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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1 in the response filed on 12/11/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 3-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 20120318171 (“Jezequel et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, Jezequel et al. teaches a process for preparing a granulate containing pores comprising the following steps:
a) producing a foamed mass comprising sand, hydraulic binder, foaming agent and water ([0003], [0005], and [0056]-[0064]),
b) pouring the foamed mass into a filling mould [0065],
c) partially curing the mass over a first period of time at ambient pressure to form a green block with a first target strength [0066], and
d) demoulding the green block [0066],
e) splitting the green block into at least two sub-blocks having an intermediate size [0068],
f) curing the at least two sub-blocks from step e) over a second period of time at ambient pressure until a second target strength is reached, wherein the first period of time of the curing is shorter than the second period of time of the curing ([0068], [0071], [0116], and [0119])
g) further breaking the cured sub-blocks from step f) to form the pore-containing granulate with a targeted particle size distribution (i.e. crushing the sub-blocks/elements to perform tests ([0095]-[0099]).
With regards to Claims 3, 15 and 16, Jezequel et al. teaches the first period of time of the curing is 12 to 24 hrs [0116].
With regards to Claims 4 and 17, Jezequel et al. teaches the second curing period is 7 days [0119].
With regards to Claim 5, Jezequel et al. teaches that the partial curing of the mass in step c) is carried out in a dry atmosphere [0116].
With regards to Claim 7, Jezequel et al. teaches that the further curing of the sub-blocks in step f) is carried out at ambient temperature and ambient humidity [0068].
With regards to Claim 8, Jezequel et al. teaches the breaking of the cured sub-blocks into the pore-containing granulate of step g) is carried out with oversize grain return ([0095]-[0098]).
With regards to Claims 10 and 18, Jezequel et al. teaches Portland cement as its hydraulic binder ([0039] and [0040]).
With regards to Claim 11, Jezequel et al. teaches further including the claimed material(s) [0049].
With regards to Claims 12 and 19, Jezequel et al. teaches the filling mould in step b) is filled with the foamed mass up to a maximum height of 60 cm [0116].
With regards to Claims 13 and 14, the limitation(s) on using the produced granulate containing pores is an intended use limitation and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. Note that “in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." Please also see Page 4: Lines 36-38.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20120318171 (“Jezequel et al.”).
Jezequel et al. teaches the sub-blocks as set forth above.
Jezequel et al. does not disclose an average volume of the sub-blocks obtained in step e).
However, Jezequel et al. recognizes that sub-blocks are appropriately sized ([0068], [0083], and [0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the volume size of the sub-blocks obtained in step e) in order to achieve better handling, workability, etc. [0084].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20120318171 (“Jezequel et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of AT 388369 (“Ytong”).
With regards to Claim 9, Jezequel et al. teaches sand in its foamed mass, however, does not disclose the claimed sand materials.
However, Ytong teaches a process for preparing a granulate containing pores by producing a foamed mass comprising sand, hydraulic binder, foaming agent and water. Ytong teaches the sand comprises the claimed material(s) (See Page 1: Lines 3-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the claimed sand material(s) in Jezequel et al., as demonstrated by Ytong, to obtain a material that is readily available and conventionally known and used in the cement art.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT 388369 (“Ytong”) in view of CN 108373279 (“Du et al.”). All citations will refer to the provided English translated documents.
With regards to Claim 1, Ytong teaches a process for preparing a granulate containing pores, comprising the following steps:
a) producing a foamed mass comprising sand, hydraulic binder, foaming agent and water,
b) pouring the foamed mass into a filling mould,
c) partially curing the mass over a first period of time at ambient pressure to form a green block with a first target strength, and
d) demoulding the green block,
e) splitting the green block into at least two sub-blocks having an intermediate size,
f) curing the at least two sub-blocks from step e) over a second period of time at ambient pressure until a second target strength is reached (Page 1: Lines 3-9 and 11-23, Page 3: Lines 22-44, and Page 5: Lines 22-30).
Specifically, Ytong teaches the foamed mass is left to ferment with the development of pores and then set, acquiring a self-supporting, semi-plastic consistency. After demoulding, after a certain drying time, the moulded piece is mechanically worked to reduce it to granules of suitable grain size and/or building elements (both corresponds to the claimed at least two sub-blocks having an intermediate size) (Page 3: Lines 22-44). Ytong recognizes a longer drying time/long-term air hardening than conventional production of aerated concrete in order to obtain a drier mass during the milling process. The drying time can be extended by a quarter of an hour or more and/or at least 5% of the conventional drying time for the aerated concrete (Page 1: Lines 11-23, Page 4: Lines 1-10, and Page 5: Lines 22-26).
