CTNF 19/100,701 CTNF 65854 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The amendment submitted on 13 April 2026 has been entered. After entry of the amendment, claims 47-58 and 60-67 are currently pending in the application. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 13 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the reference utilized in the restriction fails to teach “activate in response to contacting a hydroxide material in the set cementitious material”. This is not found persuasive because this limitation appears to be a property that is inherently possessed by the composition of the reference as the composition is the same. Further the references utilized in the rejections below all contain the same composition and therefore the property would be inherently possessed by the composition. 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. In addition, applicant argues that the previous examiner did not cite any portions of the reference as allegedly teaching a determination of "wherein the geopolymer slurry composition is configured to activate in response to contacting a hydroxide material in the set cementitious material" as set forth in amended independent claims 47, 55, and 58. This argument is without merit as it is unclear as to how an examiner can cite a portion of a reference which refers to a claim limitation which is not even present in the claims when the restriction is made. Applicant’s arguments are referring to the claims as amended, not as they were previously presented. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly claims 58 and 60-66 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 52 recites that the composition is free of any activator however claim 47, the claim from which it depends, recites “a third component that activates” which would be an activator. Therefore applicant cannot claim that it is free of any activator. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 47-50 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by PCT International Publication Number WO 2011/072786 A1 . The reference teaches, in the abstract and the claims, a geopolymeric suspension comprising an aluminosilicate source, a carrier fluid and an activator. The aluminosilicate source may be clays, fly ashes, blast furnace slags, zeolites, feldspars, etc. The carrier fluid may be fresh water, sea water, brines, etc. The activator can be a silicate, a metal aluminate, an alkali metal hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide, an alkaline earth metal hydroxide, sodium carbonate and mixtures. The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 47, the carrier fluid meets the first component, the aluminosilicate source meets the second component and the activator meets the third component. As for the limitation of “configured to activate in response to contacting a hydroxide material” this is an inherent property possessed by the composition 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 48, the reference teaches sodium carbonate which is an alkali metal salt. As for claim 49, the reference teaches a sodium salt. As for claim 50, the reference teaches sodium carbonate. As for claim 54, the reference teaches clay, slag, fly ash, and zeolite . 07-15 AIA Claim s 47-51 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by PCT International Publication Number WO 2013/148843 A2 . The reference teaches, in the claims, a geopolymer precursor aerogel composition comprising an aluminosilicate reactant, an alkaline activator, an aerogel additive and a continuous medium. The aluminosilicate reactant is fly ash. The alkaline activator is sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. The continuous medium is water. The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 47, the continuous medium (water) meets the first component, the aluminosilicate reactant meets the second component and the alkaline activator meets the third component. As for the limitation of “configured to activate in response to contacting a hydroxide material” this is an inherent property possessed by the composition 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 48, the reference teaches various alkali metal salts such as sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. As for claim 49, the reference teaches sodium and potassium. As for claim 50, the reference teaches sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. As for claim 51, example 1 teaches an amount that falls within the claimed range. As for claim 54, the reference teaches fly ash . 07-15 AIA Claim s 47-50 and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Dubey (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0174571 A1) . The reference teaches, in the claim 1, an aluminosilicate geopolymer cementitious composition for comprising a reaction product of: a cementitious reactive powder comprising: about 35 to about 96% by weight a thermally activated aluminosilicate mineral comprising Class C fly ash; about 9 to about 45% by weight of a calcium aluminate cement in an amount of 1-100 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of thermally activated aluminosilicate mineral; and about 1 to about 45% by weight a calcium sulfate selected from the group consisting of calcium sulfate dihydrate, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, anhydrous calcium sulfate and mixtures thereof, the calcium sulfate in an amount of 2 to 100 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of calcium aluminate cement; and a chemical activator selected from the group consisting of alkali metal salt, alkali metal base, and mixtures thereof in an amount equal to about 1.0 to about 6.0% by weight based on total weight of the cementitious reactive powder; and at least one member of the group consisting of superplasticizers, air entraining agents, defoaming agents, organic rheology control agents, and film-forming polymers; and water. According to paragraph [0119] the average particle size of the thermally activated aluminosilicate minerals of some embodiments of the invention is preferably less than about 100 microns, preferably less than about 50 microns, more preferably less than about 25 microns, and still more preferably less that about 15 microns. Examples of the activators include sodium citrate and potassium citrate as preferred alkali metal acid activators. Alkali metal bases, such as alkali metal hydroxides, and alkali metal silicates also may be used depending on the application and the needs of that application (see paragraph [0024]). The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 47, the water meets the first component, the aluminosilicate material meets the second component and the activator meets the third component. As for the limitation of “configured to activate in response to contacting a hydroxide material” this is an inherent property possessed by the composition 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 48, the reference teaches sodium citrate, potassium citrate and alkali metal silicate. As for claim 49, the reference teaches sodium and potassium. As for claim 50, the reference teaches an alkali metal silicate. As for claim 53, the fly ash has a size of preferably less than about 100 microns, preferably less than about 50 microns, more preferably less than about 25 microns, and still more preferably less that about 15 microns thus meeting the claimed limitation. As for claim 54, the reference teaches Class C fly ash . 07-15 AIA Claim s 47-50 and 54-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Czech Republic Patent Specification No. CZ 292875 B6 . The reference teaches, in claim 1, a geopolymer binder based on fly ash intended for the production of slurries, mortars and concretes or waste fixation containing 70 up to 94% by weight power plant fly ash with a specific surface area of 150 to 600 m 2 /kg; 5 up to 15 % by weight of an alkaline activator composed of a mixture of an alkali hydroxide and an alkali silicate, for example water glass, this activator containing 5 to 15 wt. Me 2 O and has a SiO 2 /Me 2 O ratio in the range of 0.6 to 1.5, where Me is Na or K; and 1 to 15 % by wt. calcium compounds such as CaCO 3 , CaMg(CO 3 ) 2 , CaSO 4 , CaSO 4 ∙2H 2 O, Ca(OH) 2 , ground limestone, ground gypsum, ground dolomitic limestone, waste gypsum from chemical production, waste gypsum from desulphurisation processes, cement from recycled concrete. Claim 2 recites that the particle size of the calcium compound range from 1 to 200 µm. Claim 5 recites the production of a slurry by mixing water. The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 47, the water meets the first component, the fly ash meets the second component and the alkaline activator meets the third component. As for the limitation of “configured to activate in response to contacting a hydroxide material” this is an inherent property possessed by the composition 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 48, the reference teaches a mixture of an alkali hydroxide and an alkali silicate, and 1 to 15 wt. As for claim 49, the reference teaches sodium and potassium. As for claim 50, the reference teaches alkali silicate. As for claim 54, the reference teaches fly ash. As for claim 55, the water meets the first component, the fly ash meets the second component and the calcium compound which may be cement from recycled concrete. It is clear that the cement from recycled concrete is a particulate form as claim 2 of the reference recites as size of from 1 to 200 µm. As for the limitation of “configured to activate in response to contacting a hydroxide material” this is an inherent property possessed by the composition 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 56, based on the surface area of the fly ash, it would appear that the particle size would be less than 20 microns absent evidence showing otherwise. As for claim 57, the reference teaches fly ash . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 67 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT International Publication Number WO 2013/148843 A2 . The reference was discussed previously. The instant claim is obvious over the reference. As for claim 67, the reference teaches, in claim 9, amounts of components that overlap the claimed range of amounts 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 May 28, 2026 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 2 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 3 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 4 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 5 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 7 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 8 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 9 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 10 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 11 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 19/100,701 Page 12 Art Unit: 1731
Prosecution Insights