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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 December 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 April 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is drawn to a use and not one of the four categories.
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, 4-9, and 12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation from 30% by weight to 45% by weight, and the claim also recites advantageously from 32% by weight to 45% by weight and, preferably from 35% by weight to 44% by weight which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation from 23% by weight to 58% by weight, and the claim also recites advantageously from 30% by weight to 50% by weight and, preferably, from 32% by weight to 44% by weight, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation from 12% by weight to 32% by weight, and the claim also recites advantageously from 15% by weight to 29% by weight and, preferentially, from 16% by weight to 28% by weight, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation the composition comprises from 35% by weight to 45% by weight, and the claim also recites advantageously, from 40% by weight to 45% by weight, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation from 20% by weight to 55% by weight, and the claim also recites advantageously from 25% by weight to 45% by weight and, preferably, from 27% by weight to 38% by weight, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation from 3% by weight to 28% by weight, and the claim also recites advantageously from 5% by weight to 15% by weight and, preferably, from 6% by weight to 9% by weight, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation the hydrogenated compound(s) are selected from hydroxides, and the claim also recites the hydrogenated compound preferably being AI(OH)₃ or AIO(OH), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation the boron compound(s) comprise hydrogen, and the claim also recites are advantageously selected from hydrated zinc borates such as 4Zn0.6B2O3,7H₂O or 4ZnO.B2O₃,H₂O which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation polyolefin is selected from a polyethylene and a polypropylene, and the claim also recites the polyolefin preferably being a polyethylene, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation the polyolefin or the olefin copolymer is in the form of particles, and the claim also recites these particles advantageously having an average size in number d50 ranging from 10 µm to 150 µm and, preferably, from 30 µm to 120 µm, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
As to Claim 12: Claim12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: a method step involving how the composite is used.
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 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (JPS57147095A, from the IDS dated 8 December 2023, English Translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Yamazaki”) in view of Martine Valiere (US2005/0012054, hereinafter referred to as “Valiere”).
As to Claim 1: Yamazaki teaches a neutron shielding material comprising 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). Yamazaki further teaches that 1% of a curing accelerator and 1% of a curing agent are added (Pg. 8).
Yamazaki does not explicitly teach an example with 30-45% polyester, 23-58% inorganic filler, and 12-32% polyolefin.
However, Yamazaki teaches 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select amounts from within the ranges of Yamazaki including 30-45% polyester, 23-58% inorganic filler, and 12-32% polyolefin because Yamazaki teaches these are acceptable amounts for use as a neutron shielding material (Abstract, Pg. 6).
Yamazaki does not teach that the polyester is a vinylester resin.
However, Valiere teaches that vinylester resin has a higher concentration of hydrogen than unsaturated polymers [0027]. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the vinylester resin of Valiere in place of the unsaturated polyester of Yamazaki because Valiere teaches that the higher atomic concentration results in better neutron slowing [0027].
As to Claim 3: Yamazaki and Valiere render obvious the composite material of claim 1 (supra). Valiere further teaches that the vinylester resin can be epoxyacrylate and epoxymethacrylate resins of bisphenol A [0018].
As to Claim 4: Yamazaki and Valiere render obvious the composite material of claim 1 (supra).
Yamazaki does not explicitly teach an example with 35-45% vinylester.
However, Yamazaki teaches 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select amounts from within the ranges of Yamazaki including 35-45% vinylester because Yamazaki teaches these are acceptable amounts for use as a neutron shielding material (Abstract, Pg. 6).
As to Claim 5: Yamazaki renders obvious the composite material of claim 1 (supra). Yamazaki further teaches that the inorganic material can be zinc borate which is both a hydrogenated compound and a boron compound (Pg. 6). Additionally, Yamazaki teaches an example comprising 21.8% aluminum hydroxide and 7% zinc borate (Pg. 8).
As to Claims 6 and 7: Yamazaki and Valiere render obvious the composite material of claim 1 (supra). Yamazaki further teaches that the inorganic material can be zinc borate which is both a hydrogenated compound and a boron compound (Pg. 6).
As to Claim 8: Yamazaki and Valiere render obvious the composite material of claim 1 (supra). Yamazaki further teaches an example wherein the polyolefin is a polypropylene powder (Pg. 8).
As to Claim 9: Yamazaki and Valiere render obvious the composite material of claim 1 (supra). Yamazaki further teaches an example wherein the polyolefin is a polypropylene powder (Pg. 8).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (JPS57147095A, from the IDS dated 8 December 2023, English Translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Yamazaki”) in view of Martine Valiere (US2005/0012054, hereinafter referred to as “Valiere”).
As to Claim 10: Yamazaki teaches a neutron shielding material comprising 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). Yamazaki further teaches that 1% of a curing accelerator and 1% of a curing agent are added (Pg. 8). Yamazaki further teaches that the material is made by mixing the vinylester, the inorganic filler, and the olefin, then adding an initiation and accelerator and mixing again, then molding the formulations (Pg. 8).
Yamazaki does not explicitly teach an example with 30-45% polyester, 23-58% inorganic filler, and 12-32% polyolefin.
However, Yamazaki teaches 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select amounts from within the ranges of Yamazaki including 30-45% polyester, 23-58% inorganic filler, and 12-32% polyolefin because Yamazaki teaches these are acceptable amounts for use as a neutron shielding material (Abstract, Pg. 6).
Yamazaki does not teach that the polyester is a vinylester resin.
However, Valiere teaches that vinylester resin has a higher concentration of hydrogen than unsaturated polymers [0027]. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the vinylester resin of Valiere in place of the unsaturated polyester of Yamazaki because Valiere teaches that the higher atomic concentration results in better neutron slowing [0027].
As to Claim 11: Yamazaki renders obvious the method of claim 10 (supra). Yamazaki teaches that the mixing is not performed at a certain temperature or that heat is provided so it is done at room temperature or about 20-25°C (Pg. 8).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (JPS57147095A, from the IDS dated 8 December 2023, English Translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Yamazaki”) in view of Martine Valiere (US2005/0012054, hereinafter referred to as “Valiere”).
As to Claim 12: Yamazaki teaches a neutron shielding material comprising 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). Yamazaki further teaches that 1% of a curing accelerator and 1% of a curing agent are added (Pg. 8). Yamazaki further teaches the composite can be used as a transport container (Pg. 7).
Yamazaki does not explicitly teach an example with 30-45% polyester, 23-58% inorganic filler, and 12-32% polyolefin.
However, Yamazaki teaches 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select amounts from within the ranges of Yamazaki including 30-45% polyester, 23-58% inorganic filler, and 12-32% polyolefin because Yamazaki teaches these are acceptable amounts for use as a neutron shielding material (Abstract, Pg. 6).
Yamazaki does not teach that the polyester is a vinylester resin.
However, Valiere teaches that vinylester resin has a higher concentration of hydrogen than unsaturated polymers [0027]. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the vinylester resin of Valiere in place of the unsaturated polyester of Yamazaki because Valiere teaches that the higher atomic concentration results in better neutron slowing [0027].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (JPS57147095A, from the IDS dated 8 December 2023, English Translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Yamazaki”) in view of Martine Valiere (US2005/0012054, hereinafter referred to as “Valiere”).
As to Claim 13: Yamazaki teaches a neutron shielding material comprising 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). Yamazaki further teaches that 1% of a curing accelerator and 1% of a curing agent are added (Pg. 8). Yamazaki further teaches the composite can be used as a transport container (Pg. 7).
Yamazaki does not explicitly teach an example with 30-45% polyester, 23-58% inorganic filler, and 12-32% polyolefin.
However, Yamazaki teaches 30-80% by weight polyester, 5-30% of a poly-olefin resin powder, and 10-50% zinc borate (Pg. 6). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select amounts from within the ranges of Yamazaki including 30-45% polyester, 23-58% inorganic filler, and 12-32% polyolefin because Yamazaki teaches these are acceptable amounts for use as a neutron shielding material (Abstract, Pg. 6).
Yamazaki does not teach that the polyester is a vinylester resin.
However, Valiere teaches that vinylester resin has a higher concentration of hydrogen than unsaturated polymers [0027]. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the vinylester resin of Valiere in place of the unsaturated polyester of Yamazaki because Valiere teaches that the higher atomic concentration results in better neutron slowing [0027].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights