transfer device and spray bars can be mounted to a
known paving machine, having a hopper, auger and paving screed. See [0076].
The method further including:
Removing a uniform layer 100mm thick of pavement and/or subgrade from the ground.
Spraying additive, such as binder onto the removed material (A) inside said hopper (13).
Mixing the sprayed binder and removed material (A).
Returning the sprayed material (A) back to the ground from where it was removed.
Compacting said returned, sprayed material (A).
What Duffy does not disclose is what binder is being used. However, Merritt teaches it is known to add alkali-activatable mixtures, such as sulfuric acid and citrus stripper oil to soil and achieve compressive strengths of 375-520psi/2.5-3.5MPA over an 11-28 day cure. See Col. 4, lns. 6-52. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of soil stabilization of Duffy with the step of adding an alkai-activatable mixture, as taught by Merritt in order to support vehicular traffic.
With respect to claims 12, 13 Duffy teaches using industrial side-stream material, to be mixed into the soil/subgrade removed from the roadway. The “industrial side-stream material” being Recycled Asphalt Particles (RAP). And that an entirety of a roadway can thus be recycled and strengthened by said method. [0007-10].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Merritt does not disclose a load-bearing structure of a road is stabilized to a compression strength of at least 0.1MPa by using as the binder an activator which forms with road aggregate a hardenable geopolymeric or alkali-activatable mixture.
However, the Examiner does not concur with Applicant’s critique of the non-final rejection of claims 7-13 as being unpatentable over Duffy in view of Merritt. Duffy discloses mixing soil and a binder. Merritt teaches it is known to mix alkali-activatable mixtures to soil to achieve compressive strengths far in excess of that claimed.
It is noted Claim 7 does not include a step of mixing the binder with road aggregate to form a hardenable geopolymeric or alkali-activatable mixture.
Rather, claim 7 requires “soil is treated with at least one binder to improve its compression strength and the soil is treated in a movable machine.
the following “wherein statement” is not a step performed in the method rather it is a description of the end result of said method of treating soil. Hence, the intended use of the final product is not a patentable distinction in the performance of the method.
Therefore the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant then argues “the Office’s characterization of Merritt as disclosing an alkali-activatable mixture is overly broad”. However, the Examiner does not concur. The claims do not define the term. With no standard of equivalence in the claims, a patentable distinction can not be upheld.
Therefore the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
* In light of the prior art to Walker US 2010/0226722 it appears as though the
“activator” with forms together with road aggregate a hardenable geopolymeric the Applicant claims, just might be fly ash. see [0071-0072].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
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, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an
application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need help from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 9/22/2026
