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 .
Response to Amendment
The finality of the previous office action is withdrawn and the amendment filed 14 September 2026 is entered as simplifying issues for appeal as applicant states.
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 and Van den Brink et al. (US 4,767,217):
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). Young teaches a resident time range overlapping the claimed range (see col. 11, line 36); it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined an optimal or workable range within the prior art range. While the alkaline activating agent is disclosed to comprise "a hydroxide of an alkali metal" (col. 7, line 21), the claimed species are not explicitly disclosed. 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. Young does not detail the exact construction of the mixer. Van den Brink teaches a mixer having a shaft (20) having blades (36) and which is configured to rotate at 500-5000rpm (see col. 6, lines 45-55). 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 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 25-36); 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 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 and Sipos et al. ("Carbonate removal from concentrated hydroxide solutions") and Van den Brink et al. (US 4,767,217):
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). Young teaches a resident time range overlapping the claimed range (see col. 11, line 36); it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined an optimal or workable range within the prior art range. 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. 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. Young does not detail the exact construction of the mixer. Van den Brink teaches a mixer having a shaft (20) having blades (36) and which is configured to rotate at 500-5000 rpm (see col. 6, lines 45-55). 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 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 25-36); 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has been entered.
No claims are rejected under section 112 as currently amended.
The 103 grounds for rejection are essentially the same as before; however, previously in the body of the rejection as obvious over Young in view of Sipos, Van den Brink was also being relied upon and no admitted prior art was being relied upon. The body of the rejection is unchanged, but the initial statement of the rejection is restated to be Young in view of Sipos and Van den Brink to match the body of the rejection.
Applicant requested the Board decision in 15/012,676 be made of record in this application, so a copy of the decision has been provided and the decision has been listed on a Notice of References Cited.
As applicant points out, Young does not numerically disclose a RPM value for the mixer. Nonetheless, the statement “variable speed mixer” in col. 11, lines 16-19 is a recognition of mixer speeding being a variable for optimization. As held in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955): "where 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." Both time and speed are recognized as variable for optimization by Young.
That Young refers to an “impact mixer” without detailing its construction is reason enough to turn to the prior art, such as Van den Brink, for such construction.
The instant specification emphasizes that “When more than one alkaline activation material is present, for example, two different alkaline activation materials or three different alkaline activation materials, each individual alkaline activation material may be present at any suitable percentage” (page 12, lines 31-34). Therefore, the alkaline activation material containing 2-3% sodium carbonate is exactly what applicant is claiming. Then in dependent claim 3 it is explained that the alkaline activation material further comprises sodium hydroxide. Sodium hydroxide having a small percentage of sodium carbonate is exactly what applicant is claiming. The presence of 2-3% carbonate in the hydroxide is bordering on being inherent for practical purposes. Only with great effort could it be brought down to a lower percentage. The motivation of having the carbonate is simply to avoid the extreme effort of trying to remove it.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights