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
Applicants’ amendments, filed 9/24/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. Examiner notes amendment to claims and the cancellation of claims 17-20. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the instant application.
Specification
The amendment filed 9/24/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “chemicals such as ammonium phosphate and ammonium borate.” Here, the added chemicals are not previously recited in the specification, nor any reference to these compounds can be located and therefore the addition to these previously unreferenced chemicals appears to be new matter.
Applicants are required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
Drawing replacement sheet is noted and accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1-16 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 1 requires “colloidal metal silicate solution is a siliceous solution being a configured as sodium silicate solution”; however, the metes and bounds of this requirement remains unclear as it is unclear if the metal silicate solution is sodium silicate solution or how a different metal silicate solution is configured such that it is sodium silicate solution. If the intent is that the colloid metal silicate solution is a sodium silicate solution, the examiner requests that applicant amend the claims to include “wherein the colloidal metal silicate solution is a sodium silicate solution”
Claim 1 requires “the sodium silicate solutions solution”; however, this appears to include the additional “solutions” that should be deleted from the claim.
Claim 1 include “shear thickening fluid”, “siliceous solution”, “metal silicate solution”, “sodium silicate solution”, “siliceous solutions”, “viscous solutions” and “sodium silicate solutions” and therefore it is unclear if these are all the same or different materials or are referring to the same solutions. Here, the applicant appears to be referring to the same materials with the varying names. Appropriate clarification is required on the record.
Claim 11 requires “at least one of the shear thickening fluid has solutions” however, the instant claim require “at least one of” and then lists a singular fluid and therefore it is unclear
Dependent claims include the limitations of the claims form which they depend and are therefore similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art cited or reviewed by the examiner, alone or in combination, fails to disclose the comprehensive claim as instantly drafted. Examiner cites herein the references are pertinent on the PTO 892 attached. The closest prior art is US-20210170623-A1 by Berg et al. which explicitly discloses and makes obvious the upgrading the lumber vacuum pressure process for sodium silicate; however, fails to provide or make obvious the particulars of the claims as drafted, specifically, with respect to the software configured to cause the controller to perform the claimed process steps when viewed with the combination of the totality of the remaining claim requirements.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