Ytong does not explicitly disclose that the first period of time of the curing is shorter than the second period of time of the curing. Ytong does not teach curing the at least two sub-blocks from step e) and then further breaking the cured sub-blocks to form the pore-containing granulate with a targeted particle size distribution (step g)).
However, based on the teachings that the first curing time is to achieve a semi-plastic consistency and be sufficiently set to demould, and the second curing time is air hardened over a long period of time to achieve a drier mass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Ytong would optimize the first and second periods of curing time as claimed in order to be efficient in their production time in producing granulate containing pores.
Du et al. teaches a process for preparing a granulate comprising the following steps of producing a foamed mass, pouring the foamed mass into a filling mould, partially curing the mass over a first period of time to form a green block with a first target strength, demoulding the green block, splitting the green block into at least two sub-blocks having an intermediate size, curing the at least two sub-blocks over a second period of time, wherein the first period of time of the curing is shorter than the second period of time of the curing, and further breaking the cured sub-blocks to form a granulate with a targeted particle size distribution (Page 4: Lines 28-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cure Ytong’s sub-blocks over a long second period of time and then further breaking the sub-blocks to form a granulate, as demonstrated by Du et al., to produce stable pore network before any mechanical stress and thus obtain a higher mechanical integrity.
With regards to Claims 3-4 and 15-17, Ytong does not explicitly teach that the first period of time of the curing is, for example 16 to 24 hours, and the second period of time of the curing is, for example 6 to 8 days.
However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the curing times for the first and second periods, especially given the knowledge in the art that the curing times can impact the overall properties (e.g. the curing time for the first period effects the mass to be self-supporting and semi-plastic in nature, and the curing time for the second period effects the dryness of the sub-blocks/granulate to prevent the granulate from clumping – Please see Page 1: Lines 11-17 and Page 4: Lines 1-10). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the curing times in Ytong, such that the first period of time of the curing is 16-24 hours and the second period of time of the curing is 6-8 days, since the length of curing is a known results effective variable.
With regards to Claim 5, Ytong teaches the partial curing of the mass in step c) is carried out in a dry atmosphere (Page 3: Lines 22-25).
With regards to Claim 6, Ytong does not teach an average volume of the sub-blocks obtained in step e). However, Ytong recognizes that sub-blocks needs to be appropriately sized in order to be machined properly (Page 3: Lines 25-34 and 41-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the volume size of the sub-blocks obtained in step e) in order to achieve better handling, workability, and machining of the sub-blocks to form the granulate containing pores.
With regards to Claim 7, Ytong teaches the further curing of the sub-blocks in step f) is carried out at ambient temperature and ambient humidity (Page 1: Lines 20-21 and Page 5: Lines 22-23).
With regards to Claim 8, Ytong teaches the breaking of the cured sub-blocks into the pore-containing granulate of step g) is carried out with oversize grain return (Page 3: Lines 24-39) .
With regards to Claim 9, Ytong teaches the sand comprises the claimed material(s) (See Page 1: Lines 3-5).
With regards to Claims 10 and 18, Ytong teaches Portland cement as its hydraulic binder (Page 1: Lines 3-5).
With regards to Claim 11, Ytong teaches further including the claimed material(s) (Page 1: Lines 3-5).
With regards to Claim 13 and 14, the limitation(s) on using the produced granulate containing pores is an intended use limitation and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. Note that “in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." Please also see Page 4: Lines 36-38.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AT 388369 (“Ytong”) in view of CN 108373279 (“Du et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 105985129 (“Liang”). All citations will refer to the provided English translated document.
Ytong teaches the foamed mass is filled into a filling mould as set forth above.
Ytong does not teach the filling mould is filled with the foamed mass up to a maximum height of 60 cm.
However, Liang teaches a process for preparing a granulate containing pores by producing a foamed mass into a filling mould with a thickness of 50 to 130 mm, naturally curing after de-moulding for 5 to 8 days to obtain a hardened body, and the hardened body is crushed with a desired particle size distribution (Abstract and Page 2: Lines 30-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the mould with the foamed mass up to a maximum height of 60 cm to have better handling properties during the process of preparing the granulate containing pores.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights