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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 10/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 01/05/2026:
claims 1-6, 8-17 and 19-29 are currently pending;
claims 15-17 and 19-20 are withdrawn;
the 112(a) rejection to claim 14 is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment reciting “and using the spray nozzle, spraying the foam and agglomerates mixture onto an object” to the claims; however, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 line 1 reciting “spay” appears to be a typographical error and should be “spray”; and
Claim 28 line 3 reciting “suppling” appears to be a typographical error and should be “supplying”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to due to its dependency on claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummel (US 2003/0150624 A1) (“Rummel” hereinafter) in view of Okamuro et al. (JP 2020083706 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Okamuro” hereinafter); as evidenced by Distribution International (Ceramic Fiber Bulk) (“Distribution” hereinafter) with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Rummel teaches a method (see Rummel at [0009] teaching a method by means of the nozzle for foaming, spraying… can be set on site, it being possible even for relatively large quantities of this material to be produced), comprising:
mixing fibers with a binder to form mixtures; supplying the mixture to a spray nozzle via a first supply hose (see Rummel at [0084] teaching the nozzle 1 of the foaming unit 14 illustrated in Fig. 3 is fed with substantially two different initial materials for foaming… by means of the foaming unit 14, various foams with solid structures (similar, for example, to lightweight porous concrete) can be produced for all hydraulically setting materials and material mixtures (for example cement, plaster, chalk, magnesite and so on… in the storage container 16, there is the material to be foamed, which can be a prepared mixture mixed separately or delivered by transport vehicles… this is fed by means of the gas flowing in, see Rummel at [0065] teaching Fig. 4, shown below, shows a basic illustration of a further design variant of a nozzle for various application methods, see Rummel at [0085] teaching Fig. 4 reveals a particularly advantageous variant of a foaming unit 14… the material to be foamed is fed in via the second inlet 8… thus, for example starting from a blowing machine, for example mineral fibers, residual cellulose flocks, dusts, powdered material, etc. can be bonded or transported without dust by means of the foaming… materials and material mixtures that are difficult to foam can also be fed in via the second inlet 8 for foaming, see Rummel at [0086] teaching the nozzle 1, see Rummel at [0087] teaching in their path through the lines 15, the initial materials can have further substances added). Mineral fibers can be bonded in the blowing machine is taken to meet the claimed “mixing fibers with a binder”, nozzle 1 is taken to meet the claimed “spray nozzle”, line 15 is taken to meet the claimed” first supply hose”, thus meeting the claimed “supplying the agglomerates to a spray nozzle via a first supply hose”;
PNG
media_image1.png
454
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
supplying a foam to the spray nozzle via a second supply hose that is different from the first supply hose (see Rummel at [0032] teaching in a nozzle… the nozzle is connected to the storage containers of the individual media via lines (for example hoses)… in this case, the lines have different lengths, as required, see Rummel at [0085] teaching Fig. 4 reveals a particularly advantageous variant of a foaming unit 14… connected to 1 provided there is a second nozzle 19 or foaming unit 20, foaming being carried out by means of the foamed material from the second nozzle). Second nozzle 19 or foaming unit 20 is taken to meet the claimed supplying a foam to the spray nozzle via a second supply hose that is different from the first supply hose;
PNG
media_image2.png
528
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
mixing the foam with the agglomerates within the spray nozzle (see Rummel at [0066] teaching Fig. 5, shown above, shows a nozzle according to a further design section, see Rummel at [0091] teaching the first housing part 4’… Fig. 5… there is a first inlet duct 6, and an outlet duct 2 is arranged in the second housing part 4”… the ducts 5, 5’ for introducing at least one further medium or a mixture of further media are connected to further inlet ducts 8, 8’, see Rummel at [0092] teaching the ducts 5, 5’, which are arranged in the component 7, are formed obliquely with respect to the main flow direction 26 of the media to be mixed with the component 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the agglomerates are mixed with the foam within the spray nozzle; and
using the spray nozzle, spraying the foam and mixture onto an object (see Rummel at [0089] teaching the nozzle 1 or the foaming units 14 can be used in particular for the location-independent application of foamed material… for example, it is possible thereby to produce constructional materials of constant quality, above all when the latter are needed on rough ground or in relatively high stories in a building, see Rummel at [0009] teaching a method by means of the nozzle for foaming, spraying… can be set on site, it being possible even for relatively large quantities of this material to be produced). On of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the foamed mixture is sprayed on an object.
Rummel does not explicitly teach that the fibers are bulk ceramic fibers, the binder comprises an organic binder and/or an inorganic binder and the formed agglomerates. However, as mentioned, Rummel teaches by means of the foaming unit 14, various foams with solid structures (similar, for example, to lightweight porous concrete) can be produced for all hydraulically setting materials and material mixtures (see Rummel at [0084])… starting from a blowing machine, for example mineral fibers, residual cellulose flocks, dusts, powdered material, etc. can be bonded or transported without dust by means of the foaming… material and material mixtures that are difficult to foam can also be fed in via the second inlet 8 for foaming (see Rummel at [0085]).
Like Rummel, Okamuro teaches material and/or material mixtures comprising fibers for spraying (see Okamuro at [0013]-[0014] teaching the fibrous aggregate for spraying material… (hereinafter simply referred to as fibrous aggregate) is a granular aggregate composed of ceramic fibers… the method for producing… fibrous aggregate is not particularly limited).
Okamuro further teaches fibrous aggregate can be produced using as a raw material an aggregate of ceramic fibers that are configured by intertwining ceramic fibers… such aggregates of ceramic fibers are commercially available, for example, as ceramic fiber agglomerates… the ceramic fibers… are crushed in a crushing device… a binder is applied to the crushed ceramic fibers, and the binder-containing ceramic fibers are granulated while being rolled in a granulator… the granulated material is dried, sieved and sized to obtain the… fibrous aggregate… as the binder, an… organic binder… can be used (see Okamuro at [0014]-[0015]). Commercially ceramic fibers is taken to meet the claimed bulk ceramic fibers as evidenced by Distribution (see Distribution at page 1 evidencing ceramic fiber bulk… manufactured from alumina and silica fibers… bulk ceramic fiber is composed of loose, flexible fibers). Granulated fibrous aggregate is taken to meet the claimed agglomerates based on specification at Fig. 2 and [0013] disclosing Fig. 2 is a photograph of agglomerated fibers according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, wherein the agglomerated fibers appear to be granular.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the mixture comprising ceramic fibers and organic binder as taught by Okamura can be used in the bonded fibrous mixture in the blowing machine (see Fig. 4) as taught by Rummel because it is suitable for its intended use.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that mixture comprising ceramic fibers and organic binder as taught by Okamura can be used in the bonded fibrous mixture in the blowing machine (see Fig. 4) as taught by Rummel, thus meeting the claimed “mixing bulk ceramic fibers with a binder comprising… an organic binder… to form agglomerates”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the mixture comprising ceramic fibers and organic binder as taught by Okamura in the bonded fibrous mixture in the blowing machine (see Fig. 4) as taught by Rummel because it is suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro teaches further comprising sizing the agglomerates by transferring the agglomerates into a disk pelletizer to create spherical shaped granules (see Okamuro at [0014] teaching the binder-containing ceramic fibers are granulated while being rolled in a granulator… the granulated material is dried, sieved and sized to obtain the above-mentioned fibrous aggregate, see Okamuro at [0037] teaching the ceramic fibers are granulated into spherical shapes). The claimed “disk pelletizer” is being treated as being taught by Okamuro because there is no evidence indicating that the limitation is critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Okamuro to choose an appropriate device to form granulated spherical fibrous aggregates.
Regarding claim 4, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro further teaches wherein the binder comprises… carboxy methyl cellulose (see Okamuro at [0015] teaching as the organic binder, for example… carboxymethyl cellulose… can be used).
Regarding claim 5, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro further teaches wherein the mixing the bulk ceramic utilizes a horizontal shaft mixer or a vertical shaft mixer (see Okamuro at [0014] teaching a binder is applied to the crushed ceramic fibers, and the binder-containing ceramic fibers are granulated while being rolled in a granulator such as a concrete mixer… the granulated material is dried, sieved and sized to obtain the… fibrous aggregate). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the ceramic fibers were mixed with the binder. The claimed horizontal and vertical shaft mixers are being treated as being taught by Okamuro because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed mixers are critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Okamuro to choose an appropriate mixer.
