DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-2, 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 111234508 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as XU, in view of Dieterich et al. (US 4142030 A), hereinafter referred to as DIETERICH, and Wu et al. (WO 2013174189 A1), hereinafter referred to as WU.
Regarding claim 1, XU teaches a mining grouting reinforcement material (see XU at paragraph [1]: a reactive grouting reinforcement material), comprising:
a component A comprising a sodium silicate solution (see XU at paragraph [8[: the component A includes: 70-90 parts of sodium silicate aqueous solution, 10-30 parts of reaction stabilizer and 0.1-0.8 parts of reaction accelerator);
a component B comprising an isocyanate, a plasticizer and a molecular bridging agent (see XU at paragraphs [9] and [16]: the component B includes: 70-90 parts of polyisocyanate, 5-15 parts of film-forming assistant, and 5-20 parts of reinforcing agent; the reinforcing agent is an organosilane coupling agent).
While XU teaches a component A including sodium silicate aqueous solution, XU fails to explicitly teach component A comprising an amino acid salt.
However, DIETERICH discloses an inorganic-organic plastic having improved strength, elasticity, dimensional stability with increase in temperature and flame resistance and adapted for use in filling cracks and cavities and for making materials useful in the building industry is prepared by (1) premixing (c) an organic compound having at least two reactive hydrogen and at least one non-ionic hydrophilic group with (b) an aqueous silicate and then mixing the resulting mixture with (a) an organic polyisocyanate (see DIETERICH at Abstract). DIETERICH teaches that it has surprisingly been found that inorganic-organic plastics with high strength, elasticity, dimensional stability under heat and flame resistance are obtained when organic polyisocyanates are homogeneously mixed with aqueous solutions of alkali metal silicates and/or aqueous silica sols in the presence of an organic compound; and that by using organic compounds having both reactive hydrogens and ionic or non-ionic hydrophilic groups, homogeneous distribution of the organic and aqueous inorganic phases is achieved, so that the chemical interactions increase by orders of magnitude and novel composite materials are obtained (see DIETERICH at Col. 3, lines 10-16 and lines 39-47). DIETERICH also teaches that examples of organic compounds which may be used as starting materials which contain at least one hydrogen atom which is reactive with isocyanate groups and at least one anionic salt group capable of forming anionic salts, include aromatic and heterocyclic mono- and diaminocarboxylic acids such as glutamine, aspartic acid and glutamic acid (which reads on limitation “wherein the amino acid salt comprises at least one of amino acid salts containing all groups -COOH, -NH2 and -COOR”) (see DIETERICH at Col. 11, lines 12-18). Additionally, DIETERICH teaches suitable compounds for conversion into the salt form in order to obtain anionic starting compounds, e.g., monovalent metal hydroxides, carbonates and oxides such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide (see DIETERICH at Col. 12, lines 55-58). DIETERICH also teaches that the discloses composition can comprise fillers such as barium sulfate (see DIETERICH at Col. 17, lines 22-30).
Furthermore, the use of barium sulfate as a filler in the polyurethane grouting composition is known in the art, as evidenced from the disclosure of WU teaching the polyurethane grouting composition comprising an isocyanate prepolymer and auxiliary components selected from a plasticizer, a silane coupling agent, a catalyst, a cell stabilizer, an anionic surfactant, a filler, a blowing agent or a mixture thereof; and that the proportion of the auxiliary components present in the grout composition is between 5 and 80 wt% (see WU at lines 19-23, p. 3 and lines 15-16, p. 11). WU also teaches that the fillers may be used to increase density and load bearing properties of polyurethane foams, and that suitable fillers include barium sulfate (see WU at lines 1-3, p. 13).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the grouting reinforcement material of XU by including organic compounds which may be used as starting materials which contain at least one hydrogen atom which is reactive with isocyanate groups and at least one anionic salt group capable of forming anionic salts, such as glutamine, aspartic acid and glutamic acid, as disclosed by DIETERICH since DIETERICH explicitly teaches that inorganic-organic plastics with high strength, elasticity, dimensional stability under heat and flame resistance are obtained when organic polyisocyanates are homogeneously mixed with aqueous solutions of alkali metal silicates in the presence of an organic compound; and that by using organic compounds having both reactive hydrogens and ionic or non-ionic hydrophilic groups, homogeneous distribution of the organic and aqueous inorganic phases is achieved, so that the chemical interactions increase by orders of magnitude and novel composite materials are obtained (see DIETRICH at Col. 3, lines 10-16 and lines 39-47). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the grouting reinforcement agent of XU by including 5-80 wt% filler such as barium sulfate (reads on limitation “wherein a specific gravity of the filler is 2 to 8”) as disclosed by WU since WU explicitly teaches that the fillers may be used to increase density and load bearing properties of the composition (see WU at lines 1-3, p. 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grouting reinforcement agent of XU by including organic compounds such as glutamine, aspartic acid and glutamic acid, as disclosed by DIETERICH and barium sulfate filler disclosed by WU in order to achieve homogeneous distribution of the organic and aqueous inorganic phases, and increase the chemical interactions by orders of magnitude, thus, obtaining material with high strength, elasticity, dimensional stability under heat and flame resistance.
Regarding claim 2, XU as modified by DIETERICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1, wherein the molecular bridging agent comprises at least one of an amino-containing silane coupling agent (see XU at paragraph [17]: the organosilane coupling agent includes, but is not limited to, A-1102/ aminopropyltriethoxysilane) or a N- (triethoxysilylpropyl)urea.
Regarding claim 4, XU as modified by DIETERICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1, wherein the filler comprises at least one of barite powders (see rejection of claim 1 above and WU at lines 1-3, p. 13: suitable fillers include barium sulfate), galena powders or iron ore powders.
Regarding claim 5, XU as modified by DIETERICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1, wherein in the component A, a mass ration of the sodium silicate solution to the amino acid salt is (90-95): (2-6) (see rejection of claim 1 above and DIETRICH at Examples 1 and 2: 150 g of silicate component B and 1.5g of organic component C; and Col. 11, lines 12-18: examples of organic compounds which may be used as starting materials which contain at least one hydrogen atom which is reactive with isocyanate groups and at least one anionic salt group capable of forming anionic salts, include aromatic and heterocyclic mono- and diaminocarboxylic acids such as glutamine, aspartic acid and glutamic acid). DIETRICH teaches a mass ration of the silicate solution to the amino acid salt of 90:2.5, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, XU as modified by DIETRICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1, wherein in the component B, a mass ratio of the isocyanate, the plasticizer, the filler and the molecular bridging agent is (60-80): (5-30): (10-15): (1-5) (see XU at paragraph [9]: in parts by weight, the B component includes: 70 to 90 parts of polyisocyanate, 5 to 15 parts of film-forming assistant/plasticizer, and 5 to 20 parts of reinforcing agent; and WU at lines 15-16, p. 11: 5-80 wt%). XU teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges. 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). Furthermore, MPEP states that "[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", and “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” (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected amounts from within the range taught by WU because there is a reasonable expectation of success that including at least 5 wt% of filler as disclosed by WU would be suitable.
Regarding claim 7, XU as modified by DIETERICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1, wherein the sodium silicate solution has a modulus of 2.4-2.8, and a Baume degree of 40-50° Bé (see XU at paragraph [10]: the aqueous silicate solution is sodium water glass, the Baume degree of the sodium water glass is 30-50, and the modulus is 1.8-3.5). XU teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 8, XU as modified by DIETERICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1, wherein the isocyanate comprises at least one of a polyphenyl polymethylene polyisocyanate (see XU at paragraph [11]: the polyisocyanate is any one or two of polymethylene polyphenyl polyisocyanate) or a diphenylmethane diisocyanate.
Regarding claim 10, XU as modified by DIETERICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1, wherein a volume ratio of the component A and the component B is (0.85-1.15):1 (see XU at paragraph [7]: the material is composed of A component and B component in a volume ratio of 1:1). XU teaches ratio which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU in view of DIETERICH and WU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koellsch et al. (US 20230183136 A1), hereinafter referred to as KOELLSCH.
Regarding claim 3, XU as modified by DIETERICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1. While XU teaches that the organosilane coupling agent includes, but is not limited to, A-1102/ aminopropyltriethoxysilane (see XU at paragraph [17]), XU is silent with respect to the the amino- containing silane coupling agent comprises at least one of 3-[2-(2- aminoethylamino)ethylamino]propyl-trimethoxysilane or N-[3- (trimethoxysilyl)propyl]ethylenediamine.
However, KOELLSCH discloses a two-component composition constituted by a component A intended to be mixed, in situ, with a component B in order to form an injectable or pumpable organo-mineral material or compound, the component A comprising essentially at least one alkali metal silicate and the component B comprising essentially at least one polyisocyanate prepolymer (see KOELLSCH at paragraph [0008]). KOELLSCH also discloses that the disclosed invention relates to the field of mining, public works and the like, and more particularly that of injection-sealing anchoring bolts or similar reinforcement structures (see KOELLSCH at paragraph [0001]). KOELLSCH teaches that the alkali metal silicate is a sodium silicate, and the polyisocyanate used may be an aliphatic, cycloaliphatic, araliphatic, aromatic or heterocyclic diisocyanate (see KOELLSCH at paragraphs [0009] and [0014]). KOELLSCH also teaches the use of gelling agent, such as aminosilanes that form a gel when they react with isocyanates, such as for example trimethoxysilylpropyl diethylenetriamine (see KOELLSCH at paragraph [0028]).
Both XU and KOELLSCH disclose a two-component reinforcement material including two components A and B, wherein component A comprises water glass, and component B comprises polyisocyanate. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when modifying the grouting reinforcement material of XU by utilizing trimethoxysilylpropyl diethylenetriamine as a coupling agent based on the teachings of XU describing that the organosilane coupling agent includes, but is not limited to, A-1102/ aminopropyltriethoxysilane (see XU at paragraph [17]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grouting reinforcement material of XU by selecting trimethoxysilylpropyl diethylenetriamine as disclosed by KOELLSCH since KOELLSCH explicitly teaches trimethoxysilylpropyl diethylenetriamine among the aminosilanes that form a gel when they react with isocyanates.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU in view of DIETERICH and WU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding et al. (CN 111234172 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as DING.
Regarding claim 9, XU as modified by DIETRICH and WU teaches the mining grouting reinforcement material of claim 1. While XU teaches component B comprising a plasticizer (see XU at paragraph [13]: the film-forming assistant is any one or more of methyl oleate). XU is silent with respect to the plasticizer comprising at least one of triethyl citrate, chloromethyl palmitate or tributyl phosphate.
However, DING discloses an epoxy resin/water glass/polyurethane composite reinforcement material, which includes two independent components A and B; wherein component A includes water glass and silane coupling agent; and component B includes polymethylene polyphenyl polyisocyanate and plasticizer (see DING at paragraphs [6-8]). DING teaches that the plasticizer is one or more of dioctyl phthalate, diisononyl phthalate or tributyl phosphate (see DING at paragraph [16]).
Both XU and DING disclose water glass/polyurethane reinforcement material including two components A and B, wherein component A comprises water glass, and component B comprises polymethylene polyphenyl polyisocyanate and plasticizer. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of XU by selecting tributyl phosphate as a plasticizer, as disclosed by DING based on teachings of DING describing two-component water glass/polyurethane composite reinforcement material, because there is a reasonable expectation of success that using tributyl phosphate as a plasticizer would be suitable.
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 7:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights