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 1-9, 15 and 17 in the reply filed on 29 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-13 and 16 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 is rejected because claims merely setting forth physical characteristics
desired in an article, and not setting forth specific compositions which would meet such
characteristics, are indefinite since they cover any conceivable combination of ingredients either presently existing or which might be discovered in the future and which would impart the desired characteristics. See Ex parte Slob, 157USPQ 172.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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 1-8, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ihsan (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20190292101 A1).
The reference teaches, in paragraph [0227], armoured plating for a vehicle comprising a geopolymer.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches armoured plating for a vehicle comprising a geopolymer.
As for claim 2, as the reference teaches armoured plating for a vehicle it would therefore include an armoured door as part of the vehicle.
As for claim 3, none of these materials are present in the composition.
As for claim 4, as the reference teaches a geopolymer it would appear that these properties are inherent as the composition is the same. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II.
As for claim 5, the examples teach various mineral polymers useful as the geopolymer each comprising different types of filler such as mica and talc.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches mica and talc which meets the inorganic, non-metallic fillers.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches talc.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches the addition of fibers such as mineral fibers, carbon fiber, and stainless steel fibers (see paragraph [0126].
As for claim 15, the composition provides fire protection (see paragraph [0225]).
As for claim 17, the reference teaches the addition of fibers such as mineral fibers, carbon fiber, stainless steel fibers, and carbon fibers. (see paragraph [0126].
Claims 1-8, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PCT International Publication Number WO 2021/067920 A1.
The reference teaches, in paragraph [0065], ballistic panels and/or walls and safe rooms using geopolymer cements.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches ballistic panels and/or walls and safe rooms manufactured using geopolymer cements. Embodiments include geopolymer cements used to replace gypsum boards that are commonly used for wall boards in safe rooms, and may, in some situations, be capable of achieving up to a 4-hour (or more) fire rating using the ASTM El 19 test, compared to only 1-hour typically observed with conventional gypsum boards in a single ½” or 5/8” board thicknesses.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches ballistic panels and wallboards for safe rooms.
As for claim 3, none of these materials are present in the composition.
As for claim 4, as the reference teaches a geopolymer it would appear that these properties are inherent as the composition is the same. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. It is believed that the fire resistance property recited in the reference under ASTM EI 19 test is equivalent to the test recited in the claim.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches, in paragraph [0008], the addition of perlite, vermiculite, mica, etc. Paragraph [0010] teaches the addition of fibers such as basalt, stainless steel fibers, etc.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches various fibers.
As for claim 8, the reference teaches stainless steel fibers.
As for claim 15, the composition which may be used for a safe room would meet these limitations as it would be burglary and fire resistant.
As for claim 17, the reference teaches basalt fibers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ihsan (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20190292101 A1) in view of Tethal et al (US Patent No. 9,950,451 B2).
Ihsan (US Patent Application Publication No. US 20190292101 A1) was discussed previously above.
Tethal et al teaches, in column 3, lines 64+, a geopolymer binder containing SiO2 from 20 to 95% wt., Al2O3 from 5 to 80% wt., and other substances recalculated to oxides, such as Fe2O3 from 0 to 79% wt., CaO from 0 to 79% wt., Na2O from 0 to 35% wt. and K2O from 0 to 35% wt., Li2O from 0 to 35% wt., TiO2 from 0 to 49% wt., MnO2 from 0 to 49% wt., ZnO2 from 0 to 49% wt., SnO2 from 0 to 49% wt., ZrO2 and SnO2 from 0 to 49%.
The instant claim is obvious over the combination of references.
As for claim 9, the Ihsan reference teaches the use of a geopolymer binder for armour plating. While the Ihsan reference does not recite the specific composition of the geopolymer in terms of the oxide content, it would have been obvious to substitute any type of geopolymer composition such as that of Tethal et al without producing any unexpected results as the Ihsan references provides the motivation to utilize a geopolymer in the production of an armour plating. The composition of Tethal et al overlaps the claimed composition and 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT International Publication Number WO 2021/067920 A1 in view of Tethal et al (US Patent No. 9,950,451 B2).
PCT International Publication Number WO 2021/067920 A1 was discussed previously above.
Tethal et al teaches, in column 3, lines 64+, a geopolymer binder containing SiO2 from 20 to 95% wt., Al2O3 from 5 to 80% wt., and other substances recalculated to oxides, such as Fe2O3 from 0 to 79% wt., CaO from 0 to 79% wt., Na2O from 0 to 35% wt. and K2O from 0 to 35% wt., Li2O from 0 to 35% wt., TiO2 from 0 to 49% wt., MnO2 from 0 to 49% wt., ZnO2 from 0 to 49% wt., SnO2 from 0 to 49% wt., ZrO2 and SnO2 from 0 to 49%.
The instant claim is obvious over the combination of references.
As for claim 9, the WO 2021/067920 A1 reference teaches the use of a geopolymer binder for ballistic panels and/or walls and safe rooms While the reference does not recite the specific composition of the geopolymer in terms of the oxide content, it would have been obvious to substitute any type of geopolymer composition such as that of Tethal et al without producing any unexpected results as the Ihsan references provides the motivation to utilize a geopolymer in the production of an armour plating. The composition of Tethal et al overlaps the claimed composition and 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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, Amber R. 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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights