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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 23, 2026 has been entered. Claim 6 is cancelled, claims 1 and 7 are amended and claims 1 – 5 and 7 are pending. In view of Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 7, the examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1 – 5 and 7 over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al. (US 2019/0151204) (“Akiyama”).The invention as currently claimed is not found to be patentable for reasons herein below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 5 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugahara et al. (US 4,018,616).
As to claims 1, 2, 3 and 7, Sugahara et al. is directed to a water glass composition comprising a water-soluble or water-dispersible silicate binder, equated to Applicant’s “first glass”, and an inorganic phosphate curing agent, wherein said inorganic phosphate curing agent is composed of an inorganic solid fine powder comprising as the main ingredient a silicon polyphosphate or its metal salt, equated to Applicant’s “second glass”, and said curing agent has an initial dissolution amount (B) of up to 200 mg and an average hydrolysis rate constant (A) of at least 0.2, said initial dissolution amount (B) and average hydrolysis rate constant (A) being defined by the following formula:
Y = AX + B
wherein X stands for the lapse of time (minutes) of up to 120 minutes after 1 g of the curing agent has been added to 100 ml of a 4N sodium hydroxide aqueous solution, and Y stands for the integrated amount (mg/100 ml) of phosphoric acid dissolved out of the curing agent into said aqueous solution during the time X (Abstract). Sugahara et al. teach that the water glass composition is used to create objects by molding among other end products (column 3, lines 35 – 42).
As to claims 1, 3 and 7, the silicate binder, or Applicant’s “first glass”, can comprise silicates such (a) one or more of alkali silicate binders such as potassium silicate, sodium silicate and lithium silicate and (b) a silicate binder formed by adding such alkali silicate or an alkali to a fine powder of anhydrous silicic acid or silicate or a hydrosol of silica. In view of the water-solubility or water-dispersibility, it is important that these silicate binders should contain an alkali component. The mole ratio of the silicic acid component and the alkali component is considerably changed, depending on the concentration, but in general, it is preferred that the mole ratio of the silicate binder be within a range represented by the following formula: M22 O.kSiO2, wherein M2 stands for an alkali metal and k is a number of from 1 to 5, preferably from 2 to 4.
The silicon phosphate curing agent, or Applicant’s “second glass”, is represented by the following formula: SiO2.xMOn/2.0.1- 0.7P2O5; wherein M stands for an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal, aluminum or zinc, n designates the valency of the metal M, and x stands for a positive number smaller than 0.2 (inclusive of zero) (column 5, lines 18 – 42).
As Sugahara et al. teach that M stands for an alkali metal or alkaline metal as well as either aluminum or zinc and it is known in the art that:
Alkali metals are a group of six elements in Group 1 of the periodic table: lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium (Rb), cesium (Cs), and francium (Fr). Alkaline earth metals include beryllium (Be), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), and radium (Ra), all located in Group 2 of the periodic table.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs and/or Fr for the silicate binder and Li, Ba and/or Al for the silicon phosphate curing agent because it would have been choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for a silicate phosphate curing agent as set forth by Sugahara et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce additional compounds having the benefits taught by Sugahara et al. in order to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
As to claims 1 and 7, Sugahara et al. teaches the claimed invention above but does not expressly teach the properties of a first glass powder; and a second glass powder having a different solubility from that of the first glass powder depending on pH, having ion sustained-release properties, and the second glass powder has a higher dissolution rate in a neutral pH region than a dissolution rate in an acidic pH region. It is reasonable to presume that the solubility, ion sustained-release property and dissolution rates are inherent to Sugahara et al. Support for said presumption is found in that the Sugahara et al. teaches as described above water glass composition comprising a water-soluble or water-dispersible silicate binder, equated to Applicant’s “first glass”, and an inorganic phosphate curing agent, wherein said inorganic phosphate curing agent is composed of an inorganic solid fine powder comprising as the main ingredient a silicon polyphosphate or its metal salt, equated to Applicant’s “second glass” wherein both the silicate binder and the phosphate curing agent can contain alkali metals among other metals as discussed above and therefore are expected to have the same properties of the claimed invention.
As to claim 4, note with this selection of elements, Li is shared as an option between both the silicate binder and the silicon phosphate curing agent meeting the requirement of being the same.
As to claim 5, similarly with the selection of elements, there are several elements that are not the same and would then be different meeting the requirements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights