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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/1/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION AND INTRODUCTION
The following claim interpretation and introduction is expressly incorporated into each and every rejection below as though fully set forth therein.
REGARDING RANGES/RATIOS:
The prior art teaches ranges and ratios which render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention those of the instant claims as more fully below set forth. Further the differences in concentration do not adequately distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art absent evidence or criticality. The claims recite pbw which appears to indicate a ratio of the components.
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
REGARDING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH:
The prior art teaches the composition improves compressive strength and while teaching ranges for compressive strength at 28 days does not necessarily teach same at 7 days. Nonetheless, since the prior art teaches the claimed compositional components in ranges/ratios which overlap the claimed ranges/ratios, it renders the properties of the product obvious in overlapping ranges thereof of compressive strength. Further since the prior art seeks to optimize strength and recognizes that density and other factors may affect the compressive strength the compressive strength can be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
COMBINING MORE THAN ONE/MIXTURES THEREOF
The prior art recites at least, and more than one of each compositional component as more fully below set forth rendering the use of mixtures obvious.
"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
PRODUCT BY PROCESS LIMITATIONS:
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted)
Claims 1 and 5 recite “obtained by crushing the waste FRP” the prior art below teaches the claimed compositional elements in a particulate/powder/granulated form thereby meeting the claim and rendering same obvious. Claim 1 recigtes the powders and alkali solution are uniformly mixed and the mixture is poured into a mold and generates apolymerizatoin reaction. The prior art having taught the claimed compositional components mixed and shaped/molded renders the claim obvious. Claim 5 recites: uniformly mixed into admixture with a water cement ratio and poured into a mold generating a solidification and hardening reaction… The prior art having taught the claimed mixture formed into the claimed brick i.e. hardened renders obvious the claimed invention.
GLASS FIBER/POLYMER PARTICLES:
Giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation including the language of the preamble in view of the original disclosures/specification: Glass fiber/polymer particles are interpreted to be the waste fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) as recited in the preamble.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al (US 2014/0264140) further in view of Physical mechanical and thermal behavior of concrete block stabilized with glass fiber reinforced polymer waste published 11/14/2020 Jaqueline Damiany Portela Romulo Marcal Gandia Barbara lemes Outeiro Araujo Rodrigo Alllen Pereira and Francisco Carlos Gomes and further in view of Shahria Alam M Islam A Parghi, M Marciniak, B Pogue (WO 2015149176A1) and alternatively further in view of MS Alam, MS Island AM Parghi E Marciniak and B Pogue (WO 2015/149176A1)
Regarding claims 1-3:
Gong et al (US 2014/0264140) discloses a composite in the form of a brick (See fig 1 and 2) the composition comprises ground granulated blast furnace slag [026] (meeting the limitations of claim 1 for a plurality of ground furnace slag powder) (meeting claim 1 for plurality of furnace slag powders) and may comprise fly ash [0028]
Ground granulated blast furnace slag and class c fly ash are hardening enhancers and there is at least one hardening enhancer (i.e. further meeting the limitation for a plurality of ground granulated blast furnace slag). And at least one aggregate of glass particles and at least one alkali silicate activator are included [0051] [0086-0087](meeting the limitation for glass powder)
The composition comprises highly reactive aluminosilicates such as pozzolanic materials [0025] The composition comprises fly ash [0028]
The composition comprises reactive amorphous alkali earth aluminosilicate of pozzolanic materials containing alkali earth oxides including ground granulated blast furnace slag and class c fly ash [0030] the ground granulated blast furnace slag is more reactive than class f fly ash and provide a higher proportion of strength enhancing calcium silicate than portland cement to create a higher ultimate strength [0046]
The composition includes one or more accelerators of alkali and one or more chopped fibers including organic fiber, glass fiber for reinforcement [0051] [0057] (meeting the limitation for glass fiber and / polymer particles of claim 1)
The composition comprises fibers for reinforcement in amounts 0 to 5 wt.% to improve flexural strength including organic fibers which are polymeric (PVA and poly acyrlo nitrile meeting the limitation of claim 1 for polymeric fiber particles) and glass fibers (i.e. basalt fibers and carbon fibers [0099] (overlapping the claimed amount of fibers)
The composition comprises hardening enhancers including pozzolanic materials such as vitreous calcium alumino silicate waste from fiberglass production and includes typical glass fiber manufacturing processed glass waste by product of 10-20 % [0070] (further overlapping the claimed range of crushed glass powder)
The composition comprises cements other than Portland cement which is mixed with the aggregate etc. [0018] the composition comprises cement [0036] The composition may comprise CSH cement and micro fine cement [0068-0069] slag cement [0133] (meeting the limitation of claim 5 for a plurality of cement)
The composition is mixed with water [0102] added/ poured into a mold, hardened removed from the mold and cured {0103-0108} the water : solids mass ratio is determined by a set of constraining parameters such as the molar ratio of H2O/M2O for metakaolin and fly ash and reactive alkali earth alumino silicates how much superplasticizer and ultrafine and/or submicron filler is applied and wheterh the fine aggregate has moisture content [0113] see also [0114] see also table 2 and 3 water ranges 10-30 and 6-5 wt. 5)(i.e. the water cement ratio is a result effective variable) (meeting the product by process limitations of claims 1 and 5)
Regarding the amount of glass fiber/polymer particles:
See Reference Claims 38-39 for amount of the glass fiber and polymer:
the product further comprises one or more fiber materials selected from group consisting of organic fiber, glass fiber, mineral fiber, basalt fiber, and carbon fiber in amounts of zero to 5 wt.%
Regarding range of alkali solution:
See reference claim 14 where the sodium hydroxides are 2 to 12 wt.% of the product.
Regarding the ground furnace slag:
See claim 5 where the hardening enhancer includes ground granulated blast furnace slag and See claim 12 of the reference where the hardening enhancers are 1 to 50 wt. % of the product.
The claims recite pbw which appears to indicate a ratio of the components. Looking at the ratio of slag to fiber and slag to glass and slag to hydroxide and the corresponding ranges (i.e. range slag/range of glass; range slag/range fiber etc.) the ratios of each component will overlap those of the claimed invention
FIBER: 1-50 (slag) :0-5 (fiber) includes 0.5 pbw fiber
0.2 TO 20 pbw glass
Hydroxide 0.4-12 pbw
Crushed glass 10-20 % includes pbw 0.5
The reference teaches examples where
the blast furnace slag is 14.55 wt.% [0144]
the blast furnace slag is 25.60 wt.% [0157]
The blast furnace slag it 54.21 wt.% [0226]
The organic fiber is 0.5 wt.% [0146 or 0.3 wt.% [0171]
Fine aggregate is 20 wt.% [0158] [0170]
The composition includes alkaline hydroxide such as KOH and NaOH as an activator in a molar concentration of about 3 to 15 M [0119] (overlapping the range of claim 1 for M of alkali solution)
The composition is molded (See claim 77 of reference) such as a 4 x 4 x 16 mold [0287] (i.e. a brick)
Compressive strength correlates to density of the product Fig 4 and 5
PNG
media_image1.png
266
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gong teaches glass fibers and polymers but does not expressly refer to same as waste fiber reinforced polymers which is obtained by crushing waste fiber reinforced polymer of claims 1 and 5.
Gong does not expressly recite the polymers of instant claim 3.
Physical mechanical and thermal behavior of concrete block stabilized with glass fiber reinforced polymer waste published 11/14/2020 Jaqueline Damiany Portela Romulo Marcal Gandia Barbara lemes Outeiro Araujo Rodrigo Alllen Pereira and Francisco Carlos Gomes (“Physical”)
Glass Reinforced polymer waste in a concrete block for high resistance to compression and low price affords physical mechanical and thermal properties. It is added at 0-10 mass %. (Abstract) the glass fiber reinforced polymer is a composite of glass fiber and polyester resin matrix and a catalyst for hardening (P4 2nd to last par) and improves compressive strength (P5 L2-4)
The composition is in the form of a concrete block (P3 section 1)
The composition may comprise Portland cement (P5 2.1.1 )
The physical properties include water absorption and bulk density the mechanical properties include compressive strength toughness and the thermal properties include thermal conductivity (P11 Fig 5. )
The fiber residue use in constructing materials adds to sustainability and provides excellent properties with better physical and mechanical properties (P4 last par)
The glass fiber reinforced polymer is from waste and incudes resin and glass fiber which is crushed (P6 2.1.2) (meeting the limitations for waste fiber reinforced polymer which is crushed)
The composition comprises cement fine gravel, gravel powder and sand P5 2.1.1 the cement is a cement matrix (P3 line 5th from bottom approx.)(meeting the limitation for a plurality of cement)
Examples of the composition:
PNG
media_image2.png
328
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to sue the recycled glass reinforced fiber polymer polyester resin crushed of “Physical” as the fiber reinforcement in Gong as it will impart greater sustainability and impart excellent properties the composition of Gong as to physical and mechanical properties including compressive strength.
In the alternative, assuming arguendo the glass waste of Gong does not render obvious the plurality of glass powders obtained by crushing a waste glass:
Gong already contemplates waste products from a glass manufacturing facility in an amount of 10-20 wt.% but does not expressly recite is a powder (i.e. crushed)
MS Alam, MS Island AM parghi E Marciniak and B Pogue (WO 2015/149176A1) discloses a cement composition comprises a mixture of mine tailings and recycled glass powder and an alkali activator (Abstract)
Sources of aluminosilicates include ground granulated blast furnace slags [0005]
The composition includes a source of aluminosilicate [0024]including fly ash for example, mine tailings, etc. [0034][0074]
The composition may be used as a brick [0030]
Glass includes waste glass fibers and other glassy materials [0032]
The composition includes recycled glass powder [0034] waste glass powder [0038]
The glass powder may be 5-30 % the mine tailings 50-70%, the fly ash 15-30 % (see claim 15 reference)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use glass powder from waste (i.e. that is crushed) in forming the brick of Gong as it is suitable and will further impart sustainability to the composition of Gong.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al (US 2014/0264140) further in view of Physical mechanical and thermal behavior of concrete block stabilized with glass fiber reinforced polymer wste published 11/14/2020 Jaqueline Damiany Portela Romulo Marcal Gandia Barbara lemes Outeiro Araujo Rodrigo Alllen Pereira and Francisco Carlos Gomes and further in view of Shahria Alam M Islam A Parghi, M Marciniak, B Pogue (WO 2015149176A1) and alternatively further in view of MS Alam, MS Island AM parghi E Marciniak and B Pogue (WO 2015/149176A1) as applied to claims 1-3 above further in view of Morita, Yoichi Nakawara Mitsuru Sano Seiji (JP07089012A)
Regarding Claim 4:
Gong teaches the limitations above set forth in that a fiber reinforced cement block/brick is created but does not teach adding a pattern layer by transfer process.
Morita, Yoichi Nakawara Mitsuru Sano Seiji (JP07089012A) teaches a means of efficiently providing top coat layers to a base material such as a fiber reinforced cement panel and to brick like parts to emboss brick like patterns by a transfer process and coat with a clear top coat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to by way of transfer process add a decorative layer to the block/brick of Gong as taught by Morita as fiber reinforced concrete may be embellished with decorative designed in this manner.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Physical mechanical and thermal behavior of concrete block stabilized with glass fiber reinforced polymer wste published 11/14/2020 Jaqueline Damiany Portela Romulo Marcal Gandia Barbara lemes Outeiro Araujo Rodrigo Alllen Pereira and Francisco Carlos Gomes
Regarding Claim 5:
Physical mechanical and thermal behavior of concrete block stabilized with glass fiber reinforced polymer waste published 11/14/2020 Jaqueline Damiany Portela Romulo Marcal Gandia Barbara lemes Outeiro Araujo Rodrigo Alllen Pereira and Francisco Carlos Gomes (“Physical”)
Glass Reinforced polymer waste in a concrete block (block meeting the limitation for a brick) for high resistance to compression (establishing high compressive strength) and low price affords physical mechanical and thermal properties. The glass reinforced polymer is added at 0-10 mass %. (Abstract) the glass fiber reinforced polymer is a composite of glass fiber and polyester resin matrix and a catalyst for hardening (P4 2nd to last par) and improves compressive strength (P5 L2-4)
The composition is in the form of a concrete block (P3 section 1)
The physical properties include water absorption and bulk density the mechanical properties include compressive strength toughness and the thermal properties include thermal conductivity (P11 Fig 5. )
The fiber residue use in constructing materials adds to sustainability and provides excellent properties with better physical and mechanical properties (P4 last par)
The glass fiber reinforced polymer is from waste and incudes resin and glass fiber which is crushed (P6 2.1.2) (meeting the limitations for waste fiber reinforced polymer which is crushed)
The composition may comprise Portland cement (P5 2.1.1 )(plurality of cement)
The composition comprises cement fine gravel, gravel powder and sand P5 2.1.1 the cement is a cement matrix (P3 line 5th from bottom approx.)(meeting the limitation for a plurality of cement)
Examples of the composition
PNG
media_image2.png
328
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(overlapping the claimed ratios 3.6/62.5 is 0.5 fiber 13.75/40 is 0.34 water ratio)
The compositional components are mixed (P20 line 1 and fig 3.2.2) and molded (P7 2.1.2 2nd to last par) and the blocks are cured/hardened (P12 Fig 6)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Physical mechanical and thermal behavior of concrete block stabilized with glass fiber reinforced polymer wste published 11/14/2020 Jaqueline Damiany Portela Romulo Marcal Gandia Barbara lemes Outeiro Araujo Rodrigo Alllen Pereira and Francisco Carlos Gomes further in view of Morita, Yoichi Nakawara Mitsuru Sano Seiji (JP07089012A)
Regarding Claim 6:
“Physical” teaches the limitations above set forth in that a fiber reinforced cement block/brick is created but does not teach adding a pattern layer by transfer process.
Morita, Yoichi Nakawara Mitsuru Sano Seiji (JP07089012A) teaches a means of efficiently providing top coat layers to a base material such as a fiber reinforced cement panel and to brick like parts to emboss brick like patterns by a transfer process and coat with a clear top coat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to by way of transfer process add a decorative layer to the block/brick of “Physical” as taught by Morita as fiber reinforced concrete may be embellished with decorative designed in this manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action. The examiner notes that fiber reinforced concrete/cement blocks/bricks is well known. To wit:
Hemmings US 2004/0250736 discloses a composition comprises glass fiber waste that is ground used in reactive pozzolanic admixture with Portland cement materials and concrete [0015] the composition includes blast furnace slag and fly ash as pozzolanic admixture [0016]
Kuroki et al (US 2018/00009926)
a composition naturalized by sodium hydroxide [0111]
the composition includes a resin of an epoxy, a polyester [0119-0122] [0125-0150]
A filler includes an inorganic filler glass waste [0164] [0168]
Fibers such as glass fibers and polyester fibers [0170] used to enhance the performance in producing molded articles [0172] prevents spalling using glass fibers [0173] the fibers in a range of 0.1 to 100 % of the coating resin [0174]
The substrate is in the form a brick and phenolic and epoxy and polyester resins [0227]
Razi (US 2014/0047999) discloses a cement composite
Includes alkali actives fly ash and ground slag (Abstract)
{0032} The concentration of potassium or sodium hydroxides varies from 3.0% to 15.0% by weight, based on the weight of the matrix (binder), defined as the weight of F-Fly ash alone or F-Fly ash in combination with ground slag. The concentration of liquid sodium or potassium silicate varies from 3-30% by weight, based on the liquid sodium or potassium silicates, containing 8.9% Na.sub.2O or K.sub.2O and 28.7% SiO.sub.2, this based on the weight of the matrix (binder), defined as the weight of F-Fly ash alone, or in combination with ground slag. When using solid sodium or potassium silicates, the typical content varies from 1% to 15% by the weight of the matrix (hinder), this based on the weight of the matrix (binder), defined as the weight of F-Fly ash alone, or in combination with ground slag. The solid sodium or potassium silicates contain 19% Na.sub.2O or K.sub.2O and 61% of SiO.sub.2.
[0038] Fracture toughness, bending/tensile strengths and drying shrinkage cracking is controlled by fibre reinforcement.
Cenospheres ceramic microspheres [0045]
Porous glass particles made from recycled glass ground [0046]
[0058] Fiber reinforcement has number of functions: it reduces drying shrinkage induced cracking and also increases fracture toughness of the composite. The following organic type of fibers can be used: cellulosic fiber and polymeric fibers such as acrylic, polypropylene and others. Inorganic fibers include natural wollastonite fiber, man-made fibers made of basalt, carbon or graphite fibers
The composition may be formed into bricks [0109]
Rathenow (US 2011/0306255) discloses a composition comprising an inorganic binder and fibers. The binder includes water glass and fiber (Abstract)
The composition comprises glass and fly ash [0014] and cement in a range of 5-30 wt.% [0016]
The compositions include fibers such as glass and polymeric fibers such as polypropylene polyethene polyethylene terephthalate etc. [0021] in a range of 0.001 to 9 wt.% [0022]
The fibers may be plasticized with epoxide resin with glass fibers [0025]
The composition may be extruded and used in bricks [0026]
The composition includes for example potassium water glass powder, slag, cement lithium hydroxide and glass powder, 5 % NaOH on a molded article [0050]
Utilization of fiber reinforced plastic waste generated by wind turbine manufacturing componay by N Ramesh Tasneem Abbasi S M Tauseefand S A Abbasi International Journal of Engineering and Scientific Research Vol 6 Issue 2 Feb 2018
Fiber reinforced plastic waste may be used an additive in brick making and in cement manufacture (Abstract)
The fiber reinforced plastic contains fibers of other materials that add strength flexibility and durability. (P103 1.1 )
2.2 Use of the FRP waste in brick manufacturing The schematic is presented in Figure 1. Different proportions, ranging from 3 to 10%, of FRP waste were explored as additive in brick-making. The ingredients used in FRP-added brick making are given in Table 1. The FRP waste was first pulverized in a crusher equipped with stainless steel blades, then sieved, before taking it for brick-making. Bricks containing different proportions of FRP waste were made by thoroughly blending the ingredients (Figure 1) with addition of water to ensure homogeneity, and then moulding under pressure. The molded bricks were air dried for 21 days during which curing also occurred. The bricks were tested as per the ISI building code. 2.3 Use of FRP in cement manufacture Cement is made by heating a mixture of calcareous and argillaceous materials to a temperature of about 1450ºC. This leads to partial fusion and nodules of clinker are formed. The cooled clinker is mixed with a certain quantity of gypsum, and sometimes other cementation materials, and ground into a fine meal-cement. The schematic diagram of the process is given in Figure 2. (P105)
PNG
media_image3.png
192
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
530
1050
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
790
1378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Investigation on the glass fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete made of M Sand by Ganesh A Chihambar and M Muthukannan
Journal of Materials and Engineering Structures 6 (2019) 501-512
Teaches utilization of glass fibers in geopolymer concrete made of manufactured sand to reduce brittleness. The concrete includes fly ash and ground blast furnace glass GGBS. The fibers reinforce the concrete and improve compressive strength split tensile strength impact strength, etc. (Abstract)
Fibre reinforced Geopolymer concrete in this study was made from fly ash, GGBS, M-sand, coarse aggregate, glass fiber and fly ash -class F which has low calcium content.
Sodium hydroxide solution and sodium silicate solution is mixed one day prior to casting and kept ready in the beaker. Ratio of mixture of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solution is kept as 1:2.5The mix design is based on B.V. Rangan mix design [22]. Part 2 P502 last par.
The glass fibers are added in different dosages which are (0.25%. 0.5%, 0.75%, 1% and 1.25% to the Geopolymer concrete made of M-sand. P503 first par.
PNG
media_image6.png
536
1502
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhang, et al (CN 109851269A) discloses a composite comprising fly ash, limestone powder, slag powder ceramic powder volcanic ash and plaster. The composition improves durability (Abstract)
Shandong Middle Powder (CN105293964B) discloses a composite with improved durability comprising: 15 parts of 40 50 parts of waste residue, 20 25 parts of mine tailing, 0.5 0.8 parts of desulfurated plaster, 0.1 0.5 parts of polyester fiber, 12 parts of silica flour, 24 parts of powder and activator；(Abstract)
40-50 parts of waste residue, 20-25 parts of tailings, 0.5-0.8 parts of desulfurized gypsum, 0.1-0.5 parts of polyester fiber, 0.5-1 part of polypropylene fiber, 1-2 parts of silicon powder, 2-4 parts of powder and 1-5 parts of activator.
Further, the main components of the powder are 40-50% broken bricks and 30-35% muck; and/or, the polyester fiber is polybutylene terephthalate fiber and ethylene phthalate The mixture of diester fibers has a mass-to-number ratio of 0.5-1:1.
Further, the activator is prepared from the following components: 2-10 parts of sodium hydroxide, 1-8 parts of sodium metasilicate, 10-30 parts of calcium sulfate, 0.1-2 parts of amides mixture, 0.1-0.3 parts of cellulose ether 0.5-1 part of acrylic acid, 1-2 parts of cyclic hydrocarbon mixture, 0.1-1 part of polymer dispersant and 15-30 parts of water.
Further, the activator is prepared from the following ingredients: 5 parts of sodium hydroxide, 7 parts of sodium metasilicate, 20 parts of calcium sulfate, 0.5 parts of amides mixture, 0.2 parts of cellulose ether, 0.7 parts of acrylic acid, 1 part of cyclo hydrocarbon mixture part, 0.4 part of polymer dispersant and 20 parts of water.
Liu, Li, Liu Sjun, Li and Li (CN110937876A) (LLLSLL) teaches a brick from ed from 30-50 parts nickel iron slag,
10-15 a polymer modified fiber
Bamboo fiber
5-10 parts waste ceramic
2030 parts ceramsite
10-20 parts construction waste
1020 parts silicate cement
2030 parts desulfurized gypsum
5-10 parts silicon micropower
1-8 parts sodium carboxymethyl cellulose beta naphthalene etc. Abstract
The composition of the brick includes a waste polymer fiber
Nickel iron slag nickel-iron slag and fiber comprises the following weight percent of materials:
SiO229.16-38.89 %, Al2O312.24-15.06 %, CaO 8.25-15.51 %, MgO 16.17-18.48 %, Cu 0.01-0.02 %, Ni 0.05-1.28 %, the rest is Fe.
Water glass
The composition is in a mold and pressed to form a brick.
KR 101941179B1 discloses a concrete structure with high strength excellent durability, excellent physical properties such as compressive strength and bending strength etc. [0001] The composition comprises a mortar with 1 to 10 pbw of a polymer, 0.1 to 8 pbw silica fume and 0.5 5o pbw ceramic composite fiber based on 100 pbw cement, 1 to 8 bw strength increasing agent, 30-50 pbw aggregate, 0.5 to 2 pby shrinkage inhibitor 3 to 7 pbw PVapowder resin, 0.1 to 1 pbw antifoaming agent, 5 to 10 pby expanding agent, 1 to 5 pbw powdery silicone water repellent 5 to 15 pbw durability enhancer 1 to 15 pbw limeston powder and 0.1 to 2 pbw nano metal oxide powder.
The fibers include glass fibers and polyester fibers [0026] [0068]
The cement includes slag [0060-0062] such as blast furnace slag as a hardening phase [0078] [0080]
The alkali activating agent includes alkali metal hydroxides such as sodium at 0.1 to 1 pbw based on 100 pbw cement [0103]
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