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 with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that first there is a common technical feature. This is not found persuasive because “special technical feature” is a unity of invention analysis performed on National Stage Applications under 35 U.S.C. 371 which is not applicable here. Additionally, Applicant argues that there is no burden and that the related processes are not mutually exclusive.
The related processes are mutually exclusive because the AI model is not required in the process of Group I, and would materially change the results of the process of Group II. There are also calculations required in the process of Group II that are not required in the process of Group I, thus further differentiating the processes.
Also, as discussed in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims 18-20 are not limited by the recited steps, but instead, the structure implied by the recited steps. Products that are made by different processes that have the same structure would still meet the claims.
Furthermore, claims 18-20 are not proper multiple dependent claims as they are currently drafted, and would not be treated on the merits even if not included in the restriction requirement. See MPEP 608.01(n).
Additionally, serious search and/or examination burden exists, as previously outlined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2/2/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the words “Applying” and “Incubating” should be in lower case and read “applying” and “incubating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “independent claim 1” should read “claim 1” in the preamble of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The” in “The mixture” should be in lower case and instead read “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the binder source" in several locations in the claim after introducing “at least one binder source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The element introduced is “at least one binder source” – and since there can be more than one binder source in the claim, “the binder source” would be ambiguous in this instance – and should be amended to read “the at least one binder source.” Dependent claims are also rejected under the same rationale, including each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “(including post-consumer)” which is a parenthetical – and as such, is not clear whether this parenthetical is a specific part of the claim, or an example of what is claimed.
Regarding claims 7-8, Claims 7-8 each recites the limitation "the binder source" after claim 1 introduces “at least one binder source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be amended as claim 1 is suggested to be amended above as to read “the at least one binder source.”
Regarding claims 9-10, it is not clear what “formula” is used or how it is used in order to “optimize the resulting article’s ability to capture various elements and compounds.” The metes and bounds of this limitation are not clear.
Furthermore, it is not clear what is meant by “optimize target structural characteristics imparted on resulting articles . . . “ in claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2014/0342156), hereinafter Seo, in view of Kawuchi et al. (US 2019/0389770), hereinafter Kawuchi.
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, and 13, Seo discloses a method for producing a geopolymer article comprising:
(a) weighing at least one binder source from a set of waste materials or industrial byproducts (par. 0043), that includes aluminum (Al) and silica atoms (par. 0043, 0048), one or more porosity components (par. 0062 – “altering the crystallinity or porosity”), and one or more capture components (zeolite – par. 0010, 0061, also meets claim 5);
(b) applying a zeolite activator (“alkaline or acidic solution” – par. 0043) to incite zeolite nucleation within at least a portion of the binder source (par. 0060-0061);
(c) applying a zeolite arrestor (par. 0047 - “other components” which includes ethylene glycol as also claimed in claim 6) which would have the result of suppressing further zeolite formation;
(d) applying a geopolymer activator (the alkaline or acidic solution of par. 0043 functions as both a geopolymer activator and a zeolite activator; sodium hydroxide as in at least example 1, par. 0080) to the (at least one) binder source in a range of 0.4 activator (Example 5, par. 0084 has 25 g of NaOH and 60 g of binder – metakaolinite);
(e) mixing the geopolymer (e.g., example 5, par. 0084) activator and binder source until the mixture becomes formable (homogenous mixture – par. 0084; par. 0106 uses sheet molds);
(f) forming an article form the mixture (e.g., example 26, par. 0106) which would be an example of additive manufacturing; and (g) allowing the article to cure (par. 0112).
Seo does not explicitly disclose that the source of the binder is from waste products or industrial byproducts.
However, Kawuchi discloses a similar method to that of Seo in that it likewise produces a moldable geopolymer from an alumina-silica material (Kawuchi, par. 0037). One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have recognized before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that such a material can be derived from waste/post-industrial sources and does not need to be derived from brand new sources. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the alumina-silica material being used in the composition is derived from post-industrial or waste sources, as is required in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, Seo/Kawuchi discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the binder source is at least fly ash (Seo, par. 0048).
Regarding claim 3, Seo/Kawuchi discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the porosity component is aluminum (Seo, par. 0048).
Regarding claims 7-8, Seo/Kawuchi discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and furher discloses that there is 40-85% silica and the same amount of aluminum (Seo, par. 0081). However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are met, it is not inventive to discover the workable or optimum ranges. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have specified that the silica and aluminum content in the binder are within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 9-10, Seo/Kawuchi discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and these limitations are viewed as contingent upon the article being produced. See MPEP 2111.
Regarding claim 11, Seo/Kawuchi discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that there is kaolinite (Seo, par. 0043).
Regarding claim 12, Seo/Kawuchi discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the geopolymer activator has a silicon dioxide ratio to metal oxide of about 1.95 (Seo, par. 0080).
Regarding claim 14, Seo/Kawuchi discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the zeolite nucleation occurs at 60 C (Seo, par. 0085).
Regarding claim 15, Seo/Kawuchi discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the article cures at 60 C in at least one example (Seo, par. 0112) for two days, which falls between the 1 hour to 28 day range as required in the claim and can also take place at ambient temperature (Seo, par. 0044).
Conclusion
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742