DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 11/05/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 1-7 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 recites the limitation "the construction aggregate" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Please note, claims 2-7 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US 20190152864 A1), hereinafter referred to as HILL, in view of Negev et al. (US 20170191259 A1), hereinafter referred to as NEGEV.
Regarding claim 1, HILL teaches a synthetic aggregate (paragraph [0016]: a complex composite particles) comprising:
a plurality of agglomerations, each of the plurality of agglomerations comprising:
a core; and
a shell material disposed on the core (paragraph [0017]: a complex composite particle may comprise a pyrolyzed mixture of coal dust and polymer derived ceramic beads and a polymer matrix and/or shell; a plurality of beads may be bound together by a polymer matrix and/or shell),
wherein the core comprises one selected from the group consisting of coal, a coal byproduct, and combinations thereof (paragraph [0049]: the core comprises coal dust),
wherein the shell material comprises a polymer-derived ceramic material (paragraph [0045]: a polymer derived ceramic resin may be used to form a coal-ceramic composite bead),
wherein the plurality of agglomerations has an average size of from about 0.1 micrometers to about 5 millimeters (paragraph [0077]: complex composite particles having a size range of 0.01 micrometers to 5 millimeters),
wherein the aggregate has a density of from about 1.57 g/cc to about 1.95 g/cc (Fig. 14 shows densities in the range from 1.2 g/cc to 1.7 g/cc; and paragraph [0035]: FIG. 14 shows a graph of flexural strength in MPa versus density in g/cc). HILL teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
While HILL discloses a proppant comprised of a complex composite particle, such as a pyrolyzed mixture of coal dust and polymer derived ceramic composite and is silent with respect to the composite particle being used as construction aggregate, HILL discloses that in addition to proppants, complex composite particles having a size range of 0.01 micrometers to 5 millimeters are used in a variety of applications (see HILL at paragraph [0077]). Furthermore, as evidenced from the disclosure of NEGEV describing that the term “gravel” is somewhat loosely applied in the art to encompass hard, rigid particulate matter ranging in size from a coarse sand to pebble size material; and that suitable gravel particulates include, but are not limited to, sand, bauxite, ceramic materials, glass materials, polymer materials, polytetrafluoroethylene materials, nut shell pieces, seed shell pieces, fruit pit pieces, wood, composite particulates, proppant particulates, and combinations thereof (see NEGEV at paragraph [0031]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the proppant complex particle of HILL could be utilized as construction aggregate based on the disclosure of NEGEV since NEGEV explicitly teaches that suitable gravel particulates include proppant particles.
Regarding claim 2, HILL as modified by NEGEV teaches the synthetic aggregate according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of agglomerations comprises a plurality of cores (paragraph [0017]: a complex composite particle may comprise a pyrolyzed mixture of coal dust and polymer derived ceramic beads and a polymer matrix and/or shell; a plurality of beads may be bound together by a polymer matrix and/or shell).
Regarding claim 3, HILL as modified by NEGEV teaches the synthetic aggregate according to claim 1, wherein the core comprises coal, and wherein the coal is a type selected from the group consisting of lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, and anthracite (paragraph [0014]: bituminous coal and anthracite).
Regarding claim 4, HILL as modified by NEGEV teaches the synthetic aggregate according to claim 1, wherein the core comprises the coal byproduct, and wherein the coal byproduct is one selected from the group consisting of fly ash (paragraph [0075]: the different clay materials such as kaolinite and illite in the coal start to melt and/or decompose into nano sized particles of SiO2 (silica) and Al2O3 (alumina); these are the primary constituents of fly ash which is a troublesome by product of the combustion of coal; however, in this technology, the silica and alumina nanoparticles chemically bond/alloy into a ceramic structure through silicon and oxygen bonds), bottom ash, shale coal, and coal gob.
Regarding claim 5, HILL as modified by NEGEV teaches the synthetic aggregate according to claim 1, wherein the core material represents up to 70% by weight of the construction aggregate (paragraph [0053]: the percentage of coal dust to combined coal dust and polymer is selected to be from 80% to 60% coal dust by weight). It is noted that for the purpose of claim interpretation, the examiner treats the limitation “core material” as referring to coal, according to the recitation of claim 1 stating that “core comprises one selected from the group consisting of coal”. Furthermore, since HILL teaches the structural limitations of a synthetic aggregate as set forth in claims 1 and 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated a composite agglomerate of HILL to necessarily comprise the claimed property such as the construction aggregate being not flammable.
Regarding claim 6, HILL as modified by NEGEV teaches the synthetic aggregate according to claim 1, wherein the polymer-derived material is derived from a precursor selected from the group consisting of silicon oxycarbide (SiOC), silicon carbide (SiC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), and silicon carbonitride (SiCN) (paragraph [0059]: a polymer may selected to form other ceramic materials including a metal or rare earth and oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, boron or combinations of oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and boron, for example; for example silicon may form a ceramic with carbon (SiC) or with oxygen (SiO) or with carbon and oxygen (SiOC)).
Regarding claim 7, HILL as modified by NEGEV teaches the synthetic aggregate according to claim 6. HILL also teaches silicon that may form a ceramic with carbon and oxygen (SiOC) (paragraph [0059]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any type of SiOC, including high-oxygen silicon carbide comprising at least 20% oxygen by weight, in the absence of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731