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 without traverse of Group I claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/2025
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2025 and 9/25/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea KR 10-2023-0074275 on June 9, 2023 It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Note Priority Document Exchange Failure Status Report mailed 11/9/2024
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Enhancement of Strength and Resistance to Sulfate Attach in BioCoating Material through Negative Pressure Method for Bacteria Immobilization by Keun Hyeok Yang Seung Jun Kwon and Hyun Sub Yoon Appl Sci 2021, 11, 9113
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6-7
Enhancement of Strength and Resistance to Sulfate Attach in BioCoating Material through Negative Pressure Method for Bacteria Immobilization by Keun Hyeok Yang Seung Jun Kwon and Hyun Sub Yoon Appl Sci 2021, 11, 9113 teaches:
Enhancement teaches negative pressure process for enhanced immobilization of bacteria for the composition (P5) See Section 4 and Fib 6(meeting claim 7)
Enhancement teaches bacteria of Rhodobacter capsulatus which forms slimes (glycocalyx) (P5-6)(meeting claims 1 and 8)
The bacteria mix is added to expanded vermiculite which is a porous material (P6) and Sand at 35 % (See Table 2) (meeting the limitation for an aggregate of claim 1 including a porous material of claim 1 wherein the porous material is expanded vermiculite of claim 6)
The examples of the composition includes embodiments of ground blast furnace slag, ordinary Portland cement, and fly ash (Table 1) and Table 2 where the binder composition is added at 20 wt.% to fly ash and sand of 35 % (i.e. normal aggregate)
PNG
media_image1.png
290
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The composition is a concrete composition (P3)
Benefits of negative pressure method:
As a result of applying a negative pressure method (NPM) that forcibly removes the internal air through a pressure of 10–20 torr, it was possible to obtain the immobilization rate of Rhodobacter capsualtus 2.2 to 3.3 times that of the simple soaking method (SSM). The variation in strength was not significantly different between the two methods after 4 weeks of immersion in a 5% sulfuric acid solution.
As a result of evaluating the decreasing rate in strength and mass after sulfuric acid immersion for the normal repair specimen, SSM specimen, and NPM specimen, resistance to sulfate was highest in the coating repair by NPM. In addition, the NPM specimen showed more than 3.0 times the bacterial count compared to the SSM specimen. The slime thickness of bio-coating was evaluated at 90 μm from the SEM analysis and enhanced the resistance to sulfate ingress. The sulfate diffusion coefficient from NPM showed a lower result from SSM by 15%, which was consistent with the test results of the strength and mass variation after sulfate acid immersion.
The XRD analysis result confirmed that the effect of the sulfate ions which penetrated the bio-coating repair did not significantly affect the properties of the base concrete. In particular, the peak intensity of gypsum (acid-deteriorated hydrates) from XRD decreased in the bio-coating slime treated with NPM, which showed improved resistance to sulfate ingress. The TGA analysis in NPM also showed the mass reduction curve closest to that of the virgin concrete that is not affected by sulfate attack, which means that the repair material by the proposed NPM is highly effective to blocking the intrusion of sulfate ions and preventing the base concrete from sulfate ingress.
The newly developed technique for NPM was effective to protect sulfate ion penetration; however, future research is still needed on quality control in the mass production of bio-coating material and the automated repairing method for coating thickness control.
(See 5. Conclusions) (further meeting claim 7)
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by KR 102396340B1
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 6
KR 102396340B1 discloses an aggregate mixture comprising a porous material immobilized with glycocalyx producing bacteria and aggregate comprising flay ash blast furnace slag and cement and
See reference claims excerpted below – emphasis by examiner:
1. An aggregate mixture comprising a porous material and fine aggregate to which glycocalyx-producing bacteria are fixed; a binder comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of fly ash and blast furnace slag, and cement; And Concrete coating composition comprising water.
2. The concrete coating composition of claim 1 , wherein the bacterium is Rhodobacter capsulatus.(meeting claims 1 and 8 for alkalophilic bacteria having a carbon dioxide adsorption mechanism forming glycocalyx and the species of claim 4)
3. The concrete coating composition of claim 1 , wherein the porous material is expanded vermiculite (EV), super absorbent polymer (SAP), or a mixture thereof.
(meeting claims 1, 6, and 8)
5. The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the binder further comprises an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) re-emulsifiable powder resin. (meeting claim 8 for a polymer powder and claim 11 for ethylene vinyl acetate resin)
6. The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the aggregate mixture is a porous material in which the glycocalyx-producing bacteria is fixed and the aggregate is mixed in a weight ratio of 4:6 to 2:8.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the aggregate mixture comprising the porous material and fine aggregate to which the glycocalyx-producing bacteria is immobilized, the binder comprising cement, and water are selected from the group consisting of: water: aggregate mixture: binder = 25 to 40: 150 to 250: Contained in a weight ratio of 100, the concrete coating composition.
8. A concrete structure comprising a coating layer formed of the concrete coating composition of any one of claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 on at least one surface of the concrete structure.
Additional Excerpts from machine translation (emphasis added by examiner)
[0028] the bacteria includes rhodobacter capsulatus fixed in expanded vermiculite for the porous material in which the bacteria is immobilized. (meeting claims 4 and 6)
[0034] Furthermore, a binder obtained by mixing Ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in a weight ratio of 35:20:45 is mixed with the aggregate It was mixed with the aggregate so that the weight ratio of the binder was 2.0.
[0079] [In Example 1, Ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) were mixed in a weight ratio of 40:20:40, A concrete coating composition was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that water corresponding to 35/100 of the weight of the binder was used. ]
[0081] [In Example 2, Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA), blast furnace slag (ground granulated blast furnace slag, GGBS) and ethylene vinyl acetate (Ethylene vinyl acetate, EVA) A concrete coating composition was prepared in the same manner as in Example 2, except that a binder in which the re-emulsified powder resin was mixed in a weight ratio of 36:18:36:10 was used. (meeting the limitation of claim 8 for binder with ordinary Portland cement, fly ash, blast furnace slag and polymer powder)
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102396340B1 as applied to claims 1, 4 and 6 above
Regarding Claims 2-3:
KR 102396340B1 discloses the limitations above set forth and further discloses an aggregate mixture comprising a porous material immobilized with glycocalyx producing bacteria and aggregate comprising flay ash blast furnace slag and cement and
1. An aggregate mixture comprising a porous material and fine aggregate to which glycocalyx-producing bacteria are fixed; a binder comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of fly ash and blast furnace slag, and cement; And Concrete coating composition comprising water.
2. The concrete coating composition of claim 1 , wherein the bacterium is Rhodobacter capsulatus.(meeting claims 1 and 8 for alkalophilic bacteria having a carbon dioxide adsorption mechanics forming glycocalyx and the species of claim 4)
3. The concrete coating composition of claim 1 , wherein the porous material is expanded vermiculite (EV), super absorbent polymer (SAP), or a mixture thereof.
(meeting claims 1, 6, and 8)
5. The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the binder further comprises an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) re-emulsifiable powder resin. (meeting claim 8 for a polymer powder and claim 11 for ethylene vinyl acetate resin)
6. The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the aggregate mixture is a porous material in which the glycocalyx-producing bacteria is fixed and the aggregate is mixed in a weight ratio of 4:6 to 2:8.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the aggregate mixture comprising the porous material and fine aggregate to which the glycocalyx-producing bacteria is immobilized, the binder comprising cement, and water are selected from the group consisting of: water: aggregate mixture: binder = 25 to 40: 150 to 250: Contained in a weight ratio of 100, the concrete coating composition.
8. A concrete structure comprising a coating layer formed of the concrete coating composition of any one of claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 on at least one surface of the concrete structure.
[0028] the bacteria includes rhodobacter capsulatus fixed in expanded vermiculite for the porous material in which the bacteria is immobilized. (meeting claims 4 and 6)
[0034] Furthermore, a binder obtained by mixing Ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in a weight ratio of 35:20:45 is mixed with the aggregate It was mixed with the aggregate so that the weight ratio of the binder was 2.0. (overlapping claims 3, 9-10 and 12 )
PNG
media_image2.png
206
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0079] [In Example 1, Ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) were mixed in a weight ratio of 40:20:40, A concrete coating composition was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that water corresponding to 35/100 of the weight of the binder was used. ]
[0081] [In Example 2, Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA), blast furnace slag (ground granulated blast furnace slag, GGBS) and ethylene vinyl acetate (Ethylene vinyl acetate, EVA) A concrete coating composition was prepared in the same manner as in Example 2, except that a binder in which the re-emulsified powder resin was mixed in a weight ratio of 36:18:36:10 was used. (meeting the limitation of claim 8 for binder with ordinary Portland cement, fly ash, blast furnace slag and polymer powder) (overlapping claims 3, 9-10 and 12)
The ratios and ranges as above set forth render obvious the instantly claimed ranges in overlapping amounts. 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)"
Further with regard to the claimed ranges:
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)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102396340B1 as applied to claims 1, 2-3, 4 and 6 above further in view of Enhancement of Strength and Resistance to Sulfate Attach in BioCoating Material through Negative Pressure Method for Bacteria Immobilization by Keun Hyeok Yang Seung Jun Kwon and Hyun Sub Yoon Appl Sci 2021, 11, 9113
Regarding Claim 7:
KR 102396340B1 discloses an aggregate mixture comprising a porous material immobilized with glycocalyx producing bacteria and aggregate comprising flay ash blast furnace slag and cement and
1. An aggregate mixture comprising a porous material and fine aggregate to which glycocalyx-producing bacteria are fixed; a binder comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of fly ash and blast furnace slag, and cement; And Concrete coating composition comprising water.
2. The concrete coating composition of claim 1 , wherein the bacterium is Rhodobacter capsulatus.(meeting claims 1 and 8 for alkalophilic bacteria having a carbon dioxide adsorption mechanics forming glycocalyx and the species of claim 4)
3. The concrete coating composition of claim 1 , wherein the porous material is expanded vermiculite (EV), super absorbent polymer (SAP), or a mixture thereof.
(meeting claims 1, 6, and 8)
5. The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the binder further comprises an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) re-emulsifiable powder resin. (meeting claim 8 for a polymer powder and claim 11 for ethylene vinyl acetate resin)
6. The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the aggregate mixture is a porous material in which the glycocalyx-producing bacteria is fixed and the aggregate is mixed in a weight ratio of 4:6 to 2:8.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the aggregate mixture comprising the porous material and fine aggregate to which the glycocalyx-producing bacteria is immobilized, the binder comprising cement, and water are selected from the group consisting of: water: aggregate mixture: binder = 25 to 40: 150 to 250: Contained in a weight ratio of 100, the concrete coating composition.
8. A concrete structure comprising a coating layer formed of the concrete coating composition of any one of claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 on at least one surface of the concrete structure.
[0028] the bacteria includes rhodobacter capsulatus fixed in expanded vermiculite for the porous material in which the bacteria is immobilized. (meeting claims 4 and 6)
[0034] Furthermore, a binder obtained by mixing Ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in a weight ratio of 35:20:45 is mixed with the aggregate It was mixed with the aggregate so that the weight ratio of the binder was 2.0.
[0079] [In Example 1, Ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) were mixed in a weight ratio of 40:20:40, A concrete coating composition was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that water corresponding to 35/100 of the weight of the binder was used. ]
[0081] [In Example 2, Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA), blast furnace slag (ground granulated blast furnace slag, GGBS) and ethylene vinyl acetate (Ethylene vinyl acetate, EVA) A concrete coating composition was prepared in the same manner as in Example 2, except that a binder in which the re-emulsified powder resin was mixed in a weight ratio of 36:18:36:10 was used. (meeting the limitation of claim 8 for binder with ordinary Portland cement, fly ash, blast furnace slag and polymer powder)
KR 102396340B1 discloses the limitations above set forth but does not disclose impregnating the porous material with bacteria under negative pressure conditions.
Enhancement of Strength and Resistance to Sulfate Attach in BioCoating Material through Negative Pressure Method for Bacteria Immobilization by Keun Hyeok Yang Seung Jun Kwon and Hyun Sub Yoon Appl Sci 2021, 11, 9113 teaches:
Enhancement teaches negative pressure process for enhanced immobilization of bacteria for the composition (P5) See Section 4 and Fib 6(meeting claim 7)
Enhancement teaches bacteria of Rhodobacter capsulatus which forms slimes (glycocalyx) (P5-6)(meeting claims 1 and 8)
The bacteria mix is added to expanded vermiculite which is a porous material (P6) and Sand at 35 % (See Table 2) (meeting the limitation for an aggregate of claim 1 including a porous material of claim 1 wherein the porous material is expanded vermiculite of claim 6)
The examples of the composition includes embodiments of ground blast furnace slag, ordinary Portland cement, and fly ash (Table 1) and Table 2 where the binder composition is added at 20 wt.% to fly ash and sand of 35 % (i.e. normal aggregate)
PNG
media_image1.png
290
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The composition is a concrete composition (P3)
Benefits of negative pressure method:
As a result of applying a negative pressure method (NPM) that forcibly removes the internal air through a pressure of 10–20 torr, it was possible to obtain the immobilization rate of Rhodobacter capsualtus 2.2 to 3.3 times that of the simple soaking method (SSM). The variation in strength was not significantly different between the two methods after 4 weeks of immersion in a 5% sulfuric acid solution.
As a result of evaluating the decreasing rate in strength and mass after sulfuric acid immersion for the normal repair specimen, SSM specimen, and NPM specimen, resistance to sulfate was highest in the coating repair by NPM. In addition, the NPM specimen showed more than 3.0 times the bacterial count compared to the SSM specimen. The slime thickness of bio-coating was evaluated at 90 μm from the SEM analysis and enhanced the resistance to sulfate ingress. The sulfate diffusion coefficient from NPM showed a lower result from SSM by 15%, which was consistent with the test results of the strength and mass variation after sulfate acid immersion.
The XRD analysis result confirmed that the effect of the sulfate ions which penetrated the bio-coating repair did not significantly affect the properties of the base concrete. In particular, the peak intensity of gypsum (acid-deteriorated hydrates) from XRD decreased in the bio-coating slime treated with NPM, which showed improved resistance to sulfate ingress. The TGA analysis in NPM also showed the mass reduction curve closest to that of the virgin concrete that is not affected by sulfate attack, which means that the repair material by the proposed NPM is highly effective to blocking the intrusion of sulfate ions and preventing the base concrete from sulfate ingress.
The newly developed technique for NPM was effective to protect sulfate ion penetration; however, future research is still needed on quality control in the mass production of bio-coating material and the automated repairing method for coating thickness control.
(See 5. Conclusions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to impregnate the porous material with bacteria in KR 102396340B1 as taught by Enhancement to improve the composition thereof as taught by Enhancement such as improved strength with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102396340B1 as applied to claims 1, 2, 3-4 and 6 above further in view of KR 102324112B1
Regarding Claims 8, 11 and 13:
KR 102396340B1 discloses the limitations above set forth.
KR 102396340B1 discloses an aggregate mixture comprising a porous material immobilized with glycocalyx producing bacteria and aggregate comprising flay ash blast furnace slag and cement and
1. An aggregate mixture comprising a porous material and fine aggregate to which glycocalyx-producing bacteria are fixed; a binder comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of fly ash and blast furnace slag, and cement; And Concrete coating composition comprising water.
2. The concrete coating composition of claim 1 , wherein the bacterium is Rhodobacter capsulatus.(meeting claims 1 and 8 for alkalophilic bacteria having a carbon dioxide adsorption mechanics forming glycocalyx and the species of claim 4)
3. The concrete coating composition of claim 1 , wherein the porous material is expanded vermiculite (EV), super absorbent polymer (SAP), or a mixture thereof.
(meeting claims 1, 6, and 8)
5. The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the binder further comprises an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) re-emulsifiable powder resin. (meeting claim 8 for a polymer powder and claim 11 for ethylene vinyl acetate resin)
6. The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the aggregate mixture is a porous material in which the glycocalyx-producing bacteria is fixed and the aggregate is mixed in a weight ratio of 4:6 to 2:8.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the aggregate mixture comprising the porous material and fine aggregate to which the glycocalyx-producing bacteria is immobilized, the binder comprising cement, and water are selected from the group consisting of: water: aggregate mixture: binder = 25 to 40: 150 to 250: Contained in a weight ratio of 100, the concrete coating composition.
8. A concrete structure comprising a coating layer formed of the concrete coating composition of any one of claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 on at least one surface of the concrete structure.
[0028] the bacteria includes rhodobacter capsulatus fixed in expanded vermiculite for the porous material in which the bacteria is immobilized. (meeting claims 4 and 6)
[0034] Furthermore, a binder obtained by mixing Ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in a weight ratio of 35:20:45 is mixed with the aggregate It was mixed with the aggregate so that the weight ratio of the binder was 2.0. (overlapping claims 3, 9-10 and 12 )
PNG
media_image2.png
206
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0079] [In Example 1, Ordinary portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) were mixed in a weight ratio of 40:20:40, A concrete coating composition was prepared in the same manner as in Example 1, except that water corresponding to 35/100 of the weight of the binder was used. ]
[0081] [In Example 2, Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA), blast furnace slag (ground granulated blast furnace slag, GGBS) and ethylene vinyl acetate (Ethylene vinyl acetate, EVA) A concrete coating composition was prepared in the same manner as in Example 2, except that a binder in which the re-emulsified powder resin was mixed in a weight ratio of 36:18:36:10 was used. (meeting the limitation of claim 8 for binder with ordinary Portland cement, fly ash, blast furnace slag and polymer powder) (overlapping claims 3, 9-10 and 12)
The ratios and ranges as above set forth render obvious the instantly claimed ranges in overlapping amounts. 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)
The concrete coating composition of claim 1, wherein the binder further comprises an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) re-emulsifiable powder resin. (meeting claim 8 for a polymer powder and claim 11 for ethylene vinyl acetate resin)
KR 102396340B1 does not expressly disclose the composition comprising a fiber material comprising polyethylene and/or nylon having a diameter of 100 microns to 140 microns
KR 102324112B1 discloses a slime forming bacterium material for use concrete compositions comprising ordinary Portland cement and an EVA polymer which includes as a salt damage resistance repair material polyethylene fibers and fine aggregate and a porous carrier to which chlorine ion decomposing bacteria and halophilic slime forming bacteria are fixed and mixed (Abstract)
Excerpted Translation (emphasis added by examiner):
In addition, the polyethylene fiber is a component added to impart strength and rigidity reinforcement to the salt damage resistance repair material, and a polyethylene fiber material having an average diameter of 50 to 200 μm, preferably 100 to 150 μm may be used. (meeting claim 8 for fiber of polyethylene and claim 13 overlapping range of diameter).
The content of the polyethylene fiber is preferably 0.1 to 0.3 parts by volume with respect to 100 parts by volume of the repair material, (overlapping the range of claim 9)
The chlorine ion-decomposing bacteria is Halomonas venusta ( Halomonas venusta ), and the basophil slime-forming bacteria are Sulfitobacter mediterraneus ) Concrete cross-section repair material in a salt-damaged environment, characterized in that it is.
PNG
media_image3.png
120
758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
236
770
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the polyethylene fibers in the diameter and amounts taught by KR 102324112B1 in the composition of KR 102396340B1 in order to impart strength and rigidity to the composition thereof with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102396340B1 as applied to claims 1, 2, 3-4 and 6 above further in view McDaniel (US 2004/0175407)
Regarding Claim 5:
KR 102396340B1 teaches the above limitations. KR 102396340B1 does not expressly disclose the bacteria to comprise Thermoproteus or sulfolobus or plantomyces or anammox.
McDaniel (US 2004/0175407) discloses coating with cell based material prepared from microorganisms (Abstract) and are used in binders [0010] Microorganism particle comprises sulfobolus, thermoproteus [0020] which is an Archaea which is capable of living in environmental conditions most other cells cannot endure [0126] and comprises rhodobacter, rhodopseudomonas [0023]
The composition may comprise an acrylic resin binder [0409] and polyvinyl binders [0427] excellent in adhesion [0430]
[0019]In preferred aspects, the organism from which the cell-based particulate material is processed is a unicellular or oligocellular organism. In many aspects, the cell-based particulate material comprises a microorganism-based particulate material. In specific aspects, the microorganism-based particulate material comprises an Archaea, a Eubacteria, a fungi, a Protista, a bacteriophage, or a combination thereof.
The Archaea includes Thermoproteus, Sulfolobus [0020] (meeting claim 5) as well as Eubacteria such as Rhodobacter [0023]
The coatings are used on cement-based materials such as concrete and mortar [0286] –[0287] [0290]
The coating is biodegradable and remains active and stable for a significant time. The coating may afford color, opacity, protection from UV light damage, camouflage appearance and other desirable properties to coatings and other surface treatments [0009]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add Thermoproteus, Sulfolobus to the composition of KR 102396340B1 in order to impart afford color, opacity, protection from UV light damage, camouflage appearance and other desirable properties to coatings and other surface treatments to the composition of KR 10239634B1.
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. For example:
KR 102173957B1 discloses mortar and concrete compositions preventing the death of microorganisms with a microbial adsorbent with an acid-resistant function and high sulfate cement for repair and reinforcement of concrete [0001]
[0010] An embodiment of the present invention for solving the above problem provides a mortar composition for
repairing and reinforcing concrete structures, wherein the mortar composition for repairing and reinforcing concrete
structures is 40.0 to 51.0% by weight of high sulfate cement; Calcium oxide 4.0 to 6.0 wt.%, calcium aluminate cement
0.5 to 2.0 wt.%; 1.0-2.0% by weight of calcined magnesium; 1.0 to 2.0% by weight of aluminum hydroxide; A base
composition comprising 0.5 to 2.0% by weight of lithium hydroxide and 38.0 to 50.0% by weight of silica sand; And 3.0
to 5.0 parts by weight of the microbial adsorption composite based on 100 parts by weight of the base composition,
and the microbial adsorption composite may include acid-resistant microorganisms adsorbed on the adsorbent.
[0019] An embodiment of the present invention is a high sulfate cement 40.0 ~ 51.0% by weight; Calcium oxide 4.0 to
6.0 wt.%, calcium aluminate cement 0.5 to 2.0 wt.%; 1.0-2.0% by weight of calcined magnesium; 1.0 to 2.0% by weight
of aluminum hydroxide; A base composition comprising 0.5 to 2.0% by weight of lithium hydroxide and 38.0 to 50.0%
by weight of silica sand; And 3.0 to 5.0 parts by weight of a microbial adsorption composite based on 100 parts by
weight of the base composition, wherein the microbial adsorption composite provides a mortar composition for
repairing and reinforcing concrete structures comprising acid-resistant microorganisms adsorbed on the adsorbent.
The composition comprises Portland cement in reduced amounts [0014] and includes blast furnace slag, Type 1 cement, gypsum [0022]
The blast furnace slag is 30-34 % of the base composition
The gypsum is 2- 4 wt.% of the based composition
Type 1 cement in the mortar is 4- 7 wt.% of the base composition [0029]
Calcium aluminate is 2- 4 wt.% of the base composition [0033]
Calcined magnesium is 1- 20 wt.% of the base composition
Aluminum hydroxide powder is 1- 2 wt.% of the base composition [0037]
Lithium hydroxide powder is an activator and is 0.5 to 2 wt.% of the composition [0039]
Silica sand is 38 to 50 wt. % of the base composition [0041]
The composition comprises reinforcing fibers and a redispersiable resin [0043]
The redispersable resin for the composition for repairing and reinforcement concrete is 1- 3 wt.% and includes a polymer based on vinyl acetate [0052]
The composition comprises reinforcing fivers such as polypyrene fibers in amounts of 0.1 to 3 wt.% [0054-0056]
The composition includes a microbial adsorption composition comprising rhodoblastus acidophilus [0059-0061]
McDaniel (WO 2009/155115A2) discloses coatings and surface treatments including enzymes and peptides (Abstract)
The enzymes include Sulfolobus [0008] -]0009]
The composition includes a binder [0018]
Jonkers et al (US 2017/0190620)Jonkers discloses a cemtitious material comprising a healing agent a fibrous reinforcing material and the healing agent is a bacterial material. The fiber has diameter in the range of 4-750 microns or 50 microns to 150 mm (Abstract) (overlapping the claimed range of claim 13)
The composition comprises cement and one or more of slag, ash, limestone and sand, and further comprising a plasticizer, a healing agent and a fibrous re-enforcing material [0011] Polymers for used include biodegradable and non-biodegradable polymers such as polyethylene [0049]
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