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 .
Claim Interpretation
The limitation of “between 0% and 5% by weight of lignosulfonate” is interpreted as including the lower and upper limits as lignosulfonate appears to be an optional component.
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 5 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 5 recites “the kiln temperature” and this appears to lack proper antecedent basis as claim 1 recites “sintering temperature”. Is this a different temperature? Clarification is requested.
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 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 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.
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 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Korea Patent Specification No. KR 100448330 B1.
The reference teaches, in claim 1, an artificial aggregate comprising 100 parts by weight fly ash; 5-10 parts by weight of cement based on 100 parts by weight of fly ash; 5 to 20 parts by weight of sodium hydroxide as a binding material to 100 parts by weight of the fly ash; 5 to 25 parts by weight of water glass as a point solution for 100 parts by weight of the fly ash; and 5-10 parts by weight of manganese dioxide which is a metal oxide with respect to 100 parts by weight of the fly ash. Claim 2 recites that the fly ash is coal fly ash. Paragraph [0036] teaches that the Loss on Ignition is less than 12%.
The instant claims are anticipated by and/or rendered obvious over the reference.
Claims 11, 14 and 17 are product-by-process claims and as such the patentability depends on the product itself. The reference teaches an aggregate comprising at least coal fly ash, from 5 to 20 parts sodium hydroxide and the coal fly ash has a loss on ignition of less than 12%. While the reference does not teach the same process, it is believed that the resulting product is the same. As stated in MPEP 2113 [R-1]: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference "The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
Accordingly since the resulting product appears to be the same the instant claims are anticipated by and/or rendered obvious by the reference.
Claims 12-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korea Patent Specification No. KR 100448330 B1.
The reference teaches, in claim 1, an artificial aggregate comprising 100 parts by weight fly ash; 5-10 parts by weight of cement based on 100 parts by weight of fly ash; 5 to 20 parts by weight of sodium hydroxide as a binding material to 100 parts by weight of the fly ash; 5 to 25 parts by weight of water glass as a point solution for 100 parts by weight of the fly ash; and 5-10 parts by weight of manganese dioxide which is a metal oxide with respect to 100 parts by weight of the fly ash. Claim 2 recites that the fly ash is coal fly ash. Paragraph [0036] teaches that the Loss on Ignition is less than 12%.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches an aggregate comprising at least coal fly ash, from 5 to 20 parts sodium hydroxide and the coal fly ash has a loss on ignition of less than 12%.
As for claim 13, as the composition is the same it would therefore possess this property. 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 15, the reference teaches 5 to 20 parts and therefore meets this claim.
As for claim 16, as the composition is the same it would therefore possess this property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties.
As for claim 18, based on the claim interpretation, the range includes 0% and therefore does not have to be present.
As for claim 19, as the composition is the same it would therefore possess this property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties.
As for claim 20, as the composition is the same it would therefore possess this property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties.
Claims 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over China Patent Specification No. CN 107074651 B.
The reference teaches, in claim 17, a geopolymer aggregate, comprising a cured, compacted, fly ash or fly ash substitute, aluminosilicate, a mixture of alkaline components and water, wherein before curing, the water is present in an amount of 6 % to 10 % (by weight) of the weight of the mixture; the alkaline component is present in an amount of 6 % to 10 % by weight of the mixture. Claim 20 teaches NaOH as an example of the alkaline component. Claim 22 teaches that, prior to curing, the mixture comprises from 77 % to 84 % by weight fly ash and/or fly ash substitute, from about 7 % to about 7 % aluminosilicate and from 6 % to 10 % alkaline component by weight. The fly ash is produced from coal from a coal-fired power plant and has a loss on ignition of less than 4% (see page 15, 6th full paragraph and the last paragraph).
The instant claims are anticipated by and/or rendered obvious over the reference.
Claims 11, 14 and 17 are product-by-process claims and as such the patentability depends on the product itself. The reference teaches an aggregate comprising at least 77 to 84% coal fly ash, from 6 to 10% alkaline component NaOH and the coal fly ash has a loss on ignition of less than 12%. While the reference does not teach the same process, it is believed that the resulting product is the same. As stated in MPEP 2113 [R-1]: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference "The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
Accordingly since the resulting product appears to be the same the instant claims are anticipated by and/or rendered obvious by the reference.
Claims 12-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 107074651 B.
The reference teaches, in claim 17, a geopolymer aggregate, comprising a cured, compacted, fly ash or fly ash substitute, aluminosilicate, a mixture of alkaline components and water, wherein before curing, the water is present in an amount of 6 % to 10 % (by weight) of the weight of the mixture; the alkaline component is present in an amount of 6 % to 10 % by weight of the mixture. Claim 20 teaches NaOH as an example of the alkaline component. Claim 22 teaches that, prior to curing, the mixture comprises from 77 % to 84 % by weight fly ash and/or fly ash substitute, from about 7 % to about 7 % aluminosilicate and from 6 % to 10 % alkaline component by weight. The fly ash is produced from coal from a coal-fired power plant and has a loss on ignition of less than 4% (see page 15, 6th full paragraph and the last paragraph).
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 12, the reference teaches a geopolymer aggregate comprising at least coal fly ash, comprising at least 77 to 84% coal fly ash, from 6 to 10% alkaline component NaOH and the coal fly ash has a loss on ignition of less than 12%.
As for claim 13, as the composition is the same it would therefore possess this property. 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 15, the reference teaches 6 to 10% based on the mixture and therefore meets this claim.
As for claim 16, as the composition is the same it would therefore possess this property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties.
As for claim 18, based on the claim interpretation, the range includes 0% and therefore does not have to be present.
As for claim 19, as the composition is the same it would therefore possess this property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties.
As for claim 20, as the composition is the same it would therefore possess this property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are allowed.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights