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 and fine aggregates as the boron containing carrier, in the reply filed on 02/20/26, is acknowledged. The claims that read on said election are 1, 4, 6-9, 17 and 19. As such, non-elected claims 2-3 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
EXAMINATION NOTE:
It needs to be pointed out that only dependent claim 8 actually requires the presence of any boron in the claimed cementitious shielding composition, because according to Applicant’s independent claim 1, boron is only an optional component.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. U.S. Patent Number 4,123,392.
Hall et al. discloses a non-combustible nuclear radiation shield formed by a continuous matrix of cementitious material (e.g. Portland cement, plaster of Paris, silica gel, clay, lead powder etc.) containing dispersed inorganic and/or organic hydrogenous material (e.g. metal hydrides, hydroxides, ammonium salts, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene carbohydrates etc.). The dispersed material is a rigid combustible organic plastics or resin in particulate form. No more than 10% of the particles pass a 150 mesh screen. The continuous matrix forms 40-98% of the total volume of the shield, see title, abstract, column 4, lines 6-30 and column 4, line 66 to column 6, line 69.
Hall et al. further discloses that various additives can be added to the non-combustible nuclear radiation shielding composition to improve its neutron absorption abilities. Boron and boron containing compounds are specifically disclosed as being highly preferred neutron absorption additives, see column 8, line 32 to column 9, line 63. Hall et al. also discloses that it is most preferred that the boron compound is first loaded onto and admixed with polyethylene particles (hydrogenous material), said mixture is then subjected to a roll milling or kneading operation. The examiner holds that such results in the polyethylene particles having a coating of the boron compound thereon, thus fully meeting the limitations of applicant’s dependent claim 4.
Applicant’s said claims are deemed to be anticipated over Examples 2, 4 and 8-9. As way of illustration only, in Example 8 (in one embodiment) a polyethylene slab (corresponds to Applicant’s hydrogenous compound of independent claim 1) containing 5 weight percent boron was pulverized to pass a 60 mesh screen (i.e. 250 micron screen). Note: Once pulverized, the boron coated polyethylene particles also correspond to Applicant’s fine aggregates of independent claim 1. Two parts by volume of this powder was then admixed with Portland cement (corresponds to Applicant’s hydraulic compound of independent claim 1) and then made to pass a 300 mesh screen (i.e. 48 micron screen), and then formed into a non-combustible nuclear radiation shield. Hall et al.’s said Examples 2, 4 and 8-9 (also see second table in column 14), clearly teach non-combustible nuclear radiation shield compositions wherein the concentration of the components clearly fall within Applicant’s claimed concentration ranges of dependent claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hall et al. U.S. Patent Number 4,123,392.
Hall et al. has been described above and Examples 2, 4 and 8-9 clearly anticipate Applicant’s dependent claim 9, at least because boron is only an optional component according to Applicant’s independent claim 1 and thus its 10B abundance percentage of being greater than about 20 percent is deemed to be a moot limitation.
In the alternative, if Applicant were to eventually amend independent claim 1 to actually require the inclusion of boron particles, the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 9 would be clearly obvious over Hall et al.’s disclosure of column 9, lines 3-20 wherein it is taught that increasing the 10B abundance percentage over natural boron improves neutron absorption. In light of said teaching, one having ordinary skill in the art would be highly motivated to actually use a boron additive that comprises a higher 10B isotope percentage than found in natural boron compounds. It is not inventive to merely follow the direct disclosure of a prior-art reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764