DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1 does not end with a period (see MPEP §608.01(m): “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-17 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 11 recites the limitations "in the form" in lines 3 and 4 and “the load-bearing capacity” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Please note, claims 12-17 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 11.
Claims 11, 13 and 16 require “MgO-based binder” and/or “olivine-based binder”; however, it is unclear what constitutes “MgO-based binder” and/or olivine-based binder. The phrase has not been given a special definition nor would the phrase be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention such that they would reasonably understand where infringement of such a feature/claim would begin. In the interest of furthering prosecution, the claims have been interpreted such that any material containing MgO would meet the claimed “MgO-based binder”, and any material containing olivine and/or olivine itself would meet the claimed “olivine-based binder”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the pore solution" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "other forms of reinforcement" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by the term “other"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “added to the cement stone for producing” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is being produced by adding “a binder that comprises Portland cement clinker”.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase (“as paint or varnish”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (WO 2022124996 A1), hereinafter referred to as YANG, in view of Trivedi et al. (US 4830898 A), hereinafter referred to as TRIVEDI.
Regarding claim 11, YANG teaches a composite material (see YANG at paragraph [0009]: magnesium- silicatehydrate composite), comprising:
cement stone composed of an MgO-based binder and/or olivine-based binder, which comprises, as a starting material, a forsterite source in the form of a natural or artificial olivine source (see YANG at paragraph [00191]: MgO can also be obtained from reject brine and magnesium-rich silicate rocks such as olivine) and/or in the form of tempered serpentinite, as well as reinforcing elements for increasing the load-bearing capacity, wherein the reinforcing elements comprise:
carbon fibers and/or glass fibers (see YANG at paragraph [0086]: a strain hardening cement pre-mix that includes a reactive magnesium oxide cement, an amorphous silica source, and a fiber), and/or
steel reinforcements, which are hot-dipped and/or comprise a layer of paint or varnish, whereby they have protection against pH values of less than 11.2.
While YANG discloses a cementitious composition comprising fiber and that the fiber may be coated with carbon nanofiber (see YANG at paragraphs [0086] and [0090]), YANG is silent with respect to the glass fibers being resistant to pH values below 11.
However, TRIVEDI discloses an alkali-resistant glass fiber (see TRIVEDI at Col. 1, lines 8-9). TRIVEDI teaches that the disclosed fiber, either uncoated or coated and preferably in strand form, is particularly suitable as a reinforcing agent in such a cementitious product which have a highly alkaline environment; in such products, the fiber will normally be present at a level of from about 1 to 20 weight percent of the product (see TRIVEDI at Col. 5, lines 15-20).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the cementitious composition of YANG by utilizing alkali-resistant glass fiber disclosed by TRIVEDI since TRIVEDI explicitly teaches that the disclosed alkali-resistant glass fiber is particularly suitable as a reinforcing agent in such a cementitious product (see TRIVEDI at Col. 5, lines 15-20).
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 composition of YANG utilizing glass fiber disclosed by TRIVEDI because there is a reasonable expectation of success that alkali-resistant glass fiber of TRIVELI would be suitable.
Regarding claim 12, YANG as modified by TRIVEDI teaches the composite material according to claim 11, wherein the pore solution of the cement stone has a pH value of 11 or lower (see YANG at paragraph [00196]: M-S-H matrix has intrinsically low pH values (i.e.~ 10.0- 10.5); the reinforcement steel passivation requires much higher pH then the final pore solution pH of M-S-H). YANG teaches range which is within and anticipates the claimed range of 11 or lower.
Regarding claim 13, YANG as modified by TRIVEDI teaches the composite material according to claim 11, wherein the MgO-based binder and/or olivine-based binder comprises MgO and SiO2 (see YANG at paragraph [00121]: the cementitious composition may be an aqueous suspension when mixed with water, wherein the aqueous suspension may include magnesium oxide cement (e.g. reactive magnesium oxide cement (RMC)) and an amorphous silica source (e.g. microsilica)), MgO and MgCO3, MgO and glass powder, olivine and SiO2, olivine and glass powder, olivine and trass, olivine and pozzolan, tempered serpentinite and SiO2, tempered serpentinite and glass powder, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 14, YANG as modified by TRIVEDI teaches the composite material according to claim 11, wherein the reinforcing elements are configured without the protective layer to resist pH value of less than 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above and TRIVEDI at Col. 1, lines 8-9: alkali-resistant glass fiber; and Col. 5, lines 15-17: fiber, either uncoated or coated, is particularly suitable as a reinforcing agent in a cementitious product).
Regarding claim 15, YANG as modified by TRIVEDI teaches the composite material according to claim 11, wherein the carbon fiber and/or glass fibers are in the form of fiber reinforcement, mesh reinforcement, bar reinforcement and/or other forms of reinforcement (see rejection of claim 11 above and TRIVEDI at Col. 1, lines 8-9: alkali-resistant glass fiber).
Regarding claim 17, YANG as modified by TRIVEDI teaches the composite material according to claim 11, wherein the reinforcing elements as paint or varnish layer comprise a layer of paint or varnish made of plastic, for protection against an alkaline environment with a pH value of less than 11 (see rejection of claim 1 above and TRIVEDI at Col. 2, lines 27-32: while the compositions of this invention are inherently alkali resistant, the cooled continuous fiber and/or the strand may be coated with a layer of alkali-resistant polymer to provide additional alkali resistance).
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keulen et al. (WO 2021028581 A1), hereinafter referred to as KEULEN, in view of TRIVEDI.
Regarding claim 11, KEULEN teaches a composite material (see KEULEN at line 15, p. 2: concrete composite), comprising:
cement stone composed of an MgO-based binder and/or olivine-based binder (see KEULEN at lines 24-25, p. 2: a composite comprising: a particulate material; and lines 31-32, p. 6: about 5% top 100% by weight of the particulate material is selected from … magnesium oxide), which comprises, as a starting material, a forsterite source in the form of a natural or artificial olivine source (see KEULEN at line 2, p. 10: olivine, serpentine) and/or in the form of tempered serpentinite, as well as reinforcing elements for increasing the load-bearing capacity, wherein the reinforcing elements comprise:
carbon fibers and/or glass fibers (see KEULEN at lines 16-18, p. 19: the further additive comprises fibres of nanomaterials, carbon nanotubes, glass fibres), and/or
steel reinforcements, which are hot-dipped and/or comprise a layer of paint or varnish, whereby they have protection against pH values of less than 11.2.
While KEULEN discloses a composition reinforced with glass fibers (see KEULEN at lines 16-18, p. 19) and that applications of the concrete composites need to be able to withstand a wide variety of conditions in corrosive environments, such as due to de-icing salt, rain, sunshine, heat, frost, natural carbonation, seawater and acidic environments (see KEULEN at lines 31-34, p. 1), KEULEN is silent with respect to the glass fibers being resistant to pH values below 11.
However, TRIVEDI discloses an alkali-resistant glass fiber (see TRIVEDI at Col. 1, lines 8-9). TRIVEDI teaches that the disclosed fiber, either uncoated or coated and preferably in strand form, is particularly suitable as a reinforcing agent in such a cementitious product which have a highly alkaline environment; in such products, the fiber will normally be present at a level of from about 1 to 20 weight percent of the product (see TRIVEDI at Col. 5, lines 15-20).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the cementitious composition of KEULEN by utilizing alkali-resistant glass fiber disclosed by TRIVEDI since TRIVEDI explicitly teaches that the disclosed alkali-resistant glass fiber is particularly suitable as a reinforcing agent in such a cementitious product (see TRIVEDI at Col. 5, lines 15-20).
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 composition of KEULEN utilizing glass fiber disclosed by TRIVEDI because there is a reasonable expectation of success that alkali-resistant glass fiber of TRIVEDI would be suitable.
Regarding claim 16, KEULEN as modified by TRIVEDI teaches the composite material according to claim 11, wherein a binder that comprises Portland cement clinker is added to the cement stone for producing, in addition to the MgO-based binder and/or olivine-based binder (see KEULEN at lines 1-7, p. 10: the particulate material comprises … olivine, serpentine, Portland cement, … Portland clinker … or any combination of two or more thereof).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sherif et al. (US 5002610 A) discloses improved fast-setting magnesium phosphate cements containing an effective amount of fiber to increase the impact strength of the resulting concrete (Col. 1, lines 9-12).
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