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 .
The examiner attempted to contact the attorney/agent for the applicant by telephone on 1/28/2026 using the telephone number provided by applicant and associated with this application. The number range a few times then a message indicating a voice mail is not set up was played making it impossible to leave a message.
In accordance with the ECOMM form on file as of 8/7/2023, the examiner sent an email on 1/29/2026 to the email address associated with this application of record. Despite a delivery verification request and a receipt request, no verification of receipt was provided. The email is attached with this office action. The email requested cancelation of non-elected claims and corrections of claim 5 to avoid 112 rejections. A response was requested by 2/1/2026 close of business (East Coast time). As of 2/11/2026 no response has been received necessitating the mailing of this office action.
Applicant should ensure that the contact information associated with this file is current and functioning so as to afford active communication when necessary.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/26/2025
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the process is specially adapted to manufacture the product. This is not found persuasive because the process does not use amounts which would necessarily result in the claimed product. Further the groups do not share the same special technical feature as set forth in the lack of unity/restriction (i.e. spraying adhesive, sugarcoating machine, etc.) a priori and a special technical feature of concrete with microbial powder and dopamine do not offer a contribution of the prior art as cited in the lack of unity/restriction “Zhang, et al” a posteriori.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “according to claim 1”; however the process does not recite the claimed compositional components of claim 1 or amounts thereof. This claim should be re-written as a dependent claim as it is unclear how it will result in the product of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “a proper amount” this term is not fully defined and will be interpreted as “an effective” amount having given the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. Appropriate correction is requested.
Prior Art Discussion
The closest prior art is Bio-inspired functionalization of very fine aggregates for better performance of cementitious materials by Yi Fang, Jilai Wang, Xin Qian, Liang Wang, Guangping Lin and Zhongqi Liu Construction and Building Materials 241 (2020) 118104 (published online 1/17/2020 more than one year prior to the instant effective filing date) This prior art discusses the use of very fine particles in concrete by employing dopamine to functionalize the surface of the very fine particles to improve adhesion between the particles and cement. The process of the prior art does not render obvious the instantly claimed process as multiple steps, apparatus, adhesives, etc. are not taught by the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would not be motivated to or find it obvious to materially alter the teachings of the prior art to those of the instant claims. The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompany this office action for prior art considered relevant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732