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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/02/2026.
Claims 1-17 are presently pending; claims 1-6 are withdrawn; claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 12 and 14-16 are amended; claim 17 is new; claims 7-17 are under examination.
The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
The objections to claims 10, 12 and 16 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
New objections to claims 15-16 are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejections of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 7-9 and 14 over DUBEJ and claims 7-8 and 11 over YAKOVLEV, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 10 over DUBEJ and over YAKOVLEV, claims 12-13 over DUBEJ in view of CHUNG, and claims 15-16 over YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final action on 05/13/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, “of from” should read “from” (see claim 15 at line 10).
In claim 16, “a filler is in” should read “a filler in” (see claim 16 at line 8).
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 15-16 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 15 is dependent upon claim 7, which requires “one or more of basalt fiber or sodium hydroxide” (see claim 7 at lines 4-5); however, claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the building material manufactured from the formulation comprises… one or more of basalt fiber in an amount from 0% w/w to about 3% w/w or sodium hydroxide in an amount between 6% w/w and 12% w/w” (see claim 15 at lines 13-14), which indicates that these components are both optional and neither is actually required, as a material comprising 0% of basalt fiber (i.e., no basalt fiber) and no sodium hydroxide would meet the limitations of this claim. This renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether or not these components are actually required by the claim or are meant to be optional.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated this limitation in claim 15 as though it recites “basalt fiber in an amount of up to about 3% w/w”, i.e., as though at least one of the basalt fiber or sodium hydroxide is actually required. Clarification is requested.
Claim 16 is included herein as it depends from a claim which is indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
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.
Claim 15 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.
Claim 15 depends from claim 7, which recites “one or more of basalt fiber or sodium hydroxide” (see claim 7 at lines 4-5). Claim 15 recites the further limitation “wherein the building material manufactured from the formulation comprises… one or more of basalt fiber in an amount from 0% w/w to about 3% w/w or sodium hydroxide in an amount between 6% w/w and 12% w/w” (see claim 15 at lines 13-14), which indicates that these components are both optional and neither is actually required, as a material comprising 0% of basalt fiber (i.e., no basalt fiber) and no sodium hydroxide would meet the limitations of this claim. Claim 15 is therefore of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 7-11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakovlev, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0416592-A1) (hereinafter, “YAKOVLEV”) in view of Zubrod, et al. (WO-2018/026714-A1) (hereinafter, “ZUBROD”) and Hull (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0196061-A1) (hereinafter, “HULL”).
Regarding claim 7, YAKOVLEV teaches a method of manufacturing a building material (see YAKOVLEV generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0005]-[0006]) comprising:
(i) obtaining a dry geopolymer formulation (see YAKOVLEV at Abstract and paragraph [0008])
comprising a sand (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0028] and Table 1, teaching silica, in the form of silica sand),
a ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0019], [0043] and [0046]),
a fly ash (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0019], [0043] and [0046]),
sodium tetraborate (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0026], teaching mixtures of borax (i.e., sodium tetraborate) and boric acid),
a boric acid (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0026], teaching mixtures of borax (i.e., sodium tetraborate) and boric acid),
a zeolite (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0019]),
sulfonated polymer (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0043] and [0046], teaching polynapthalene sulfonate dispersant),
sodium metasilicate (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0023]-[0024], [0035] and [0046]-[0067]),
and one or more of basalt fiber or sodium hydroxide (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0034], teaching an alkali metal hydroxide MOH where M can be Na; i.e., sodium hydroxide);
(ii) hydrating said formulation (see YAKOVLEV at Abstract and paragraph [0008]);
(iii) mixing the hydrated formulation (see YAKOVLEV at Abstract and paragraph [0008]);
(iv) dispensing the formulation (see YAKOVLEV at Abstract and paragraph [0008]); and
(v) curing the formulation to form the building material (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0008]).
YAKOVLEV further teaches that other additives may be included, and that those of ordinary skill in the art will understand how to select a suitable type and amount of additive for the compositions (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0029]); however, YAKOVLEV fails to explicitly teach that the formulation comprises a sodium caseinate or hemp.
ZUBROD teaches a method of making a geopolymer concrete (see ZUBROD at Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0027]) comprising a sand, GGBFS (e.g., 5-50 wt%), fly ash (e.g., 5-50 wt%), sodium metasilicate (e.g., 3-15 wt%), sodium tetraborate and/or boric acid retarder (e.g., 1-7 wt%) (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0035], [0050], [0082], [0076] and [0092]-[0093]) and 0.01-5 wt%, e.g., 0.09-0.16 wt%, of sodium salt of casein, i.e., sodium caseinate (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0034], [0086]-[0087] and [[0092]-0093]). ZUBROD teaches that sodium caseinate is a protein which is added in this concentration range in order to produce a covalent bond between mixture silicates and hydroxides which helps the mixture to maintain a consistent volume during the curing process and reduce sticky/tacky characteristics (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0086]-[0087]).
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 method of YAKOVLEV by adding 0.09 to 0.16 wt% of sodium caseinate as taught by ZUBROD (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0034], [0086]-[0087] and [[0092]-0093]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of maintaining a consistent volume of the formulation during curing and being able to control sticky/tacky characteristics as taught by ZUBROD (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0086]-[0087]).
ZUBROD further teaches that alkali-resistant micro fibers are an important ingredient in geopolymer formulations to reduce cracking and that routine tests will determine the specific concentration of fibers for optimum effect but an amount within a range of 0.01-5 wt% is generally effective (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0034] and [0079]), but fails to explicitly mention hemp fibers.
HULL teaches a method of manufacturing a fiber-reinforced building material comprising providing and hydrating a composition comprising, e.g., sand, furnace slag, fly ash, zeolite, etc. (see HULL at paragraphs [0009], [0012], [0021]-[0026], [0031]-[0032] and [0037]) wherein the reinforcement fibers may be natural fibers such as hemp (see HULL at paragraphs [0042]-[0045]). HULL teaches that these fibers are useful for reinforcing the compositions to improve tensile strength, shear strength and/or scour strength, and to prevent cracking or fracturing (see HULL at paragraphs [0004], [0022], [0043] and [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of YAKOVLEV by including hemp fibers as taught by HULL (see HULL at paragraphs [0042]-[0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include these fibers for the benefit of reinforcing the composition, preventing cracking or fracturing of the building material and improving the tensile strength, shear strength and/or scour strength as taught by HULL and ZUBROD (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0034] and [0079]; see HULL at paragraphs [0004], [0022], [0042]-[0045] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 7, wherein dispensing comprises pumping or spraying said formulation (see YAKOVLEV at Abstract and paragraph [0008], teaching pumping the formulation).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 7 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 7.
YAKOVLEV does not explicitly mention screeding, troweling, or finishing after the dispensing.
However, these are known and common practices in the art. For example, ZUBROD teaches that troweling can be used to apply a geopolymer composition to a surface, and that finishing of the dispensed/applied layer may be required (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0020], [0023], [0052], [0075], [0079] and [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of YAKOVLEV by troweling or finishing the dispensed formulation as taught by ZUBROD (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0020], [0023], [0052], [0075], [0079] and [0088]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that troweling or finishing of the formulation could be included as these are well-known methods in the art. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include one of these steps for the benefit of achieving a desired application of the composition and/or a desired surface finish.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 7 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 7, wherein the curing is performed at about 111 °F (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0043], teaching a curing temperature of 44 °C, i.e., about 111 °F).
YAKOVLEV does not explicitly teach a curing temperature of about 30 °F to about 100 °F; however, 111 °F is close to 100 °F, and MPEP § 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 7 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 7, wherein the formulation is cured for a period between 20 minutes and 14 days (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0025], [0043] and [0046], teaching curing for 24 hours).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 7 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 7, wherein the building material is an exterior wall covering, an exterior standalone wall system, a roofing, an accessory dwelling unit, a stucco, a lap siding, an applied stone, a tile, a shingle, a sheet good, a soffit panel, or a waterproofing concrete (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0004]-[0006], teaching that the geopolymers are used as concrete for construction applications other than lining wells, such as, e.g., for underground or subsea electrical installations; i.e., the building material can be a waterproofing concrete).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 7 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 7, wherein the building material manufactured from the formulation comprises:
sodium caseinate in an amount from 0.09% w/w to 0.14% w/w (see ZUBROD at paragraphs [0034], [0086]-[0087] and [[0092]-0093], teaching 0.09% to 0.16%, which overlaps with, and is nearly identical to, the claimed range);
sand, GGBFS, fly ash, sodium tetraborate, boric acid, zeolite, sulfonated polymer, hemp, sodium metasilicate, and one or more of basalt fiber or sodium hydroxide (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0019], [0023]-[0024], [0026], [0028], [0034]-[0035], [0043] and [0046]-[0047], and Table 1; see HULL at paragraphs [0042]-[0045]).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above, ZUBROD explicitly teaches that fiber content in geopolymer formulations affects performance such as cracking, and that routine tests will determine the specific concentration of fibers for optimum effect but an amount within a range of 0.01-5 wt% is generally effective, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1% w/w to 5% w/w; HULL explicitly teaches that fiber (hemp) content affects properties such as tensile strength, shear strength, scour strength, and cracking or fracturing (see HULL at paragraphs [0004], [0022], [0043] and [0058]); and YAKOVLEV also explicitly states that those of ordinary skill in the art will understand how to select a suitable type and amount of additive for the compositions (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0029]); i.e., all three references explicitly teach that hemp fiber content is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation and optimization.
YAKOVLEV teaches that the heavy particles such as silica sand or barite may be added in an amount of between about 0.06 kg/L and 0.6 kg/L, and provides examples wherein the heavy particles (silica sand or barite) are used in an amount of about 38% or about 45% by weight (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0028] and Table 1), which falls within the claimed range of 15% w/w to 50% w/w; YAKOVLEV further teaches that the amount of silica sand added affects the density of the geopolymer slurry (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0028]), i.e., YAKOVLEV explicitly teaches that the concentration is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill. YAKOVLEV teaches that the dry mixture is an aluminosilicate source mixed with an activator and other additives, that water is included in an amount of about 20% to about 60% by weight of the slurry, and that the activator (sodium metasilicate, sodium hydroxide) is included in an amount of about 4 to 40% by weight of the dry mixture, and that the aluminosilicate source may be a mixture of more than two including GGBFS, fly ash, and zeolite (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0009], [0019], [0025], [0028], [0034] and claim 29), i.e., the aluminosilicate sources of GGBFS, fly ash, and zeolite may each be used alone in an amount of about up to 77% by weight in the total slurry, or in combination in an amount of up to about 77% by weight in the total slurry, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 20% w/w to 70% w/w GGBFS, 12% w/w to 70% w/w fly ash, and 0.2% w/w to 2% w/w zeolite; YAKOVLEV further teaches that the amounts of the different types of aluminosilicate sources used affects the calcium oxide content and reactivity of the composition and affects the amount of solid activator required to achieve the desired thickening time and hardness of the final geopolymer (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0019] and [0025]), i.e., YAKOVLEV explicitly teaches that the amounts of GGBFS, fly ash and zeolite are result-effective variables which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. YAKOVLEV teaches that the borax (i.e., sodium tetraborate), boric acid, or mixtures thereof can be added to the dry mixture in amounts of 0.01 to 5% by weight as a retarder (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0026]), i.e., about 0.004% to about 4% by weight of the total slurry, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 1.7% w/w to 3.3% w/w sodium tetraborate and 0.4% w/w to 3% boric acid. YAKOVLEV further teaches that the amount of retarder added affects the amount of retardation of the polymerization reaction and ability of the slurry to set (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0026]), i.e., YAKOVLEV explicitly teaches that the amounts of borax and boric acid are result-effective variables which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. YAKOVLEV teaches using the dispersant additive in an amount of, e.g., 0.15% by weight of the aluminosilicate source (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0043] and [0046]), i.e., an amount of up to about 1.1% by weight of the total slurry, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.036% w/w to 0.11% w/w. YAKOVLEV