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 .
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) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, and 100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daubresse (US 2019/0256421 A1) in view of Lee (KR 10 20120110694 A) and Vassilevsky (US 3,667,978 A).
Daubresse teaches the creation of a composition comprising a binder comprising a silicate, a bio-aggregate, and a surfactant. Daubresse abstract. The silicate used in the binder may include sodium silicates, potassium silicates, and combinations thereof. Id. ¶ 155. The bio-aggregate may include chopped sunflower stalks. Id. ¶ 252. The claimed weight percentages of the binder and bio-aggregate are presented in the Examples. See id. ¶ 399.
Daubresse fails to teach the binder comprises at least 50 weight percent silicate.
Lee teaches the creation of a panel comprising a pearl rock particle and an expandable vermiculite particle mixed with a composition comprising an inorganic binder, wherein the inorganic binder composition is 70% sodium silicate and 10% hemp fiber. Lee abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have looked to Lee for guidance as to suitable weight percentages of silicate in order to successfully practice the invention of Daubresse.
Daubresse also fails to teach a binder further comprising a reactant that chemically reacts with the silicate.
Vassilevsky teaches the creation of a hydraulic binder composition comprising sodium silicate and organic waste filler, such as corn cob particles and wood chips. Vassilevsky abstract, 1:34–36, 44–48, 2:34–39, 4:3–5. The binder composition further includes reactants magnesium sulfate and calcium chloride, wherein the reactants are present at the claimed levels. See id. at 2:43–50, 3:43–52. The binder composition yields increased waterproofing properties, decreased brittleness, and an excellent shelf life. Id. at abstract, 3:62–65.
The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have included magnesium sulfate or calcium chloride at the levels taught in Vassilevsky motivated by the desire improve the waterproofing properties, decrease the brittleness, and provide excellent shelf life to the composition of Daubresse.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Daubresse teaches the creation of a hydraulic (lime) or air (lime binder with silicates available as an optional additive rather than silicate binders at claimed. Claim 1 recites “a binder comprising silicate.” Daubresse is directed to a binder composition comprising “a high content of cementitious phases rich in … sodium silicates.” Daubresse ¶ 155. Furthermore, the binder composition may further comprise additional binders, such as those selected from “sodium silicates, potassium silicates, [and] lithium silicates.” Accordingly, the binder composition Daubresse may either primarily or additionally comprise a binder comprising a silicate as required in claim 1. Accordingly, the binder composition of Daubresse teaches “a binder comprising a silicate.”
Applicant next argues that while Lee appears to teach a binder comprising greater than 50 percent silicate, the reference does not disclose any reactant intended to reacting with the silicate to induce rapid curing. As such, Applicant contends that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify Daubresse with the teachings of Lee which is directed towards an entirely different technical problem.
This argument is unpersuasive as the Examiner does not rely upon Lee to teach the addition of a reactant to the silicate binder of Daubresse. Instead, the Examiner relies upon Lee to provide guidance as to suitable silicate levels in a binder in order to successfully practice the invention of Daubresse.
Next, Applicant argues that Vassilevsky teaches the use of magnesium sulfate and calcium chloride is directed to the formation of cementitious magnesium oxychloride or oxysulfate phases that provide strength and durability rather than additives to react with silicates. Applicant further contends that while Vassilevsky reports that minor proportions of silicates reduce hygroscopicity, improve water resistance and reduce brittleness, such silicates are added after the binder has been made. As noted by Applicant, the claimed reactants – calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate – are present along with binder comprising sodium silicate. In fact, Vassilevsky specifically mentions that calcium chloride and sodium silicate react. See Vassilevsky at 5:12–17. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Vassilevsky fails to teach a silicate binder that reacts with calcium chloride is unpersuasive.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights