DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 05/21/2026:
claims 1-4 and 6-21 are currently pending
claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration
claim 1 is amended
claim 21 is added
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Hawkins, Yuan, Zhang and Staples are presented herein
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins et al. (US 20180066216 A1), hereinafter referred to as HAWKINS, in view of Yuan et al. (US 20120292256 A1), hereinafter referred to as YUAN, Zhang et al. (WO 2023046825 A1), hereinafter referred to as ZHANG, and Staples et al. (US 6090875 A), hereinafter referred to as STAPLES.
Regarding claim 1, HAWKINS teaches a method for formulation a liquid loading and coating composition (see HAWKINS at Abstract: a method for formulating a cleaning composition contains the step of coating a granular absorbent material), comprising the steps of:
mixing a granular absorbent material with a coating agent (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0004]: coating a granular absorbent material with a coating agent to produce a coated absorbent material),
wherein the coating agent is cleared silane or siloxane water repellant (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0033]: the coating agent contains one or more agents selected from the group consisting of silanes);
wherein the coating agent forms a surface bonded film on the granular absorbent material (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0034]: the coating agent forms a surface bonded film on the granular absorbent material), and
wherein the granular absorbent material is selected from the group consisting of perlite, or a combination of perlite with one or more absorbent materials selected from the group consisting of ceramic materials, zeolite, activated carbon, fumed silica, processed clays, cellulosic absorbents, and fibrous absorbents (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0017]: the granular absorbent material contains activated carbon, fumed silica, fine perlite, zeolites, processed clays or combinations thereof), and
heating and continued mixing of the granular absorbent material with the coating agent to form a coated absorbent material (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0034]: the vapor deposition is performed by thermal heating the coating agent and the granular absorbent);
mixing the coated absorbent material with a de-dusting agent (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0059]: the modifying agent is added to the coated granular absorbent or the absorbed-and-coated granular absorbent in an amount to achieve desired physical characteristics (e.g., non-dusty)).
While HAWKINS teaches that the coating agent is applied to the granular absorbent material by vapor deposition, and that the vapor deposition is performed by thermal heating the coating agent and the granular absorbent (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0034]), HAWKINS is silent with respect to the perlite being mixed with coating agent for 5 to 10 minutes prior to superheating, and superheating and continued mixing of the granular absorbent material with the coating agent at about 400 to about 500 F for 5 to less than 10 minutes to form a coated absorbent material.
However, YUAN discloses a method for making a hydrophobic material includes providing a natural mineral, providing a silicone-based material, heating the silicone-based material to release vaporous molecules of the silicone-based material, and depositing the vaporous molecules of the silicone-based material to form a layer of the silicone-based material on surfaces of the natural mineral (see YUAN at paragraph [0009]). YUAN also discloses the use of recycled silicon materials as the starting materials, which can reduce the material cost in manufacturing (see YUAN at paragraph [0020]); and that the coating method can change the surface attribute from hydrophilic to hydrophobic (see YUAN at paragraph [0015]). YUAN teaches porous natural minerals such as pumice, diatomite, bentonite, zeolite, expanded perlite and vermiculite, etc. (see YUAN at paragraph [0014]). YUAN also teaches that the cured silicone rubber and the porous natural mineral are put in an enclosed heating chamber, such as a covered glass or aluminum container, and heated at various temperatures between 100° and 400°C (see YUAN at paragraph [0020]). YUAN discloses a method of preparing coated perlite comprising the steps of placing cured silicone rubber and expanded perlite in a covered glass plate, which is then heated at about 250°C in a furnace with digital thermometer for about 10 minutes (see YUAN at paragraph [0032]). Furthermore, ZHANG discloses a preparation process of a material comprising expanded perlite and polysiloxane water repellent (see ZHANG at Abstract). ZHANG also discloses the process comprising the steps of mixing expanded perlite and water repellent with a stirring rod for about 5 minutes until the mixture became uniform (see ZHANG at paragraph 3, p. 12). Thus, based on a disclosure of ZHANG describing mixing perlite and polysiloxane for about 5 minutes, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success mixing a coating agent and granular absorbent for about 5 minutes to obtain uniform mixture. See MPEP §2143(I)(E): “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”. Additionally, YUAN teaches that the silicone vapor deposition coating process can be integrated with an expanding process of perlite and vermiculite, so that the energy cost of the vapor deposition coating can be reduced or eliminated (see YUAN at paragraph [0022]).
Both HAWKINS and YUAN disclose method of coating perlite with siloxane coating by vapor deposition. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the method of HAWKINS by mixing silicone rubber and expanded perlite followed by heating the mixture at about 250°C for about 10 minutes, and integrating the silicone vapor deposition coating process with an expanding process of perlite, as disclosed by YUAN since YUAN explicitly teaches that by integrating the vapor coating process with an expanding process of perlite reduces or eliminates the energy cost of the vapor deposition coating (see YUAN at paragraph [0022]). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of mixing a coating material and perlite for about 5 minutes prior to heating, as disclosed by ZHANG, since ZHANG explicitly teaches mixing until the mixture is uniform (see ZHANG at paragraph 3, p. 12). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the recycled silicone materials as the starting materials, thus reducing the material cost in manufacturing (see YUAN at paragraph [0020]).
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 HAWKINS by integrating the silicone vapor deposition coating process with an expanding process of perlite as disclosed by YUAN in order to reduce or eliminate the energy cost of the vapor deposition coating. Thus, HAWKINS as modified by YUAN teaches wherein the perlite has been superheated at about 400 to about 500 F (see YUAN at paragraph [0020]: the cured silicone rubber and the porous natural mineral are heated at various temperatures between 100°C and 400°C/212 and 752 F). 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I)).
While HAWKINS teaches adding the modifying agent to the coated granular absorbent or the absorbed-and-coated granular absorbent in an amount to achieve desired physical characteristics (e.g., non-dusty) (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0059]), HAWKINS fails to explicitly teach wherein the coated absorbent material absorbs the de-dusting agent to form the composition, and wherein the de-dusting agent is a liquid.
However, STAPLES discloses polymer compositions having reduced dusting tendencies (see STAPLES at Abstract). STAPLES also discloses that for ease of contacting the hydrophobic dedusting agent with the polymer, it is preferred that the dedusting agent be liquid (see STAPLES at Col. 7, lines 43-45), and that exemplary hydrophobic dedusting agents may include aliphatic hydrocarbon oils; natural oils such as castor, corn, cottonseed, olive, rapeseed, soybean are also useful (see STAPLES at Col. 7, lines 58-64).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when modifying the coated material of HAWKINS by including hydrophobic dedusting agents such as liquid rapeseed oil as disclosed by STAPLES, based on teachings of HAWKINS describing adding the modifying agent to the coated granular absorbent or the absorbed-and-coated granular absorbent in an amount to achieve desired physical characteristics (e.g., non-dusty) (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0059]). The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
While HAWKINS is silent with respect to the coating composition for anti-slipping, HAWKINS as modified by YUAN, ZHANG and STAPLES teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and discloses utilizing the same materials and the same method. Accordingly, the method for forming a liquid loading and coating composition disclosed by HAWKINS as modified by YUAN, ZHANG and STAPLES necessarily comprises the claimed functions such as anti-slipping. See MPEP §2112.01(I): “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”.
Regrading claim 2, HAWKINS as modified by YUAN, ZHANG and STAPLES teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the de-dusting agent is rapeseed oil (see rejection of claim 1 above and STAPLES at Col. 7, lines 58-64: exemplary hydrophobic dedusting agents may include natural oils such as castor, corn, cottonseed, olive, rapeseed, soybean).
Regarding claim 3, HAWKINS as modified by YUAN, ZHANG and STAPLES teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the composition is hydrophobic (see rejection of claim 1 above and YUAN at paragraph [0015]: the coating method can change the surface attribute from hydrophilic to hydrophobic; and STAPLES at Col. 7, lines 58-64: hydrophobic dedusting agents).
Regarding claim 4, HAWKINS as modified by YUAN, ZHANG and STAPLES teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the granular absorbent material is perlite (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0017]: the granular absorbent material contains fine perlite).
Regarding claim 21, YUAN as modified by YUAN, ZHANG and STAPLES teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the coated absorbent material is further coated with an anti-microbial agent after mixing with the de-dusting agent (see HAWKINS at paragraph [0004]: mixing the coated absorbent material with a sanitation agent).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that YUAN teaches heating the granular absorbent material and coating agent immediately upon introducing them to one another and then superheating them for a period of time longer than the "5 to less than10 minutes" recited in amended Claim 1, and thus, fails to cure the deficiencies of HAWKINS. See Remarks received on 05/21/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 9-10.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claim1 above, YUAN discloses a method of preparation of coated perlite comprising the steps of placing cured silicone rubber and expanded perlite with grain size range from 3 mm to 6 mm are in a covered glass plate which is then heated at about 250°C/482 F in a furnace with digital thermometer for about 10 minutes (see YUAN at paragraph [0032]). It is noted, that YUAN does not explicitly teach heating perlite and a coating agent immediately upon introducing them to each other. According to MPEP §2123(I): “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)”. Furthermore, mixing granular mineral such as perlite with polysiloxane prior to heating is known in the art, as evidenced from the disclosure of ZHANG describing a preparation process of a material comprising expanded perlite and polysiloxane water repellent (see ZHANG at Abstract), comprising the steps of mixing expanded perlite and water repellent with a stirring rod for about 5 minutes until the mixture became uniform (see ZHANG at paragraph 3, p. 12). Thus, the aforementioned disclosure of ZHANG would provide a person of ordinary skill with a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. Moreover, 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" (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Additionally, it is noted that the Applicant is alleging unexpected results: “Applicant has surprisingly found that the initial mixing of the granular absorbent material and the coating agent for 5 to 10 minutes prior to superheating allows one to create a superior anti-slipping composition with a shorter superheating time” (see Remarks received on 05/21/2026 at paragraph 2, p. 10). There is no factual basis of such allegation and the arguments do not take the place of factual evidence. See MPEP §716.01(c): "It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence." "[A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument."). See also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991).
The rejection of claims as being unpatentable over YUAN in view of YUAN, ZHANG and STAPLES is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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 at 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights