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
Applicant’s amendment filed on February 3, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 17 have been amended. As such, Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application, with Claims 9-16 withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the plurality of ultrafine aggregates do not react with the polymer resin matrix or the plurality of composite fibers” in lines 6-7. Claim 17 has been amended to recite “the plurality of ultrafine aggregates do not react with the polymer resin matrix or the plurality of igneous rock fibers” in lines 9-10. Support for these limitations is not found in the Specification, as originally filed. In the Remarks filed February 3, 2026, Applicant alleged that support for the new limitations can be found in paragraph [0046] of the Specification. Paragraph [0046] of the Specification is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
328
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
100
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0046] of the Specification establishes that at least one frictional coating includes any substance that does not react with the polymer resin or the composite fibers. However, the only material characterized as a frictional coating within this paragraph is alumina, which falls under the purview of a “fine” aggregate instead of an “ultrafine” aggregate. When the Specification is read in its entirety, it appears that the plurality of “ultrafine aggregates” are not defined by the Applicant to be a frictional coating material, but are instead characterized as a cementitious coating. Paragraph [0056] of the Specification states “the ultrafine aggregates include calcium hydroxide, calcium silicate hydrate, tricalcium aluminate, gypsum, alumina-silicates, ferro-silicates, and/or other cementitious materials. The cementitious materials prevent or reduce the formation of a gel-like paste between reacted components along the surface of the fiber composite and therefore improve adhesion of the fiber composites within the concrete.” While this disclosure explicitly states that a cementitious material can work to prevent or reduce a gel-like paste between reacted component, nothing suggests that the cementitious material does not react with the polymer resin or the fibers. Moreover, the listed ingredients, e.g. calcium hydroxide, tricalcium aluminate, gypsum, alumina-silicates, ferro-silicates, are generally regarded as highly reactive chemical compounds. Later, the Specification distinguishes cementitious materials, applied as a first coating, from the frictional coating, which is applied as a second coating. Paragraph [0058] states “[a]fter coating with the ultrafine aggregates, the coated fiber composites are then inductively heated in order to cure the fiber composites. In one embodiment, after inductively heating the fiber composites in a first chamber, the fiber composites are then coated again. In one embodiment, the second coating utilizes fine aggregates (i.e., particles sizes with diameters between about 100 microns and about 200 microns). In one embodiment, the fine aggregates include aluminum oxide and/or one or more ceramic materials. In one embodiment, the fine aggregates are frictional additives designed to improve frictional contact between the fiber composites and the surrounding concrete, reducing chances that the fiber composites slip out of engaging with the concrete.” (Emphasis added). As such, paragraph [0058] makes it clear that the second coating of fine aggregates provides the feature of being frictional additives. And the characterization of the fine aggregates being formed of ceramic does indicate that the fine aggregates would be considered by the person having ordinary skill in the art to be non-reactive. However, the same cannot be said for the ultrafine aggregates, which are formed from highly reactive cementitious materials instead of ceramic materials. The characterization of the ultrafine aggregates being a cementitious coating and the fine aggregates being a frictional coating is further fortified in paragraph [0060], which states “[t]he combination of the composite fibers 202 and the polymer resin 204 is coated with a first cementitious additive 208 and/or a second frictional additive 206. For example, in one embodiment, the first cementitious additive 208 and/or a second frictional additive 206 nucleate to form small crystal-like structures along the length and circumference of the minibar 200. Importantly, even if the first cementitious additive 208 and/or a second frictional additive 206 does not entirely cover the length and circumference of the minibar 200, any addition provides frictional engagement with the concrete that improves performance and prevents at least some percentage of the degradation of the fiber composites within the concrete to improve performance. In one embodiment, the second frictional additives 206 include particles having diameters between approximately 100 μm and approximately 200 μm. In one embodiment, the first cementitious additives 208 include particles having diameters less than approximately 40 μm” (emphasis added). As such, the Specification, as originally filed, does not support the recitation that the plurality of ultrafine aggregates do not react with the polymer resin or the composite fibers. As such, Claims 1-8 and 17-20 contain new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the plurality of ultrafine aggregates do not react with the polymer resin matrix or the plurality of composite fibers” in lines 6-7. Claim 17 has been amended to recite “the plurality of ultrafine aggregates do not react with the polymer resin matrix or the plurality of igneous rock fibers” in lines 9-10. However, dependent Claim 4 recites that the plurality of ultrafine aggregates comprise calcium hydroxide, tricalcium aluminate, and/or gypsum, which are highly reactive materials used to make cement. Moreover, paragraph [0056] sets forth that calcium hydroxide, calcium silicate hydrate, tricalcium aluminate, gypsum, alumina-silicates, ferro-silicates, and/or other cementitious satisfy the claimed features of a plurality of ultrafine aggregates, but these materials are also highly reactive materials used to make cement. The scope of Claims 1 and 17, along with their dependent claims, is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication No. WO 2022/056410 to Anderson (“Anderson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0016807 to Hochstetter et al. (“Hochstetter”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0092686 to Moireau et al. (“Moireau”).
With regard to Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8, Anderson discloses a basalt fiber composite comprising a plurality of longitudinally oriented and twisted basalt fibers independently embedded and bonded in an epoxy resin matrix. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Anderson discloses the basalt fiber composite is suitable for use in reinforcing concrete. Page 1, lines 7-20. Anderson discloses that the resin matrix includes a filler having a particle size diameter of 19 microns or less, page 11, line 24 – page 12, line 15, which, because of its presence at the surface of the resin matrix in addition to being embedded within the resin matrix, would satisfy the limitation of a coating comprising a plurality ultrafine aggregates. Anderson characterizes the ultrafine aggregate filler as inert, page 11, line 24, such that “the utilization of a nanometer-sized filler translates into higher mechanical strengths without changing the polymer matrix. Page 12, lines 14-15. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ultrafine aggregate of Anderson does not react with the polymer resin matrix or the basalt fiber.
Anderson does not disclose that the resin matrix comprises an electroconductive additive. Hochstetter is also related to pre-impregnated fibrous materials comprising a resin matrix. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Hochstetter teaches that an carbon-based additives, such as graphene, can be added to the resin matrix to conduct electricity and heat. Paragraph [0045]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a carbon-based additive, such as graphene, to the resin matrix disclosed by Anderson in order to provide the resin matrix with the ability to conduct electricity or heat, as shown to be known by Hochstetter.
Anderson does not disclose the fiber composite is coated with a plurality of fine aggregates. Moireau is also related to fiber-reinforced composite material useful in improving concrete. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Moireau teaches that inorganic fiber surfaces, in addition to having a coating, can further be improved by coating with fine particles having a diameter greater than 100 microns. Paragraph [0033]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to further provide the fiber composite disclosed by Anderson with a coating comprising a plurality of fine particles having a diameter of 100 microns or greater in order to provide improved strength to the resulting concrete, as shown to be known by Moireau. With regard to Claim 6, Moireau discloses that the fine particles for the plurality of fine aggregate can comprise aluminum oxide. Paragraph [0033].
Claims 2 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Hochstetter and Moireau as applied to Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0256418 to Riley (“Riley”).
With regard to Claims 2 and 17-20, Anderson does not disclose fiber reinforcement is between 1 inch and 2.5 inches. Riley is also related to coated fibers for enhanced concrete structural reinforcement. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Riley discloses that the fibers can comprise a plurality of filaments bonded together in a matrix resin. Paragraph [0035]. Riley teaches that, while it is known to reinforce concrete products with mesh or rebar structure, paragraph [0021], macro-fiber developments are being used to replace mesh and rebar constructions. Paragraph [0022]. Riley teaches that suitable dimensions for a macro-fiber, instead of a mesh structure, is a length of 1.5 to 2 inches for lower strength concrete applications. Paragraph [0023] and Figure 3C. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the basalt fiber-reinforced matrix resin disclosed by Anderson in the form of a macro-fiber having a length of 1.5 to 2 inches in order to provide additional uses in the concrete reinforcement field of endeavor, as shown to be known by Riley.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Hochstetter and Moireau as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0242116 to Lee et al. (“Lee”)
With regard to Claim 4, Anderson discloses the inert filler material can comprise wollastonite, page 12, line 5, which is in the form of calcium silicate hydrate in the presence of water. However, Anderson does not disclose the inert filler comprises calcium hydroxide, tricalcium aluminate, and/or gypsum. Nonetheless, it is well known in the art that such inert fillers have similar applications as wollastonite. Lee is also related to compositions for use in building structures comprising concrete. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Lee discloses that it is known to use inert mineral filler material in the composition, such as wollastonite, calcium hydroxide, or calcium aluminate. Paragraph [0044]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize calcium hydroxide or tricalcium aluminate as the inert filler material in the composition disclosed by Anderson because Lee teaches that such materials are well known to be used in such circumstances along with wollastonite, which is explicitly disclosed by Anderson, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office Action relies on Moireau for the claim limitation related to ultrafine aggregates. The Examiner disagrees. Anderson discloses that the resin matrix includes a filler having a particle size diameter of 19 microns or less, page 11, line 24 – page 12, line 15, which, because of its presence at the surface of the resin matrix in addition to being embedded within the resin matrix, would satisfy the limitation of a coating comprising a plurality ultrafine aggregates. As such, the Office Action relies upon Anderson for the disclosure of ultrafine aggregates, whereas Moireau is cited with regards to the fine aggregate claim limitation.
Applicant argues that Moireau discloses a silica-coated fiber, which would cause the polymer to react with the concrete and create an alkali liquid layer that will degrade the fibers within the polymer matrix. However, the Office does not rely on the teachings of Moireau to incorporate silica-coated fibers into the composition disclosed by Anderson. Anderson already captures the limitations of an ultrafine aggregate without reliance upon an additional reference for that feature, as it characterizes the ultrafine aggregate filler as “inert,” page 11, line 24, such that “the utilization of a nanometer-sized filler translates into higher mechanical strengths without changing the polymer matrix. Page 12, lines 14-15. In the rejection, Moireau is relied upon for the teaching that inorganic fiber surfaces, in addition to having a coating, can further be improved by coating with fine particles having a diameter greater than 100 microns. Paragraph [0033]. Moireau does not require silica particle, but teaches that these fine particles can also be aluminum oxide. Id. Additionally, the fine aggregate recited in the present claims does not contain any limitation with regard to it reacting with other materials. Rather, that limitation is with regards to the ultrafine aggregate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789