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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 04/29/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are presently pending; claim 4 is canceled; claims 14-20 are withdrawn; claims 1, 8, 10 and 12 are amended; claims 1-3 and 5-13 are under examination.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-10 over KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI and claims 11-13 over KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI and IMAGAWA are maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final action on 01/30/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kierat, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0194245-A1) (hereinafter, “KIERAT”) in view of Ikegami, et al. (JP-2007284517-A) (hereinafter, “IKEGAMI”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a previous office action).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, KIERAT teaches a method of making concrete (see KIERAT generally at paragraphs [0015], [0028]-[0030], [0204], [0213] and [0215]), comprising:
immersing reinforcement fibers in a solution of water-soluble amine-containing polymer to thereby coat a layer of the water-soluble amine-containing polymer onto the reinforcement fibers, thereby forming polymer coated reinforcement fibers (see KIERAT at Abstract and paragraphs [0182], [0192]-[0193] and [0230], teaching surface treating the fibers with a reagent solution, wherein the reagent can be any type of polymer reagent creating amine functionalities; e.g., in Example F4, polypropylene fibers are suspended in a solution of polyvinylamine-polypropylene copolymer (which comprises polyvinylamine, a water-soluble amine-containing polymer) and water)
subsequently, filtering and drying the polymer coated reinforcement fibers (see KIERAT at paragraph [0230]; after surface treatment with the polymer solution, the fibers are separated and washed with water (i.e., filtered) and dried);
subsequently, immersing the polymer coated reinforcement fibers in a sodium silicate solution (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0051]-[0052], [0062]-[0064] and [0241]-[0245], teaching combining the fibers with a solution comprising water-soluble silicate, wherein the water-soluble silicate is present as sodium silicate; e.g., in Example SP1, after surface treating, washing and drying the fibers (via “Route 1”, which includes Example F4), an aqueous solution comprising sodium metasilicate is prepared and the fibers are stored in this solution for 1 to 24 hours),
wherein polycondensation occurs between the polymer coated reinforcement fibers and the sodium silicate to thereby form a layer of nanosilica on the polymer coated reinforcement fibers, thereby forming treated reinforcement fibers comprising the layer of nanosilica on the polymer coated reinforcement fibers (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0032]-[0033], [0041], [0050], [0182] and [0192]-[0193], teaching that crystallization seed particles, which may be siliciumdioxide (i.e., silica) particles and which are in a size range of 10 to 100 nm (i.e., nanosilica), are bonded to the surface of the fibers via the functional groups / linker moieties (amine functionalities) formed by the polymer coating);
subsequently, filtering and drying the treated reinforcement fibers (see KIERAT at paragraph [0251]; after the fibers are stored in the solution comprising sodium metasilicate for 1-24 hours, they are separated by filtration and washed two times, then the fibers are dried);
subsequently, mixing the treated reinforcement fibers with a cement binder, aggregate, and water (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0003], [0016], [0204] and [0213], teaching that the modified fibers are added to a concrete mixture in order to form concrete, which comprises hydraulic cement, fine and coarse aggregates, and water).
KIERAT does not explicitly mention that the water-soluble amine-containing polymer comprises poly-L-lysine, poly-D-lysine, poly(allylamine hydrochloride), poly(ethyleneimine), or any combination thereof.
However, KIERAT teaches that the treatment reagent may be any type of polymer reagent which can create amine functionalities on the fiber surface (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0192]-[0194]); therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the another known amine-containing polymer reagent could be used in place of polyvinylamine-polypropylene copolymer to surface treat the fiber (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0192]-[0193] and [0230]).
For example, IKEGAMI teaches several known water-soluble amine-containing polymers which can be used interchangeably, e.g., polyethyleneimine, polypropyleneamine, polyvinylamine and derivatives thereof, poly-L-lysine, and the like (see IKEGAMI at paragraph [0017]), as a reactant used to form an aqueous dispersion (see IKEGAMI at paragraphs [0004], [0010] and [0023]) which is subsequently used to treat fibers, e.g., polypropylene fibers (see IKEGAMI at paragraphs [0012] and [0024]), and/or is used in concrete compositions (see IKEGAMI at paragraph [0028]).
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 KIERAT by simply substituting the polyvinylamine-polypropylene copolymer with poly-L-lysine and/or polyethyleneimine as taught by IKEGAMI, as KIERAT teaches that any amine-containing polymer can be used as the reagent to treat the fibers (e.g., polypropylene fibers) (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0192]-[0193] and [0230]), and as IKEGAMI teaches that polyvinylamine and derivatives thereof can be used interchangeably with poly-L-lysine or polyethyleneimine as an amine-containing polymer reactant used in a process of fiber (e.g., polypropylene fiber) treatment and/or a process of making concrete (see IKEGAMI at paragraphs [0012], [0017], [0024] and [0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art would could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a polymer reagent containing amine groups which will create amine functionalities on the fiber surface (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0192]-[0193] and [0230]; see IKEGAMI at paragraph [0017]).
Further, as evidenced by IKEGAMI, poly-L-lysine and polyethyleneimine are known water-soluble polymers having amine functional groups, 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)”.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcement fibers comprise steel, glass, carbon, basalt, polymers, waste plastic, natural fibers, or any combination thereof (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0207] and [0230], teaching plastic/polymeric fibers, steel fibers, glass fibers, carbon fibers, basalt fibers, cellulose-based (i.e., natural) fibers, or any mixture thereof; e.g., Example F4 uses polypropylene (PP) fibers).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1.
KIERAT fails to explicitly mention that the solution has a concentration of from 0.1% to 10% by weight of water-soluble amine-containing polymer. However, although KIERAT does not mention the concentration of the water-soluble amine containing polymer (see KIERAT at paragraph [0230], Example F4), KIERAT teaches that the surface treatment reagent may be selected from, e.g., the polyvinylamine-polypropylene copolymer, 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, phosphonated polypropylene, etc. (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0192]-[0194], [0226]-[ 0231]), and provides examples wherein the concentration of the surface treatment reagent falls within the claimed range; e.g., Examples F1 and F5 using 8 g of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane as the reagent in a solution containing 4 L of ethanol (i.e., approximately 3,156 g) and 10 mL of concentrated ammonium hydroxide solution (i.e., approximately 9 g), i.e., a reagent concentration in the solution of approximately 0.25% by weight (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0226] and [0231]); or, e.g., Example F2, using 1.5 g of phosphonated polypropylene as the reagent in a solution containing 500 mL of methyl-tertbutyl ether (i.e., approximately 370 g), i.e., a reagent concentration in the solution of approximately 0.4% by weight (see KIERAT at paragraph [0227]). Therefore, as KIERAT teaches that these types of reagents may be used interchangeably with the amine-containing polymer and are useful in concentrations of, e.g., 0.25% or 0.4%, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the amine-containing polymer reagent in a similar concentration.
Further, KIERAT teaches that the surface treatment reagents generate, create or introduce functional groups/linker moieties (e.g., amine) protruding from the fiber surface, to which crystallization seeds attach, leading to chemical bonding between the fiber and inorganic binder, strengthening and toughening the hardened binder material, and improving ductility and flexibility (see KIERAT at paragraph [0182]); KIERAT therefore explicitly teaches that the amount of reagent used for treatment (i.e., concentration of the water-soluble amine-containing polymer) is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the concentration of the reagent, including concentrations of 0.1% to 10% by weight, through routine experimentation and optimization in order to achieve an optimized amount of functional groups protruding from the fiber surface and resulting amount of crystallization seeds attached, and resulting strength, toughness, ductility and flexibility of the hardened concrete which is reinforced with the fibers (see KIERAT at paragraph [0182]).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1.
KIERAT does not explicitly mention that the pH value of the solution of water-soluble amine-containing polymer is from 6.0 to 12; however, in Example F4, the solution consists of water (pure water having a neutral pH of 7) and the polyvinylamine-polypropylene copolymer (see KIERAT at paragraph [0230]), which contains basic amine groups. Therefore, while not explicitly disclosed, the pH of the solution would be expected to be over 7, likely falling within the claimed range.
Further, KIERAT teaches that the pH of a reaction solution directly affects the shelf life and properties of the products formed, and teaches neutralizing a reaction solution using a basic compound such as a hydroxide, e.g., ammonium hydroxide (see KIERAT at paragraph [0180]), which is used to adjust the pH of the surface treatment reagent solution in multiple examples, e.g., F1 and F5 (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0226] and [0231]). KIERAT therefore explicitly teaches that the pH of the solution is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the pH of the solution, including pH of values of 6.0 to 12, through routine experimentation and optimization in order to achieve an optimized shelf life and product properties (see KIERAT at paragraph [0182]).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the polymer coated reinforcement fibers are immersed in the sodium silicate solution for an amount of time overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 0.5 hours to 10 hours (see KIERAT at paragraph [0251], teaching a range of 1 hour to 24 hours). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the sodium silicate solution has a concentration from 0.01 mol/L to 1.0 mol/L of sodium silicate in solution. In Example SP1, KIERAT teaches 250 g of a sodium silicate containing solution comprising 11 wt% solids suspended in water (i.e., approximately 27.5 g of solids and 222.5 g of water, or 0.22 L of water), wherein the Na-metasilicate-pentahydrate comprises approximately 38% by mass of the solids, calculated from the mass of each solid component added when making the solution (i.e., approximately 10.4 g of Na-metasilicate-pentahydrate in approximately 0.22 L of water, or approximately 47 g/L of Na-metasilicate-pentahydrate) (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0249]-[0251]). The molar mass of Na-metasilicate-pentahydrate is 212.14 g/mol, therefore the concentration of sodium silicate in solution is approximately 0.2 mol/L.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein filtering the polymer coated reinforcement fibers and/or the treated reinforcement fibers comprises immersing the polymer coated reinforcement fibers and/or the treated reinforcement fibers in water (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0230] and [0251], teaching washing the fibers with water after both treatment steps).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imagawa, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,851,545-B2) (hereinafter, “IMAGAWA”).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1.
KIERAT does not explicitly state that the aggregate used in the concrete comprises sand, gravel, crushed stone, or any combination thereof; however, KIERAT teaches that both mortar and concrete comprise fine aggregates, providing an example of a mortar composition comprising sand as a fine aggregate (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0003] and [0263]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would also find it obvious that sand can be used as the fine aggregate in a concrete composition, as KIERAT describes a concrete composition as being the same as a mortar composition, but further comprising coarse aggregates (see KIERAT at paragraph [0003]).
Further, KIERAT teaches that any known concrete composition can be used (see KIERAT at paragraph [0213]), and the aggregates recited by claim 11 are all commonly used in concrete compositions. For example, IMAGAWA teaches a method of making a fiber-reinforced concrete composition (see IMAGAWA at col. 2, lines 43-59) comprising sand, granulated stone/rock, and/or gravel as the aggregates (see IMAGAWA at col. 9, line 66 – col. 10, line 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use sand, gravel, and/or granulated stone as aggregates in the concrete composition (see IMAGAWA at col. 9, line 66 – col. 10, line 14; see KIERAT at paragraphs [0003] and [0263]). 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)”.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising mixing the treated reinforcement fibers with a plasticizer (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0003], [0016], [0026], [0199], [0210] and [0213], teaching adding plasticizer to the inorganic binder (hydraulic cement) composition, which is used to make concrete mixture comprising the reinforcement fibers).
KIERAT does not explicitly state that the plasticizer used in the concrete composition is a superplasticizer; however, KIERAT teaches that both mortar and concrete comprise cementitious binder which can include a plasticizer, providing an example of a mortar composition comprising a superplasticizer (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0003], [0016], [0026], [0199], [0210] and [0263]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would also find it obvious that superplasticizer can be used as the plasticizer in a concrete composition, as KIERAT describes a concrete composition as being the same as a mortar composition, but further comprising coarse aggregates (see KIERAT at paragraph [0003]).
Further, KIERAT teaches that any known concrete composition can be used (see KIERAT at paragraph [0213]), and superplasticizer is a common component of concrete compositions. For example, IMAGAWA teaches a method of making a fiber-reinforced concrete (see IMAGAWA at col. 2, lines 43-59) comprising superplasticizer (see IMAGAWA at col. 11, lines 15-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a superplasticizer as the plasticizer in the concrete composition (see IMAGAWA at col. 11, lines 15-19; see KIERAT at paragraphs [0003] and [0263]). 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)”.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1 above, KIERAT in view of IKEGAMI teaches a method according to claim 1.
KIERAT teaches a water to cement binder ratio of from 0.20 to 0.60 (see KIERAT at paragraph [0256], teaching a water to cement binder ratio of 0.4), but does not explicitly mention the use of this ratio in a concrete composition; however, as KIERAT teaches adding water to the binder component(s) and modified fibers to form the fresh concrete (see KIERAT at paragraph [0204]), and provides an example of a water to cement ratio of 0.4, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use this ratio when making concrete.
Further, KIERAT teaches that any known concrete composition can be used (see KIERAT at paragraph [0213]), and a water to cement binder ratio falling within the claimed range is common in concrete compositions. For example, IMAGAWA teaches a method of making a fiber-reinforced concrete (see IMAGAWA at col. 2, lines 43-59) wherein the water to cement ratio is from 0.2 to 0.5 (see IMAGAWA at col. 8, lines 43-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a water to cement binder ratio of 0.2 to 0.5, e.g., 0.4, in the concrete composition (see IMAGAWA at col. 8, lines 43-50; see KIERAT at paragraphs [0204] and [0256]); one of ordinary skill in the art could have used such a ratio with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing enough water to form hardened concrete (see IMAGAWA at col. 8, lines 43-50; see KIERAT at paragraphs [0204] and [0256]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“claim 1… is not disclosed or suggested by Kierat or Ikegami, whether viewed alone or in combination” (see Remarks at pg. 5-6).
“the claimed methods provide unexpected results… in the results for Example 1… the claimed methods provide unexpected improvements in the compressive strength, flexural strength, splitting tensile strength, ductility, and pull-out behavior. Moreover, Figure 6 of the instant application shows that ‘[v]ery little improvement was achieved by treating the steel fiber with only sodium silicate’ while ‘[d]rastic improvement on the bond strength and ductility between the steel fibers and the cement matrix was achieved by the proposed method’” (see Remarks at pg. 6-9).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references do not disclose or suggest the new limitations of amended claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection of amended claim 1 above, KIERAT explicitly teaches the new limitation of forming a layer of nanosilica on the polymer coated reinforcement fibers (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0032]-[0033], [0041], [0050], [0182] and [0192]-[0193]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the present invention is nonobvious because the method provides unexpected results, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arguments regarding unexpected results are discussed in MPEP 716.02. The results indicated by Applicant are not commensurate in scope with the claimed method; Example 1 shows results for a specific methods and compositions utilizing steel fibers, 0.1% to 10% of the water-soluble polymer with a pH of 6-12, soaking for 12 hours, etc., not results commensurate in scope with the broad method of claim 1 which may utilize any type of fibers, any polymer concentration, any pH, any soaking time, etc. Additionally, the prior art references include the method steps as claimed and do not treat the fibers with “only sodium silicate”, so it is not clear how this comparative example is relevant to the current rejection. Further, KIERAT also explicitly discloses that the method provides fiber-reinforced composites which are crack-resistant, high tensile strength articles having increased pull-out strength and improved strength, flexibility and ductility (see KIERAT at paragraphs [0015], [0030], [0184] and [0211]), so these results appear to be expected from KIERAT, not unexpected.
Consequently, for at least these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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