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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 November 2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 13, 15, 16 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 10,087,108) in view of the admitted prior art of the instant specification or in view of Sipos et al. (“Carbonate removal from concentrated hydroxide solutions”):
Regarding claim 1, Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a method of producing one more dry (see col. 11, lines 4-5: water can be added at the time of use) one-part alkali activate cement products comprising introducing dry starting materials comprising one or more cement precursors (see col. 5, lines 35-57) and one or more alkaline activating agents (see col. 7, lines 11-31) into an impact mixer (see col. 10, line 43), and subjecting the dry starting materials to impact mixing in the impact mixer, to produce the one or more dry one-part alkali-activated cement products that exit the impact mixer (see col. 10, line 43). While the alkaline activating agent is disclosed to comprise “a hydroxide of an alkali metal” (col. 7, line 21), which would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to at once envisage sodium hydroxide (see MPEP 2144.08(II)(A)(4)(a), 717.01(b)(2), In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)), the claimed species are not explicitly disclosed. However, firstly, applicant expressly admits at [0028] of the instant specification “Alkali activators in conventional use are alkaline compounds like carbonates, hydroxides and silicates”. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted an alkaline metal silicate or carbonate for the disclosed hydroxide because applicant expressly admits that these are all conventional alternatives for alkali activators. Alternatively, Sipos explains in column 1 “The most common impurity (besides water) in commercial solid hydroxides is carbonate due to adsorption of atmospheric CO2(g). The carbonate imputity[sic] level is usually 2–3% w/w.” Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a percentage of sodium carbonate along with the hydroxide due to commercial hydroxides having some carbonate and the difficulty of preparing hydroxide without at least some carbonate.
Regarding claim 2, fly ash, blast furnace slag and ground granulated blast furnace slag are disclosed (see col. 5, lines 46-55).
Regarding claim 3, calcium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide and calcium chloride are disclosed (see col. 7, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 4, starting materials are introduce in a single stream (see col. 10, lines 46-55).
Regarding claim 5, the method is continuous (see col. 10, line 51).
Regarding claim 6, while Young does not use the word “geopolymer” the disclosure of fly ash, blast furnace slag and “a hydroxide of an alkali metal” convey this.
Regarding claim 7, Young recognizes mixing time as a result effective variable (see col. 11, lines 25-30); therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have discovered an optimal or workable range for mixing time.
Regarding claim 13, one or more of the dry starting materials is crushed before entering the mixer (see col. 7, line 35).
Regarding claim 15, no exogenous heat is supplied to the materials during the method (see col. 15, lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 16, the one or more dry one-part alkali- activated products materials that exit the impact mixer are ready to use with no further processing (see col. 11, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 31 the one or more dry one-part alkali-activated cement products only require addition of water (see col. 11, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 32, phosphate based materials are disclosed (see col. 8, lines 53-63).
Regarding claim 33, magnesium oxide (col. 7 line 30) is disclosed.
Regarding claim 34, calcium oxide is disclosed (see col. 7, line 27).
Claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 10,087,108) in view of the admitted prior art of the instant specification or in view of Sipos as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Van den Brink et al. (US 4,767,217).
Regarding claim 8, Young does not detail the exact construction of the mixer. Van den Brink teaches a mixer having a conduit (13), a shaft (20) having blades (36); and a cylindrical chamber (4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted the mixer of Van den Brink for that of Young to prevent product buildup and prevent contamination (see the first two columns of Van den Brink).
Regarding claim 9, the mixer of Van den Brink has 4-28 blades (see Fig. 1B)
Regarding claim 10, the shaft of Van den Brink is vertical and the blades are positioned at an angle relative to horizontal of 45 degrees (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 11, each blade of Van den Brink comprises a base, having a first length, attached to a hub that is further attached to the shaft, and a tip, distal to the proximal base and having a second length, wherein the surface of the tip is adjacent to but not in contact with the cylindrical chamber (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 12, a ratio of the second length to the first length of Van den Brink is 0.2-0.8 (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 14, rotation speed of 1000-4000 RPM is taught by Van den Brink (see col. 6, lines 45-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment overcame the anticipation rejection of the previous office action. However, as currently amended the independent claim is considered obvious over Young et al. (US 10,087,108) in view of applicant’s admission in [0028] of the instant specification, or in view of Sipos et al. (“Carbonate removal from concentrated hydroxide solutions”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774