Regarding claim 6, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro further teaches wherein the agglomerates have particle sizes of less than 15 mm; wherein the agglomerates have a median particle size of 1 to 5 mm, 2 to 4 mm, or about 3 mm; and wherein the agglomerates do not include any particles having a size of less than 0.1 mm (see Okamuro at [0018] teaching the particle size of the fibrous aggregate is less than 7.0 mm… the particle size is within the range of particle size distribution… by setting the particle size distribution range in this way, it is possible to suppress a phenomenon called rebound loss, in which the fibrous aggregate bounces back without adhering to the object to be sprayed… when sprayed onto the object, thereby improving yield and the efficiency of the spraying work… the lower limit of the fibrous aggregate is not particularly limited, and can be for example, 0.4 mm or more). Particle size of 0.4 mm or more to less than 7.0 mm overlaps with the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the particle size distribution of the fibrous aggregate is a result effective variable that could be optimized to suppress a phenomenon called rebound loss thereby improving yield and the efficiency of the spraying work.
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 optimized the particle size distribution of the fibrous aggregate (or agglomerates) as taught by Okamuro to suppress a phenomenon called rebound loss thereby improving yield and the efficiency of the spraying work so as to arrive at “wherein the agglomerates have a median particle size of 1 to 5 mm, 2 to 4 mm, or about 3 mm” as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro teaches further comprising applying the agglomerates to an object by… pneumatic gunning (see Okamuro at [0029] teaching the hollow tube 55 is a hollow tube… and is used as an operating rod by an operator when using the spray gun 5). Spray gun is taken to meet the claimed pneumatic gunning. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Okamuro and Hilton to choose an appropriate device for applying the fibrous aggregate (or agglomerate).
Regarding claim 9, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro further teaches forming a pressed shape by axial pressing, isostatic pressing, semi-isostatic pressing and/or extrusion of the agglomerates (see Okamuro at [0014] teaching the granulated material is dried, sieved and sized to obtain the… fibrous aggregate (or agglomerate), see Okamuro at [0037] teaching spherical fibrous aggregate). Spherical fibrous aggregate is taken to meet the claimed forming a pressed shape, and the limitation “axial pressing, isostatic pressing, semi-isostatic pressing and/or extrusion of the agglomerates” is being treated as being taught by Okamuro because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed limitation is critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Rummel and Okamuro to choose an appropriate device for forming a pressed shaped fibrous aggregate (or agglomerates).
Regarding claim 10, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Rummel teaches further comprising mixing a foaming agent and water to form a foaming mixture (see Rummel at [0083] teaching the foaming unit illustrated schematically as a flow diagram in FIG. 2 comprises a nozzle 1, which is connected via lines 15 to storage containers 16 of the various initial components… in the foaming unit according to FIG. 2, for example water is initially mixed with a foaming agent and then foamed by means of compressed air to form foam);
foaming the foaming mixture in a foaming nozzle fluidically coupled to the spray nozzle and the second supply hose to form the foam; and supplying the foam to the spray nozzle via the foaming nozzle (see Rummel at [0084] teaching the water-foaming agent mixture led out of the metering appliance 17 is fed, for example, to a mortar mixing machine 24… in the storage container 16, there is the material to be foamed, which can be a prepared mixture mixed separately or delivered by transport vehicles, if appropriate with foaming agent and various additives… this prepared mixture is fed by means of the pump 25 to the nozzle 1 and foamed there by means of the gas flowing in… the foamed material finally passes into a remixer 21, in which materials which are difficult to foam are added, see Rummel at [0086] teaching in the last possibility illustrated in FIG. 4, a container with premixed material without the addition of foaming agent is provided, the premixed material being fed to the nozzle 1 by means of a pump 25… the material foamed in the nozzle 1 is either discharged directly by means of a spray hose or previously further fed to a remixer 21).
Regarding claim 11, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and Rummel further teaches wherein the foaming nozzle comprises a foaming tube that facilitates foaming of the foaming mixture (see Rummel at [0103] teaching in order to increase the formation of foam or the level of misting or spraying, an element 38 provided with a plurality of opening 37 is arranged at the inner end of the outlet duct 2 in Fig. 5). Element 38 is taken to meet the claimed foaming tube as it increase the formation of foam (or facilitates foaming of the foaming mixture).
Regarding claim 21, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Rummel teaches further comprising: adjusting, using a valve fluidically coupled with the second supply hose, a flow of the foam supplied to the spray nozzle (see Rummel at [0034] teaching lines for different initial components can be provided on the metering appliance, in order to permit appropriately accurate metering, see Rummel at [0037] teaching advantageously, at least one pressure regulator and a flow regulator for the defined passage through and flow rate through the respective medium may be connected upstream of or to the nozzle… pressure regulator are primarily provided on the line of the second medium with whose pressure the foaming or mixing in the nozzle is achieved, in order to control the foaming process). The at least one pressure regulator and a flow regulator is taken to meet the claimed limitations because it can adjust the flow of the foam supplied to the spray nozzle in the second supply hose.
Regarding claim 22, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Rummel further teaches wherein the agglomerates are supplied to the spray nozzle via the first supply hose at a first flow rate; and wherein the foam is supplied to the spray nozzle via the second supply hose at a second flow rate that is less than the first flow rate (see Rummel at [0034] teaching lines for different initial components can be provided on the metering appliance, in order to permit appropriately accurate metering, see Rummel at [0037] teaching advantageously, at least one pressure regulator and a flow regulator for the defined passage through and flow rate through the respective medium may be connected upstream of or to the nozzle… pressure regulator are primarily provided on the line of the second medium with whose pressure the foaming or mixing in the nozzle is achieved, in order to control the foaming process, see Rummel at [0085] teaching Fig. 4 reveals a particularly advantageous variant of a foaming unit 14… connected to 1 provided there is a second nozzle 19 or foaming unit 20, foaming being carried out by means of the foamed material from the second nozzle, see Rummel at [0066] teaching Fig. 5, shown above, shows a nozzle according to a further design section, see Rummel at [0091] teaching the first housing part 4’… Fig. 5… there is a first inlet duct 6, and an outlet duct 2 is arranged in the second housing part 4”… the ducts 5, 5’ for introducing at least one further medium or a mixture of further media are connected to further inlet ducts 8, 8’, see Rummel at [0092] teaching the ducts 5, 5’, which are arranged in the component 7, are formed obliquely with respect to the main flow direction 26 of the media to be mixed with the component 7). It would have been obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results that the inlet ducts would have supplied the agglomerates and foam to the spray nozzle with a flow rate regulated by the flow rate regulator.
Regarding claim 23, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro further teaches wherein mixing the bulk ceramic fibers with the binder further comprises: mixing the bulk ceramic fibers with water to form wet fibers (see Okamuro at [0047] teaching the proportion of the binder in the total mass of the binder and the fibrous aggregate was set to 10 mass %... the amount of water mixed was set so that the proportion of water in the total mass of the binder, fibrous aggregate, and water was 45 to 55 mass %).
Regarding claim 24, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and Okamuro further teaches wherein the ceramic fibers are mixed with water at a first mixing intensity; wherein the wet fibers are mixed with the binder at a second mixing intensity that is greater than the first mixing intensity (see Okamuro at [0014] teaching a binder is applied to the crushed ceramic fibers, and the binder-containing ceramic fibers are granulated while being rolled in a granulator, see Okamuro at [0047] teaching the proportion of the binder in the total mass of the binder and the fibrous aggregate was set to 10 mass %... the amount of water mixed was set so that the proportion of water in the total mass of the binder, fibrous aggregate, and water was 45 to 55 mass %); and
wherein the method further comprises sizing the agglomerates via additional mixing at a third mixing intensity that is greater than the second mixing intensity (see Okamuro at [0014] teaching the granulated material is… sized to obtain the above-mentioned fibrous aggregate (or agglomerates), see Okamuro at [0037] teaching the ceramic fibers are granulated into spherical shapes as they rotate along the inner wall of the concrete mixer).
The mixing intensities for the first, second and third mixing are being treated as being taught by Okamuro because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed mixing intensities are critical, absent new and unexpected results.
Regarding claim 25, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 23 above, and Okamuro further teaches wherein the steps of mixing the bulk ceramic fibers with water and mixing the bulk ceramic fibers with the binder are combined such that the water and the binder are added to the bulk ceramic fibers together (see Okamuro at [0047] teaching the proportion of the binder in the total mass of the binder and the fibrous aggregate was set to 10 mass %... the amount of water mixed was set so that the proportion of water in the total mass of the binder, fibrous aggregate, and water was 45 to 55 mass %).
Regarding claim 26, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro further teaches wherein the agglomerates have a bulk density of greater than 0.25g/cm3 (see Okamuro at [0019] teaching the bulk density of the fibrous aggregate (or agglomerate) is preferably 1.0 g/cm3 or less) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummel in view of Okamuro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hilton et al. (US 2003/0125404 A1) (“Hilton” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Okamuro further teaches the ceramic fibers may be selected depending on the application of the fibrous aggregate… the ceramic fibers are preferably one or more fibers selected from the group of… silica fibers… the fibers may be either crystalline or amorphous (see Okamuro at [0020]). Rummel in view of Okamuro do not explicitly teach wherein the bulk ceramic fibers comprise refractory ceramic fibers, low bio-persistent fibers, polycrystalline ceramic fibers, and/or glass fibers; and wherein the agglomerates comprise 0.5 to 3 wt% of cellulose fibers, based on a total weight of the agglomerates.
Like Rummel and Okamuro, Hilton teaches a sprayable composition comprising fibrous aggregate for heat insulating properties (see Hilton at [0014] teaching the foam or unfoamed composition is then conveyed to a nozzle or other suitable dispense point from which it is applied, for example sprayed, preferably uniformly, onto a substrate to be coated… the spray material adheres to the substrate and hardens to form an insulative coating on the substrate, see Hilton at [0028] teaching the compositions… can include a fibrous component… the fibrous component can be either organic or inorganic).
Hilton further teaches the fibrous component can be either organic or inorganic… preferably, the fibrous component is a mixture of a high wet bulking organic fiber, preferably cellulose fiber… and an inorganic fiber which provides reinforcement, preferably… glass fiber… particularly preferred composition comprises… about 1% cellulosic fiber and about 0.5% glass fiber (see Hilton at [0028]), which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the bulk ceramic fibers comprise… glass fibers; and wherein the agglomerates comprise 0.5 to 3 wt% of cellulose fibers, based on a total weight of the agglomerates” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that glass fibers are suitable as ceramic fibers.
Furthermore, 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", and “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” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected about 1% cellulosic fiber and about 0.5% glass fiber as taught by Hilton in the fibrous composition (or agglomerates) as taught by Rummel in view of Okamuro because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed fibrous component combination would be suitable.
Regarding claim 13, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and please see claim 3 rejection based on Hilton as it is incorporated herein. Rummel teaches a foaming agent (see Rummel at [0086], but do not explicitly teach wherein the foaming agent comprises polyvinyl alcohol, ammonium lauryl sulfate, or a protein based foaming additive.
Hilton teaches in order to stabilize the foam mechanically formed in accordance with the present disclosure, surfactants, protein compounds, and/or hydrophilic compounds or polymers that are soluble, miscible or dispersible in water are suitable… the preferred foam stabilizing agent is polyvinyl alcohol, most preferably powdered polyvinyl alcohol (see Hilton at [0023] teaching), which is taken to meet the claimed wherein the foaming agent comprises… polyvinyl alcohol.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that polyvinyl alcohol is a suitable foaming agent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use polyvinyl alcohol as taught by Hilton in the method as taught by Rummel in view of Okamuro because polyvinyl alcohol is a suitable foaming agent.
Regarding claim 14, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and please see claim 3 rejection based on Hilton as it is incorporated herein. Rummel teaches for example starting from a blowing machine, for example mineral fibers, residual cellulose flocks, dusts, powdered material, etc. can be bonded or transported without dust by means of the foaming… materials and material mixtures that are difficult to foam can also be fed in via the second inlet 8 for foaming (see Rummel at [0085]).
However, Rummel in view of Okamuro do not explicitly teach further comprising supplying aggregates, comprising perlite, vermiculite, expanded clay, diatomaceous earth, or combinations thereof, with the agglomerates to the spray nozzle via the first supply hose.
However, other suitable components include… diatomaceous earth (see Hilton at [0028]), which is taken to meet the claimed “further comprising supplying aggregates, comprising… diatomaceous earth… with the agglomerates to the spray nozzle via the first supply hose”.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add diatomaceous earth as taught by Hilton in the method for producing the fibrous aggregate as taught by Rummel in view of Okamuro because diatomaceous earth is suitable for its intended use.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummel in view of Okamuro as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of Williams (GB 2060420 A) (“Williams” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Rummel in view of Okamuro teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, but Rummel in view of Okamuro do not explicitly teach wherein the foaming tube contains a metal wool.
Like Okamuro, Williams teaches a composition comprising aggregate using a spray hose (see Williams at page 1 lines 4-13 teaching this disclosure relates to the production of aerated cementitious material… for this purpose a foaming agent… is mixed with water and air to form a foam as is used for firefighting… this foam is then mixed with cement and if desired sand and other filler… it is known to mix sand, cement, water and a foaming agent, in a rotary concrete mixing container into which compressed air is introduced, see Williams page 1 lines 46-52 teaching desirably the air at a correct pressure, foaming agent and water are fed into one end of the device and the foam passes out of the other end… into… directly into a mixing apparatus where it is mixed with cement and if desired with… aggregates and/or other filler).
Williams further teaches it is also known to produce firefighting foam by mixing air and a solution of foaming agent in a nozzle containing steel wool (see Williams at page 1 lines 20-22).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a steel wool is suitable in a nozzle for forming foam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use steel wool as taught by Williams in the nozzle as taught by Rummel in view of Okamuro because steel wool is suitable in a nozzle for forming foam.
Claim 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummel in view of Okamuro and Williams as applied to claims 1 and 10-12 above, and further in view of Gray et al. (US 6,045,255) (“Gray” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 27, Rummel in view of Okamuro and Williams teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 and 10-12 above, but Rummel in view of Okamuro and Williams do not explicitly teach further comprising: supplying atomizing air to the foaming tube to facilitate the foaming of the foaming mixture at pressure between 0.5 and 2 bar.
Rummel teaches advantageously, at least one pressure regulator and a flow regulator for the defined passaged through and flow rate through the respective medium may be connected of or to the nozzle (see Rummel at [0037])… cement foam (see Rummel at [0039]).
Like Rummel, Gray teaches a cement foam (see Gray at C2 L39-42 teaching it is an object of the present disclosure to provide a new and improved foam material for entraining in a cement mixture which is more resistant to collapse and thus produces a higher air cell density than was possible in the past).
Gray further teaches the foam is formed by supplying pressurized air and a mixture of water and a foaming agent, also under pressure, into a mixing chamber… the pressurized fluid or liquid mixture is preferably injected through small nozzles into the gas flow, atomizing the fluid mixture into small droplets… the pressure ratio has been found to produce optimum atomization effects (see Gray at C3 L50-59). Gray also teaches the air was supplied… at a pressure in the range from 38 psi plus or minus 10 psi (or 2.62 + 0.69 bar), which is overlaps with the claimed “foaming tube to facilitate the foaming of the foaming mixture at pressure between 0.5 and 2 bar”.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the pressurized air and a mixture of water and a foaming agent as taught by Gray are result effective variable that could be optimized so as to produce optimum atomization effects and form a foam material more resistant to collapse and thus produces a higher air cell density than was possible in the past.
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 optimized the pressurized air and a mixture of water and a foaming agent as taught by Gray so as to produce optimum atomization effects and form a foam material more resistant to collapse and thus produces a higher air cell density than was possible in the past.
Regarding claim 28, Rummel in view of Okamuro, Williams and Gray teach the limitations as applied to claim 1, 10-12 and 27 above, and Rummel further teaches wherein supplying the foam to the spray nozzle via the foaming nozzle further comprises: supplying, via a first foam outlet hose of the foaming nozzle, the foam from the foaming tube to a water distribution body fluidically coupled to the spray nozzle; and supplying the foam from the foaming nozzle to the spray nozzle via the water distribution body (see Rummel at [0084] teaching in the storage container… there is the material to be foamed, which can be a prepared mixture mixed separately or delivered by transport vehicles, if appropriate with foaming agent and various additives… this prepared mixture is fed by the means of the pump… to the nozzle… and foamed there by means of the gas flowing in… the foamed material finally passes into a remixer… in which materials which are difficult to foam are added). The claimed limitations are being treated as being taught by Rummel because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed limitations are critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Rummel to choose an appropriate supply source of foam and water.
Regarding claim 29, Rummel in view of Okamuro, Williams and Gray teach the limitations as applied to claim 1, 10-12 and 27-28 above, and Rummel teaches further comprising: splitting the supply of foam from the foaming tube to the water distribution body into the first foam outlet hose and a second foam outlet hose to facilitate distribution of the foam to the spray nozzle via the water distribution body (see Rummel at [0091]-[0092] teaching the ducts 5. 5’ for introducing at least one further media are connected to further inlet ducts 8, 8’… the ducts 5, 5’, which are arranged in the component 7, are formed obliquely with respect to the main flow direction… of the media to be mixed within the component… the groups of ducts 5, 5’ can have the at least one pressurized medium applied to them, alternatively or simultaneously, via two separate inlet ducts 8, 8’ arranged in the housing parts 4’, 4”… depending on the desired level of foaming or mixing, a specific annular component… can be used, which has an appropriate arrangement of ducts 5, 5’, diameter of the ducts 5, 5’, number of ducts 5, 5’ and the like). The claimed limitations is being treated as being taught by Rummel because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed limitations are critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Rummel to choose an appropriate supply of foaming agent and water so as to form a foam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-14 and 21-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference (Okamuro and Williams) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner would like to note that the primary reference used in the new rejection above is Rummel.
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 MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731