further teaches that the selection of the type and amounts of additives such as dispersants largely depends on the nature and composition of the set composition and that those of ordinary skill in the art will understand how to select a suitable type and amount of additive for the composition (see YAKOVLEV at paragraph [0029]), i.e., YAKOVLEV explicitly teaches that the amount of dispersant is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. As discussed above, YAKOVLEV teaches that the sodium metasilicate activator (sodium metasilicate, sodium hydroxide) may be used in an amount of about 4 to 40% by weight of the dry mixture (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0023]-[0025] and [0034]-[0035] and claim 29), i.e., about 2% to 32% by weight of the total slurry, which overlaps with the claimed range of between 6% w/w and 12% w/w. YAKOVLEV further teaches that the activator content is selected to provide a desired thickening time, hardness and compressive strength (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0025] and [0034]), i.e., YAKOVLEV explicitly teaches that the amounts of sodium metasilicate and sodium hydroxide are result-effective variables which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, 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)). 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.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "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." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 15 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the building material manufactured from the formulation further comprises one or more of: magnesium oxide in an amount between 0.02% w/w and 0.065% w/w; an aggregate for providing structural stability to the building material in an amount between 1% and 50% w/w; or a filler in an amount between 1% w/w and 50% w/w (see YAKOVLEV at paragraphs [0019], [0024], [0028] and [0033], teaching MgO, crushed granite (aggregate), glass dust/powder, micro/nanosilica, etc. (fillers); as discussed in the rejection of claim 15 above, YAKOVLEV teaches using heavy particles, e.g. silica sand, crushed granite, which are aggregates, in amounts of, e.g., about 38% or about 45% by weight, and teaches that the amount used is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art). 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.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "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." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 7 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 7, wherein the building material has a compressive strength between 2000 psi and 12000 psi (see YAKOVLEV at Table 2, showing that the disclosed compositions can achieve compressive strengths of, e.g., 2,430, 2,270, or 2,330 psi).
YAKOVLEV does not explicitly teach that the material has a flexural strength between 700 psi and 1000 psi and one or more of a tensile strength between 600 psi and 900 psi, an impact resistance of about 3500 psi, or one or more of zero smoke spread, or zero flame spread. However, HULL teaches that including the hemp fibers improves tensile strength and prevents cracking and fracturing (see HULL at paragraphs [0004], [0026] and [0043]-[0045]).
Although the references do not explicitly disclose the claimed properties mentioned above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method of forming a building material which is identical or substantially identical to the method of claim 7 as claimed; therefore, the building material formed by the method of YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as the claimed building material, including compressive strength, flexural strength, and one or more of tensile strength, impact resistance, smoke spread or flame spread. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. The USPTO does not possess the laboratory facilities to test the properties of the referenced product. However, in light of the reference's disclosure as discussed herein, it appears the claimed invention and that of YAKOVLEV as modified have the same or very similar properties. Thus, the burden shifts to Applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chung, et al. (KR-20210023941-A) (hereinafter, “CHUNG”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a previous office action).
Regarding claims 12-13, as applied to claim 7 above, YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL teaches a method according to claim 7, wherein the hydration uses water (see YAKOVLEV at Abstract and paragraph [0008]).
However, YAKOVLEV fails to explicitly mention a specific type of water, and does not explicitly teach one or more of potable water, wash water, underground water, agriculture water, or sea water, as recited by claim 12, or sea water, as recited by claim 13.
CHUNG teaches a method of manufacturing a building material comprising mixing a dry geopolymer material with water (see CHUNG at paragraphs 64, 68, 141, 643-648) wherein the water is, e.g., water or seawater (see CHUNG at paragraphs 97, 392 and 714).
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 further modified the method of YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL by simply substituting the unspecified water for seawater, as taught by CHUNG (see CHUNG at paragraphs 97 and 714). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of hydrating the mixture with water. Further, sea water is a known kind of water used in the art, and MPEP § 2144.07 states that “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to claims 7-16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references as set forth in the grounds of rejection above.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims 15-16 and 112(d) for claim 15, and under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 7-11 and 14-17 over YAKOVLEV in view of ZUBROD and HULL, and for claims 12-13 further in view of CHUNG as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 on 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights