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 08/11/2025.
Claims 16-23 and 25-31 are presently pending; claims 1-15 and 24 are canceled; claims 17-23 and 30-31 are withdrawn; claims 16-17 and 25-27 are amended; claims 16 and 25-29 are under examination.
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
The objections to claim 24 are moot as the claim has been canceled; the objections to claims 16, 25 and 27 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; some of the objections to claim 26 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, and some are maintained as set forth below.
The rejections of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are moot as the claim has been canceled; the rejections of claims 16 and 25-29 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 24 is moot as the claim has been canceled; the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 16 and 25-26 over JAHNS in view of CHEN and of claims 27-29 over JAHNS in view of CHEN and SACHS are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 26 contains a grammatical error; “monomer is in the form” should read “monomers, in the form” (see claim 26 at lines 4-5).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahns, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0207670-A1) (hereinafter, “JAHNS”) in view of Chen, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0092685-A1) (hereinafter, “CHEN”), with evidence from National Center for Biotechnology Information, PubChem Compound Summary for Methylcellulose (hereinafter, “PUBCHEM”) as to the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claims 16 and 26, JAHNS teaches a process for producing foamed concrete (see JAHNS generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0019], [0063], [0129] and [0180]-[0190]),
in which air pores are introduced into aqueous concrete compositions by one or more air pore formers and/or by introducing air (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0019] and [0058]-[0060]; JAHNS teaches an aqueous composition wherein air is incorporated into the composition by either using blowing/foaming agents (i.e., air pore formers) or by using a mechanical foaming process, which is carried out, e.g., using a mixer),
wherein the aqueous concrete compositions are produced by mixing a mixture (see JAHNS at paragraph [0019]) comprising on one or more foam stabilizers (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0053], [0106]-[0108] and [0141]-[0142]; JAHNS teaches that the hybrid foam comprises at least one cellulose ether, e.g., methylcellulose, which is included as an example of a foam stabilizer in Applicant’s specification at pg. 4, lines 17-20),
one or more stabilized polymers of ethylenically unsaturated monomers in the form of aqueous dispersions or water-redispersible powders (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0071], [0075]-[0076] and [0170]-[0173], teaching polymers of ethylenically unsaturated monomers in the form of dispersion powders or aqueous dispersions which are stabilized by acrylic or methacrylic acid and acrylamide),
30% to 95% by weight of cement, based on the dry weight of the components for production of the concrete compositions (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0070], [0122] and [0169], teaching compositions comprising 25% to 75% cement binder by weight, and including examples wherein the cement comprises 50% or 73% by weight),
wherein the cement may comprise a quick-setting cement and one or more Portland cements (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0012], [0025] and [0064]-[0067]; JAHNS teaches at least one mineral binder (i.e., more than one may be used), wherein preferred embodiments are preferred in combination with one another (e.g., the binder may comprise a combination of different types of cements), and wherein the cement may be Portland cement used in combination with a calcium aluminate cement comprising alumina (i.e., alumina cement) or calcium sulfoaluminate cement (both of which are quick-setting cements)),
wherein the quick-setting cement is selected from the group consisting of aluminate cement, calcium sulfoaluminate cements and alumina cement (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0064] and [0066]-[0067]; JAHNS teaches calcium aluminate cements (i.e., alumina cements) and calcium sulfoaluminate cement).
JAHNS does not explicitly mention protective colloids; however, JAHNS teaches aqueous polymer dispersions which are stabilized by acrylic or methacrylic acid and acrylamide (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0071], [0075]-[0076] and [0171]-[0173]), and as these monomers form water soluble polymers and are used to stabilize a polymer dispersion, they act as protective colloids in the dispersion. Further, JAHNS teaches adding methylcellulose to the composition (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0026], [0107] and [0111]), which also functions as a protective colloid, as evidenced by PUBCHEM (see PUBCHEM at sections 4.2.1 and 11.1).
However, JAHNS fails to explicitly teach concrete compositions with the proviso that the cement consists of quick-setting cement and one or more Portland cements, and wherein the concrete compositions are based to an extent of 25% to 55% by weight on quick-setting cement, based on the total weight of the cement used overall.
CHEN teaches a process for producing a concrete composition by mixing components including cement, wherein the cement consists of quick-setting cement and Portland cement (see CHEN at paragraphs [0012] and [0019] and claim 2), and wherein the concrete composition is based to an extent of 25 to 55% by weight on quick-setting cement, based on the total weight of the cement used overall (see CHEN at claim 2 and paragraphs [0020] and [0023]-[0025]; CHEN teaches cement consisting of 50 to 90% by weight Portland cement and 10 to 50% by weight alumina cement (which includes calcium aluminates; i.e., calcium aluminate cement), and further teaches that 30% replacement of Portland cement with alumina cement is recommended, i.e., 30% alumina cement and 70% Portland cement). CHEN teaches that using a cement mixture consisting of 30% alumina cement blended with 70% Portland cement performed the best in terms of thermal stability and thermal conductivity (i.e., heat resistance) (see CHEN at paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the concrete composition of JAHNS by using a cement which consists of quick-setting cement (alumina cement) and Portland cement, and wherein the concrete composition is based to an extent of 30% by weight on quick-setting cement, based on the total weight of the cement used overall, as taught by CHEN (see CHEN at paragraphs [0023]-[0025]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use cement of this composition for the benefit of creating a foamed concrete with superior thermal stability and heat resistance (see CHEN at paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 25, as applied to claim 16 above, JAHNS in view of CHEN teaches a process for producing foamed concrete according to claim 16, wherein the air is introduced by blowing air into the aqueous concrete compositions and/or by mechanically mixing the aqueous concrete compositions with air (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0058]-[0059], teaching mechanically mixing the composition with air).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JAHNS in view of CHEN as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sachs (U.S. Pat. No. 4,137,198-A) (hereinafter, “SACHS”).
Regarding claim 27, as applied to claim 16 above, JAHNS in view of CHEN teaches a process for producing foamed concrete according to claim 16, wherein the aqueous concrete compositions are produced by mixing the one or more protective-colloid stabilized polymers of ethylenically unsaturated monomers in the form of aqueous dispersions or water-redispersible powders and water to produce a mixture a1) (see JAHNS at paragraph [0075]), and then adding to mixture a1) one or more foam stabilizers and optionally one or more air pore formers to obtain mixture, a2) (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0018] and [0155], teaching mixing the foam (i.e., air pore former) which comprises the cellulose ether (i.e., foam stabilizer) with the polymer mixture). JAHNS in view of CHEN also teaches adding a mixture b) containing 30% to 95% by weight of cement, based on the dry weight of the components for production of the concrete compositions (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0070], [0122] and [0169]).
However, JAHNS fails to explicitly teach adding the one or more foam stabilizers and optionally one or more air pore formers to the polymer mixture a1) and then subsequently adding the cement mixture b) to this mixture.
SACHS teaches a process for producing foamed concrete (see SACHS generally at col. 2, lines 21-58) wherein the aqueous polymer mixture is foamed first, then the cement is subsequently mixed into the foamed polymer mixture (see SACHS at col. 2, lines 44-58). SACHS teaches that establishing a pre-foam of polymer emulsion bubbles capable of supporting particles of an inorganic phase (i.e., cement) in the surface of said bubbles and then gradually adding the cement to the foamed polymer mixture allows the cement particles to deposit and remain in the bubble walls of the polymer foam, which enhances the stabilization of the foam and facilitates the formation of a strong, homogeneous foam product with uniformly distributed cement particles (see SACHS at col. 2, line 44 - col. 3, line 2).
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 process of JAHNS in view of CHEN by altering the mixing order such that the mixture comprising the foam (and cellulose ether) is added to the polymer mixture, and then the cement mixture is subsequently added to this foamed polymer mixture, as taught by SACHS (see SACHS at col. 2, lines 44-58). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of enhancing the stabilization of the foam and facilitating the formation of a strong, homogeneous foam product with uniformly distributed cement particles as taught by SACHS (see SACHS at col. 2, line 44 - col. 3, line 2).
Regarding claim 28, as applied to claim 27 above, JAHNS in view of CHEN and SACHS teaches a process for producing foamed concrete according to claim 27, wherein mixture b) is a dry mixture (see JAHNS at paragraphs [0070] and [0122], teaching a dry binder mixture comprising cement).
Regarding claim 29, as applied to claim 27 above, JAHNS in view of CHEN and SACHS teaches a process for producing foamed concrete according to claim 27, wherein air pores are generated by introducing air into mixture a2) (see JAHNS at paragraph [00058], teaching introducing air into the composition; in the process as modified by SACHS in the rejection of claim 27 above, the air/foam is introduced into mixture a2) as claimed, prior to adding cement).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and the Declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“CHEN is not in the same field of endeavor as the instant application and JAHNS. The instant application is drawn to a foamed concrete with entrained air. In stark contrast, CHEN is drawn to concrete blocks containing glass cullet... CHEN’s subject matter is directed to fire resistant functions achieved by a structure containing glass cullet. In contrast, the instant application’s subject matter is directed to thermal and sound insulation, achieved through a foamed concrete structure” (see Remarks at pg. 2).
“the present inventors faced the problem of improving the mechanical properties of the foamed concrete, particularly in maintaining mechanical strength while lowering density. CHEN, which does not teach a foamed concrete and instead discloses formulations for improving thermal stability and thermal conductivity, would not have logically commended itself to an inventor seeking to improve mechanical properties of a foamed concrete already having excellent thermal properties. Thus CHEN cannot be pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors of the present application.” (see Remarks at pg. 3).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that CHEN is not in the same field of endeavor as JAHNS, a prior art reference does not need to be analogous art to another prior art reference, it must be analogous art to the instant application.
In response to Applicant's argument that CHEN is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In this case, in response to Applicant’s argument that CHEN is not in the same field of endeavor as the present invention because CHEN, in contrast to the present invention, is directed to concrete blocks containing glass, and because CHEN is fire resistant and contains glass whereas the present invention is directed to insulation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both CHEN and the present invention are directed to concrete structures, such as concrete blocks (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 14), both of which may comprise glass, e.g., ground glass (see Applicant’s specification at pg. 9-11), and both of which have improved thermal insulation properties (see Remarks at pg. 2, where Applicant states that both CHEN and the instant application are concerned with improving thermal insulation; see also CHEN at paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0017] and Applicant’s specification at pg. 1 and 15) and fire resistance (see CHEN at Abstract; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 1 and 15, stating that the insulating concrete has the advantage of being noncombustible).
In response to Applicant’s argument that CHEN is not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned because present invention addresses the problem of improving the mechanical properties of concrete whereas CHEN discloses formulations for improving thermal stability and conductivity, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. CHEN is reasonably pertinent to particular problems addressed by the present invention, including providing a concrete having improved mechanical properties including mechanical strength (see CHEN at Abstract and paragraph [0012], teaching that the invention focuses on concrete characterized by its compressive strength, which must be at least 7 MPa, i.e., 7 N/mm2; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 1-2 and Table 2, stating that one of the challenges is to attain desired mechanical properties such as compressive strength, which is 0.73-1.1 N/mm2 in the examples), thermal insulation (see Remarks at pg. 2, where Applicant states that both CHEN and the instant application are concerned with improving thermal insulation; see also CHEN at paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0017] and Applicant’s specification at pg. 1 and 15), fire resistance (see CHEN at Abstract; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 1 and 15, stating that the insulating concrete has the advantage of being noncombustible), and stability and durability (see CHEN at paragraphs [0017], [0022] and [0028]; see Applicant’s specification at pg. 1, stating that one of the problems faced is assuring the stability and durability of the concrete).
Therefore, for at least these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“As recognized by the Office Action JAHNS fails to teach the claimed feature of a quick-setting cement and one or more Portland cements, wherein the quick-setting cement is present in a proportion of 25 to 55% by weight” (see Remarks at pg. 1 and 3).
“The technical effect of this distinguishing feature is demonstrated by the newly submitted Comparative Example 4, which was conducted identically to Example 2 of the originally filed documents, except that Comparative Example 4 contained… no fast-setting Fondu Lafarge cement. Thus, Comparative Example 4 and the inventive Example 2 differ solely in the presence and proportion of fast-setting cement. The test results… demonstrate that the inclusion of the fast-setting cement at the claimed proportion results in foamed concrete with a lower dry bulk density, directly contributing to the solution of the present invention” (see Remarks at pg. 3).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s remarks that the Office Action allegedly identified that JAHNS fails to teach the feature of a quick-setting cement and one or more Portland cements, as set forth in the rejection above, JAHNS does teach the feature of a quick-setting cement and one or more Portland cements. The Office Action acknowledged that JAHNS did not explicitly teach the proviso that the cement consists of only quick-setting cement and one or more Portland cements, wherein the quick-setting cement is present in an amount of 25 to 55% by weight.
In response to Applicant’s arguments and the Declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 showing that including the claimed proportion of fast-setting cement in the composition result in concrete having a lower dry bulk density, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Additionally, as set forth in the rejection above, JAHNS teaches that the cement, which is preferably a combination of cements, is, e.g., Portland cement used in combination with a quick-setting cement (alumina cement or calcium sulfoaluminate cement; see JAHNS at paragraphs [0012], [0015] and [0064]-[0067]), and CHEN teaches that a proportion of 30% quick-setting cement to 70% Portland cement is recommended (see CHEN at claim 2 and paragraphs [0020] and [0022]-[0025]). The Comparative Example 4 comprises only Portland cement and no quick-setting cement, and only demonstrates that using a mixture of both Portland cement and quick-setting cement results in decreased density as compared to using Portland cement alone. Comparative Example 4 does not demonstrate that the claimed range of 25% to 55% quick-setting cement is significant; it only demonstrates a lower density for a composition comprising no quick-setting cement as compared to a composition comprising a 50/50 weight ratio of Portland cement to quick-setting cement. As discussed above, JAHNS in view of CHEN teaches a mixture of Portland and quick-setting cement with the amount of quick-setting cement falling within the claimed range.
Therefore, for at least these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing 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