DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 03/23/2026. Applicant filed a Response on 04/27/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 9-12 and 14-19 are rejected.
Claims 1-8, 13 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 II, claims 1-8, 13 and 20, in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8, 13 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
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 9-12 and 14-19 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.
Claims 9, 12, 14 and 19 recite “0.1 % to 5 % acrylic-based polymer emulsion by mass of sand;” however the claim does not recite the percent basis of the acrylic-based polymer emulsion, e.g. % weight, % volume, % parts, etc. Clarification is required.
The claims have been interpreted as requiring 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% acrylic-based polymer emulsion by mass of sand for this office action.
Claims 14 and 19 recite “0.1 % to 2 % hydrocarbon derivative fibers by mass of sand;” however the claim does not recite the basis of the hydrocarbon derivative fibers, e.g. % weight, % volume, % parts, etc. Clarification is required.
The claims have been interpreted as requiring 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% hydrocarbon derivative fibers by mass of sand for this office action.
Claim 16 recites 0.2 % hydrocarbon derivative fibers by mass of the sand; and 0.5 % cement by mass of the sand. The claim does not recite the basis of the percent of hydrocarbon derivative fibers and sand e.g. % weight, % volume, % parts, etc. Clarification is required.
The claim has been interpreted as requiring 0.2 wt% hydrocarbon derivative fibers by mass of the sand; and 0.5 wt% cement by mass of the sand for this office action.
It is suggested that Applicant provides where basis in the specification as originally filed exists for any amendments regarding the claimed percentages.
Regarding dependent claims 10-11 and 15-18, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claims 9 and 14 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Homauoni et al, “Stabilization of Dune Sand with Poly(Methyl Methacrylate) and Polyvinyl Acetate Using Dry and Wet Processing (Homauoni).
Homauoni was cited in the IDS filed 02/14/2025.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12, Homauoni discloses dune sands that are stabilized using poly(methyl methacrylate) (i.e., an acrylic-based polymer) (Abstract; page 572, Section 2.1 Dune Sands and Section 2.2 Polymers)). Applicant’s specification at page 7, lines 28-20, discloses that poly(methyl methacrylate) is a preferred acrylic-based polymer as claimed. The polymeric solutions tested are in emulsion form (Homauoni; page 575, Section 6.1, para 2).
Homauoni discloses sand consisting of 1, 2, 3 and 5 wt% of poly(methyl methacrylate) in dry soil/sand (claim 12) (Homauoni; page 573, Fig. 3; page 575, first full sentence; page 577-578, Fig. 7). 1-5 wt% poly(methyl methacrylate) emulsion in dry sand falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 5% acrylic-based polymer emulsion by mass of the sand. For example, a composition consisting of 2 wt% poly(methyl methacrylate) emulsion and 98 wt% sand comprises 2/98*100= 2.0 wt% poly(methyl methacrylate) emulsion by mass of the sand.
Further, compositions consisting of 1-5 wt% of poly(methyl methacrylate) emulsion consist of 95-99 wt% sand (claim 10).
Homauoni therefore anticipates compositions as claimed.
Claims 9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiong, CN 101942894A (Xiong).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Xiong. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Xiong discloses compositions comprising sand, a polyacrylate emulsion, and polypropylene fibers (wherein the hydrocarbon derivative fibers are the polypropylene fibers of claim 17) in the claimed amounts (Xiong; page 5, lines 17-20; page 6, lines 11-13; page 7, lines 5-8 and 33-36; page 8, lines 1-4 and lines 28-31). Applicant’s specification at page 7, lines 28-30 discloses that polyacrylate is a preferred acrylic-based polymer as claimed.
See, for example, the cement slurry composition of Example 1 which comprises 49.5 kg (49.5 wt%) sand, 2.3 kg polyacrylate emulsion (2.3 wt%) and 0.1 kg polypropylene fiber (0.1 wt%) (Xiong; page 5, lines 17-20).
This composition contains 4.6% polyacrylate emulsion by mass of the sand (2.3 kg polyacrylate emulsion / 49.5 kg sand * 100 = 4.6 wt% polyacrylate emulsion by mass of the sand). 4.6% polyacrylate emulsion by mass of the sand falls within the claimed 0.1 to 5 wt% acrylic-based polymer emulsion range, by mass of the sand (claims 9 and 14).
This composition contains 0.2% polypropylene fiber by mass of the sand (0.1kg polypropylene fiber / 49.5kg sand * 100 = 0.2% polypropylene fiber by mass of the sand). 0.2% polypropylene fiber by mass of the sand falls within the claimed 0.1% to 2% hydrocarbon derivative fiber range, by mass of the sand (claim 14), wherein the hydrocarbon derivative fiber is polypropylene fiber (claim 17).
Xiong, therefore, anticipates compositions as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included here can be found above.
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Homauoni.
Regarding claim 11, Homauoni is relied as disclosing the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Given that the compositions of Homauoni consist of sand and a poly(methyl methacrylate) emulsion in the claimed amounts, it is clear that compositions of Homauoni would inherently have an unconfined compressive strength of at least 500 kPa according to ASTM D2166 as claimed.
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, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claims 11 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xiong.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Xiong is relied as disclosing the limitations of claims 9 and 14 respectively, as discussed above. The cement slurries of Xiong are cured to make insulation boards (Xiong; page 5, lines 22-33; page 6, lines 15-26; page 7, lines 10-21 and 38-49; page 8, lines 6-17 and 33-44).
Given that the compositions of Xiong comprise sand, a polyacrylate emulsion, and polypropylene fibers in the claimed amounts, it is clear that compositions of Xiong would inherently have an unconfined compressive strength of at least 500 kPa according to ASTM D2166 (claim 11), and an unconfined compressive strength of at least 1900kPa (claim 18) as claimed.
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, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included here can be found above.
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadek et al, “Compressive Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Lightly-Cement Stabilized Sand” (Sadek) in view Newman et al, “Emulsion Polymers for Soil Stabilization” (Newman).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 17-18, Sadek teaches that adding discrete fibers to cement-treated soil has been shown to improve the soil’s response to loading and overall engineering behavior. Sadek investigates the effect of randomly distributed fiber reinforcements and cement on the response of sandy soils. Cement contents of 0.5% and 1%; fiber contents of 0.0%, 0.25%, 0.5% and 1.0%; and fiber lengths of 6, 12 and 20mm were studied (Sadek; Abstract). The sand used was Ottawa sand. The fiber reinforcements chosen were polypropylene fibers (claim 17) (Sadek; page 2593, Section 2.1 Material Properties).
Unconfined compression strength tests were performed according to ASTM D2166 (Sadek; page 2694, Section 2.3 Unconfined Compression Strength Tests). The results for sand consisting of 0.5% cement and 0.25% fibers are shown in Fig 2:
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
194
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Sadek; Fig. 2, 1st graph on page 2595). From the results, it is clear that the addition of polypropylene fibers increases the compressive strength (kPa) as compared to sand containing no fibers (blue arrow).
Sand consisting of 0.5% cement and 0.25% fibers consists of 99.25% sand (i.e., at least 95% by weight sand of claim 15).
0.25% polypropylene fibers / 99.25% sand * 100 = 0.25% polypropylene fibers by mass of the sand, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% hydrocarbon derivative fibers by mass of sand of claim 14.
0.5% cement / 99.25% sand * 100 = 0.5 wt% cement by mass of the sand (claim 16).
Sadek does not explicitly teach the addition of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% acrylic-based polymer emulsion by mass of the sand as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Newman teaches that stabilization of soils to improve strength and durability are known, such as by the addition of cement or by the addition of non-traditional stabilizers such as polymer emulsions (Newman; page 2, para 1).
Studies were conducted by the addition of six polymer emulsions to silty sand. All of the soil-polymer mixtures were prepared at emulsion percent solids levels of 2.75% weight of solids to weight of soil. A level of 2.75% was chosen as a convenient basis for comparison based on previous studies (Newman; pages 3-4, “MATERIALS”).
The tested polymers and % solids are listed in Table 2 on page 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
234
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
P1 and P3-P6 are acrylic-based polymer emulsions as claimed.
The unconfined compressive strength of each sand/polymer emulsion was compared to the unconfined compressive strength of sand stabilized with 2.75%, 6% and 9% Portland Cement (Newman; page 4, para 1; page 9, Fig. 2; page 10, Fig. 4; and page 11, Fig. 6). From the results it is clear that unconfined compressive strengths of at least 1900 kPa can be obtained be the addition of acrylic-based polymer emulsions to sand (claim 18). Note that 1 psi = 6.89 kPa.
PNG
media_image3.png
484
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
490
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
486
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For example, looking at P3 (acrylic copolymer emulsion) in Fig 6, the unconfined compressive strength is approximately 700 psi at 28 day dry = 4823 kPa (700psi * 6.89 = 4823kPa) (see blue arrow above).
Improved toughness (psi) was also achieved by the addition of the polymer emulsions (Newman; pages 9-11, Fig. 3, 5 and 7). All of the soil additives employed in the study increased unconfined compressive strength over time for both dry and wet testing, and the soil-polymers P1 and P4 resulted in significantly higher toughness values greater than soil-cement. The polymer additives has slightly higher wet retained toughness than the cement stabilized soil at 28 days of cure time. The data indicates that many of the polymer additives significantly improve the physical properties at addition levels below those of typical cement stabilization (Newman; page 13, “Conclusions and Recommendation”).
Newman is analogous art as it teaches the addition of acrylic-based polymer emulsions to sand in order to obtain improved unconfined compressive strengths.
In light of the motivation by Newman to add polymer emulsions to sand for stabilization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an acrylic-based polymer emulsion, such as the polymer emulsions P1 or P3-P6 of Newman, to the sand compositions of Sadek, in order to obtain significantly improved unconfined compressive values than can be achieved by Sadek by using only fibers and cement, as well as improved toughness.
While Newman only teaches the addition of the polymer emulsion at 2.75% weight of solids to weight of soil, and does not explicitly teach weight percents of polymer emulsions by mass of sand as claimed, the levels used by Newman were merely chosen as a convenient basis for comparison (Newman; pages 3-4, “MATERIALS”).
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight percent of acrylic-based polymer emulsion, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain a stabilized sand composition with significantly improved compressive and toughness, improved loading bearing properties, and overall improved engineering behavior, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadek in view of Newman as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Freed, WO 88/02419 (Freed).
Freed was filed with the IDS filed 02/14/2025.
Regarding claim 16, Sadek in view of Newman are relied upon as teachings the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Unconfined compression strength tests were performed according to ASTM D2166 (Sadek; page 2694, Section 2.3 Unconfined Compression Strength Tests). The results for sand consisting of 0.5% cement and 0.25% fibers are shown in Fig 2 (Sadek; Fig. 2, 1st graph on page 2595).
Sand consisting of 0.5% cement and 0.25% fibers consists of 99.25% sand.
0.5% cement / 99.25% sand * 100 = 0.5 wt% cement by mass of the sand of claim 16.
Sadek in view of Newman do not explicitly teach the addition of the fibers in an amount of 0.2 wt% by mass of the sand as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Freed teaches that polypropylene fibers have been used to modify the behavior of concrete for over 20 years (Freed; page 3, lines 6-7). The object of Freed is to provide a composite soil mixture having improved load bearing capabilities and related engineering properties by the addition of various discrete fiber or slit film fibers thereto (Freed; page 3, lines 20-27).
The composite mixture comprises soil and from about 0.1 to 5% by weight of discrete fiber materials, such as polypropylene fibers, with amounts 0.1 to 2% by weight being preferred (Freed; page 3, lines 33-37; and page 8, lines 13-16). Fiber materials include the olefins (i.e., hydrocarbon derivative fibers), particularly polypropylene of claim 17 and as taught by Sadek. The soils to which the fibers may be added include sand (Freed; page 5, lines 22-27).
Freed is analogous art as it teaches the addition of 0.1 to 2% by weight of the soil/sand of hydrocarbon derivative fibers such as polypropylene fibers.
In light of the motivation provided by Freed to add 0.1 to 2% by weight of the sand of polypropylene fibers to sand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of polypropylene fibers in the sand compositions of Sadek in view of Newman to the preferred range of 0.1% to 2% as taught by Freed, in order to obtain a sand composite which has improved load bearing capabilities and related engineering properties.
0.1 to 2% by weight of polypropylene fibers by weight of the sand overlaps in scope with the claimed 0.2 % hydrocarbon derivative fibers by mass of the sand of claim 16.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, because both Sadek and Freed are trying to solve the same problem, i.e., improving the load-bearing properties and overall engineering behavior of sand, those skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success upon making such a weight% adjustment.
Claims 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of Freed.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 18-19, Newman teaches that stabilization of soils to improve strength and durability are known, such as by the addition of cement or by the addition of non-traditional stabilizers such as polymer emulsions (Newman; page 2, para 1).
Studies were conducted by the addition of six polymer emulsions to silty sand. All of the soil-polymer mixtures were prepared at emulsion percent solids levels of 2.75% weight of solids to weight of soil. A level of 2.75% was chosen as a convenient basis for comparison based on previous studies (Newman; pages 3-4, “MATERIALS”). A solids polymer content of 2.75% to weight of soil = a soil content of 97.25% (100-2.75=97.25), i.e., greater than 95% by weight sand as claimed (claim 15).
The tested polymers and % solids are listed in Table 2 on page 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
234
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
P1 and P3-P6 are acrylic-based polymer emulsions as claimed.
The unconfined compressive strength of each composition consisting of sand and polymer emulsion was compared to the unconfined compressive strength of sand stabilized with 2.75%, 6% and 9% Portland Cement (Newman; page 4, para 1; page 9, Fig. 2; page 10, Fig. 4; and page 11, Fig. 6). From the results it is clear that unconfined compressive strengths of at least 500 kPa and 1900 kPa can be obtained by the addition of acrylic-based polymer emulsions to sand (claim 18). Note that 1 psi = 6.89 kPa.
PNG
media_image3.png
484
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
490
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
486
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
For example, looking at P3 (acrylic copolymer emulsion) in Fig 6, the unconfined compressive strength is approximately 700 psi at 28 day dry = 4823 kPa (700psi * 6.89 = 4823kPa) (see blue arrow above).
Improved toughness (psi) was also achieved by the addition of the polymer emulsions (Newman; pages 9-11, Fig. 3, 5 and 7). All of the soil additives employed in the study increased unconfined compressive strength over time for both dry and wet testing, and the soil-polymers P1 and P4 resulted in significantly higher toughness values greater than soil-cement. The polymer additives has slightly higher wet retained toughness than the cement stabilized soil at 28 days of cure time. The data indicates that many of the polymer additives significantly improve the physical properties at addition levels below those of typical cement stabilization (Newman; page 13, “Conclusions and Recommendation”).
While Newman does not explicitly teach the addition of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% acrylic-based polymer emulsion by mass of the sand as claimed (claims 14 and 19), Newman teaches that the addition of the polymer emulsion at 2.75% weight of solids to weight of soil was merely chosen as a convenient basis for comparison (Newman; pages 3-4, “MATERIALS”).
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the weight percent of acrylic-based polymer emulsion in the compositions of Newman which consist of sand and polymer emulsion (claims 12 and 19), including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain a stabilized sand composition with good compressive and toughness.
Newman does not explicitly teach the addition of hydrocarbon derivative fibers in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% by mass of the sand as claimed (claims 14 and 19).
With respect to the difference, Freed teaches that polypropylene fibers have been used to modify the behavior of concrete for over 20 years (Freed; page 3, lines 6-7). The object of Freed is to provide a composite soil mixture having improved load bearing capabilities and related engineering properties by the addition of various discrete fiber or slit film fibers thereto (Freed; page 3, lines 20-27).
The composite mixture comprises soil and from about 0.1 to 5% by weight of discrete fiber materials, with amounts 0.1 to 2% by weight being preferred (Freed; page 3, lines 33-37 and page 8, lines 13-16). The soils to which the fibers may be added include sand (Freed; page 5, lines 22-27).
The fiber materials include the olefins (i.e., hydrocarbon derivative fibers), particularly polypropylene (Freed; page 6, lines 10-12).
Given that Freed discloses the olefin fibers that overlaps the presently claimed hydrocarbon derivative fibers, including polypropylene fibers, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polypropylene fibers in the compositions of Newman, which are both disclosed by Freed and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the fiber additives of claim 17.
It has been found that improvements of up to 50% in engineering properties, particularly in the punching shear capabilities of certain types of soils, by the addition of 0.5% discrete fiber materials by weight to the soils can be achieved. Improvements of up to 250% have also been observed by the addition of 1.5% discrete fiber materials by weight to the soils (Freed; page 4, lines 14-20).
Freed is analogous art as it teaches the addition of 0.1 to 2% of hydrocarbon derivative fibers by weight of the soil/sand, such as polypropylene fibers.
In light of the motivation provided by Freed to add 0.1 to 2% by weight of olefin fibers, by weight of the sand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 0.1 to 2% by weight of the sand of hydrocarbon derivative fibers to the sand compositions of Newman, which consist of sand and acrylic-based polymer emulsions, in order to obtain a sand composition which has improvements of from 50% up to 250% in engineering properties, particularly in the punching shear capabilities of certain types of soils, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Newman in view of Freed are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Newman does not explicitly teach wherein the hydrocarbon fibers are polypropylene fibers as claimed (claim 17).
With respect to the difference, Freed teaches that polypropylene fibers have been used to modify the behavior of concrete for over 20 years (Freed; page 3, lines 6-7). The fiber materials include the olefins (i.e., hydrocarbon derivative fibers), particularly polypropylene (claim 17) (Freed; page 6, lines 10-12).
Given that Freed discloses olefin fibers that overlaps the presently claimed hydrocarbon derivative fibers, including polypropylene fibers, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polypropylene fibers in the compositions of Newman, which are both disclosed by Freed and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rejections using these references would be cumulative to the above rejections.
DE 102004009509 A1 (cited in the IDS filed 02/14/2025; machine English language translation attached hereto), discloses sand compositions consisting of 0.2 to not more than 4wt% polymer emulsions, including acrylic-based emulsions, and 0.5 to not more than 8 wt% cement ([0056] and [0066]). See also Table 1, [0083-0084].
Huang et al, CN 107311533A, discloses a high-molecular weight polymer clay which comprises 45-58% quartz sand, 0.02-0.04% polypropylene fiber, and 0.72-0.82% acrylic emulsion powder.
Xiong et al, CN 102785423A, discloses a composition comprising 49 wt% sand, 1 wt% PVA fiber, and 1 wt% of an acrylic emulsion (see translation; page 9, lines 7-8). The final product has a compressive strength ≥ 155MPa (see translation; page 10, lines 8-9).
GB 1,560,357, teaches a method of treating sand comprising applying a polymer emulsion containing 0.05-1% of solids at a rate of 0.1-40 kg dry polymer per hectacre (claims 1 and 3), wherein the polymer may be acrylate-based (claims 2 and 4).
Bishop, US 4,072,020, discloses applying 34g of 1% solids polymer emulsions onto 180g of sand, the polymer emulsions comprising acrylate-based polymers (Example 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights