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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2026 was filed after the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) on 01/08/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 01/08/2026:
claims 1-6 and 10-24 are currently pending;
the 112(b) rejection to claims 7-8 and 18 are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to independent claim 1, and Applicant’s persuasive argument that Monkman discloses “commercially supplied high purity carbon dioxide” that may be “sourced from a supplier that processes spent flue gasses”, not the claimed “one or more of flue gas, direct capture gas from cement production, carbon capture from bioenergy production, or industrial point-source carbon emissions” in independent claim 1 (see Applicant’s arguments at page 6, paragraphs 2-3); however, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 12-14, 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radford (US 2016/0194874 A1) (“Radford” hereinafter) in view of Monkman et al. (US 2017/0015598 A1) (“Monkman” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Radford teaches a method (see Radford at page 8, before [0126] teaching methods of manufacture) of sequestering gas-phase materials (see Radford at [0123] teaching the carbon dioxide sequestration properties of a block that comprises the preferred composition of the present disclosure allows for the removal and sequestration of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a mixture of hempcrete compound material within a chamber (see Radford at [0130] teaching a mixture comprising the components of the block’s composition may be combined and mixed… the mixture may… be poured, sprayed or injected into the mold, see Radford at [0105]-[0106] teaching the body of the block… can comprise a primarily fibrous and lime composition… specifically, the composition for each block may comprise the following components… (i) hemp hurd, and fibers). Hemp and lime mixture is taken to meet the claimed mixture of hempcrete compound material, mold is taken to meet the claimed chamber; and
exposing the mixture within the chamber to a gas comprising the gas-phase materials for a period of time to form hempcrete (see Radford at [0131] teaching the composition… allowed to set… during the curing process, carbon dioxide may be injected or passed by… the curing block, which decreases the cure time). Carbon dioxide is taken to meet the claimed gas comprising the gas-phase materials and the block is taken to meet the claimed hempcrete.
Radford does not explicitly teach wherein the gas comprises one or more of flue gas, direct capture gas from cement production, carbon capture from bioenergy production, or industrial point-source carbon emissions.
Like Radford, Monkman teaches the use of carbon dioxide into building products (see Monkman at [0006]-[0007] teaching the present disclosure provides integrated methods… for integrating carbon dioxide from cement and lime manufacture and their respective flue gases back into manufacturing process, such as the cement or concrete manufacturing process; for example, incorporating the carbon dioxide into… building products… the carbon dioxide from the cement manufacturing process may also be used in other types of building products that don’t contain the cement produced at the specific facility, which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the gas comprises… one… direct capture gas from cement production”.
Monkman further teaches that cement and lime production releases CO2 gas by two mechanisms; the calcination of limestone in the raw materials and the combustion of fuels used in the cement and lime manufacturing processes… for this reason, the flue gases from cement and lime production are some of the richest sources of flue gas carbon dioxide (see Monkman at [0004])… there is a need to efficiently sequester some or all the carbon dioxide released in the production of cement (see Monkman at [0002]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Monkman teaches integrating carbon dioxide from cement and lime manufacture and their respective flue gases back into manufacturing process, for example, incorporating the carbon dioxide into building products because there is a need to efficiently sequester some or all the carbon dioxide released in the production of cement, and seek those advantages by incorporating the carbon dioxide from cement and lime manufacture in the method as taught by Radford.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the carbon dioxide from cement and lime manufacture as taught by Monkman in the method as taught by Radford because there is a need to efficiently sequester some or all the carbon dioxide released in the production of cement.
Regarding claim 2, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford further teaches wherein the step of exposing comprises carbonizing the mixture (see Radford at [0131] teaching the composition… allowed to set… during the curing process, carbon dioxide may be injected or passed by… the curing block, which decreases the cure time). Carbon dioxide exposure is taken to meet the claimed carbonizing the mixture.
Regarding claim 3, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford further teaches wherein the mixture comprises agricultural waste (see Radford at [0105]-[0106] teaching the body of the block… can comprise a primarily fibrous and lime composition… specifically, the composition for each block may comprise the following components… (i) hemp hurd, and fibers, see Radford at [0115] teaching the composition… comprises hemp hurd, flax… the primarily fibrous-lime combination is organic and composed of bio-recyclable material). The fibrous hemp hurd is taken to meet the claimed agricultural waste because it is a bio-recyclable material.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford further teaches wherein the hempcrete exhibits a density of about 200 kg/m3 to about 600 kg/m3 (claim 12); and wherein a density of the hempcrete is greater than 225 kg/m3 and less than 425 kg/m3 (claim 16) (see Radford at [0111] teaching a block… may maintain ease of handling because of its lower density, for example, 300 kg/cubic meter (see MPEP § 2131.03.I)).
Regarding claim 13, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford further teaches wherein the hempcrete comprises a binder comprising hydrated lime (see Radford at [0109] teaching (iv) hydrated lime).
Regarding claim 14, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford further teaches wherein the hempcrete comprises a binder comprising natural hydraulic lime (see Radford at [0108] teaching (iii) hydraulic lime).
Regarding claim 17, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford further teaches wherein the hempcrete is in the form of prefabricated… blocks (see Radford at [0126] teaching the fabrication of the blocks).
Regarding claim 18, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford teaches further comprising the steps of encapsulating the hempcrete compound material in one… of plastic and an impermeable barrier prior to the exposing and applying a vacuum to the encapsulated hempcrete (see Radford at [0051] teaching in accordance with a further aspect of the present disclosure, a reinforcement means is provided, which may be integrated with or within a structural block… the reinforcement means may comprise one or more shear sleeves configured for engaging an embedded member of a structural block, see Radford at [0052] teaching the reinforcement means may comprise any generally rigid or non-stretchable, inelastic material… such examples include… polymeric materials, see Radford at [0055] and Fig. 6 (shown below) teaching a shear sleeve 52… may include an elongated hollow sleeve portion (or shank) terminating at an upper end with an opening for receiving an embedded member, and terminating at a lower end having an opening for receiving an embedded member of an adjacent structural block, see Radford at [0130] teaching mixture comprising the components of the block's composition may be combined and mixed… the mixture may, for example, be poured, sprayed or injected into the mold, see Radford at [0131] teaching the composition may be compressed and/or heated and allowed to set). The shear sleeve comprising a rigid inelastic polymeric material is taken to meet the claimed steps of ‘of encapsulating the hempcrete compound material in one… of plastic and an impermeable barrier”, and compressed is taken to meet the claimed applying a vacuum to the encapsulated hempcrete because it would have been obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, that compression of the mixture may be a result of the claimed applying vacuum.
PNG
media_image1.png
395
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Radford in view of Monkman teach hempcrete formed according to claim 1 (see Radford at [0126] teaching the fabrication of the blocks, and see claim 1 rejection). Blocks is taken to meet the claimed hempcrete.
Regarding claim 21, Radford in view of Monkman teach a method of using the hempcrete of claim 17 in the construction of a building (see Radford at [0001] teaching the disclosed herein relates to particular construction materials used in the construction of buildings, and see claims 1 and 17 rejections).
Claims 4-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radford in view of Monkman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arrigoni et al. (Life cycle assessment of natural building materials: the role of carbonation, mixture components and transport in the environmental impacts of hempcrete blocks, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017) (“Arrigoni” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 15, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford further teaches wherein the mixture comprises one… of hemp fiber (claim 4), and wherein the mixture comprises one… of plant fiber (claim 5) (see Radford at [0105]-[0106] teaching the body of the block… can comprise a primarily fibrous and lime composition… specifically, the composition for each block may comprise the following components… (i) hemp hurd, and fibers, see Radford at [0124] teaching the hemp hurd component of the composition can sequester carbon dioxide at a rate of over approximately 20 tonnes per hectare as the plants grow).
Radford in view of Monkman do not explicitly teach the range “between about 40 wt% and about 60 wt%” (claims 4-5), and “wherein an amount of binder in the mixture is greater than or equal to 30 wt%” (claim 15).
As mentioned, Radford teaches the body of the block… can comprise a primarily fibrous and lime composition… specifically, the composition for each block may comprise the following components… (i) hemp hurd, and fibers… (iii) hydraulic lime… (iv) hydrated lime (see Radford at [0105]-[0109]).
Like Radford, Arrigoni teaches a block comprising hemp (see Arrigoni at page 1052, right column, section 2, paragraph 1 teaching hempcrete block is an innovative building product incorporating a large fraction of biomass… the base of the binder can be hydrated lime, natural hydraulic lime or a mixture of the two… hemp, as any crop, is considered a carbon negative material, because during its growth it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere… in addition, the CO2 captured from the air via carbonation will be stored into the hempcrete block throughout its lifetime and may further improve its environmental profile). Arrigoni further teaches Table 1, shown with Examiner’s annotation below, teaching hempcrete blocks… 31.4 kg hemp shives…. 41.1 kg binder (see Arrigoni at page 1054, left column). The total amount of hemp shives and binder is 72.5 kg (or 31.4 + 41.1). The wt% of hemp shives is 43 wt% (or ((31.4 ÷ 72.5) x 100)), which is taken to meet the claimed “between about 40 wt% and about 60 wt%” (claims 4-5). The wt% of binder is 57 wt% (or ((41.1 ÷ 72.5) x 100)), which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein an amount of binder in the mixture is… greater than… 30 wt%” (claim 15).
PNG
media_image2.png
190
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Arrigoni also teaches the binder-to-hemp ratio was set to 1.3:1… however, manufacturers produce hempcrete blocks with different mass ratios according to their expertise and to the function the building material has to fulfil… the binder-to-hemp mass ratio may vary considerably ranging from 2.2:1 to 1:1, leading to variations in the density of the blocks and to different physical properties (e.g. load-bearing capacity, hygro-thermal behavior) (see Arrigoni at pages 1057-1058, section 6.3, bridging paragraph)… the high amount of hemp in the mixture allows blocks to store a great quantity of carbon, which is subtracted from the atmosphere through photosynthesis during plant growth and by carbonation during the use phase of the blocks… considering that the amount of CO2 stocked in the material was higher than the overall emissions during production, and that the material will continue to store carbon even after the building’s end of life, hempcrete blocks can be considered as a carbon sink (see Arrigoni at pages 1060, left to right column, bridging paragraph).
Additionally, 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 amounts of binder and hemp from within the range as taught by Arrigoni in the method as taught by Radford in view of Monkman because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amounts would be suitable, and the amount of binder and hemp may vary leading to variations in the density of the blocks and to different physical properties (e.g. load-bearing capacity, hygro-thermal behavior) depending on the function of the building material has to fulfil.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radford in view of Monkman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walker et al. (Mechanical properties and durability of hemp-lime concretes, Con Build Mat, 2014) (“Walker” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned Radford teaches suitable alternative binding agents can include… pozzolans… such alternative agents may also be used in combination with the lime component of the preferred embodiment (see Radford at [0112]). But Radford does not explicitly teach wherein the mixture comprises metakaolin.
Like Radford, Walker teaches hemp-lime composition (see Walker at Title teaching mechanical properties and durability of hemp-lime concrete). Walker also teaches two pozzolans: metakaolin and GGBS (or ground granulated blast furnace slag) were identified as having potential for use in hemp-lime concrete on account of their fast setting and high reactivity (see Walker at page 341, right column, section 2.1, paragraph 1). Metakaolin is taken to meet the claimed wherein the mixture comprises metakaolin.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Radford and Walker teaches that metakaolin may also be used in combination with the lime binder on account of their fast setting and high reactivity, and seek those advantages by adding metakaolin in the block as taught by Radford in view of Monkman.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add metakaolin as taught by Walker in the block as taught by Radford in view of Monkman because metakaolin may also be used in combination with the lime binder on account of their fast setting and high reactivity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radford in view of Monkman as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Rizza (US 2004/0129182 A1) (“Rizza” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, Radford in view of Monkman teaches the limitations as applied to claim 20 above, and as mentioned Radford teaches the body of the block… can comprise a primarily fibrous and lime composition… specifically, the composition for each block may comprise the following components… (i) hemp hurd, and fibers (see Radford at [0105]-[0106]). But Radford does not explicitly teach further comprising balloons or encapsulants filled with air.
Like Radford, Rizza teaches a mixture comprising hemp and lime (see Rizza at [0014] teaching the disclosure relates to hemp mortars or concretes, that is ones including one or more hemp components in their formulation in which the binder is made up at least in part of what is termed “rich” lime).
Rizza further teaches at least one additive for formation of very fine pores and capillaries (see Rizza at [0031])… this additive for formation of the microcapillary system is suitable for provision of the microcapillary system in question with closed tubes and/or masses and/or spaces and/or microbubbles and/or microcavities (see Rizza at [0042])… Fig. 3 presents a scanning electron microscope photograph showing bubbles and microbubbles of air and openings of tubular channels in the lime paste… the porosity of the lime paste is represented by air bubbles and tubular channels which may be formed after evaporation of the mixing water (see Rizza at [0083]). The additive for formation of the microcapillary system is taken to meet the claimed “further comprising… encapsulants filled with air” because the additive forms air bubbles.
Rizza further teaches such closed spaces… are capable… of extracting the water contained in the hemp and enabling it to migrate toward the surface in the form of water as liquid and then water vapor, which ultimately is propagated to the exterior (see Rizza at [0043]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Rizza teaches that an additive for formation of the microcapillary system forms closed spaces that is capable of extracting the water contained in the hemp and enabling it to migrate toward the surface in the form of water as liquid and then water vapor, which ultimately is propagated to the exterior, and seek those advantages by adding additive for formation of the microcapillary system in the bio-fiber structural block as taught by Radford in view of Monkman.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add an additive for formation of the microcapillary system as taught by Rizza in the bio-fiber structural block as taught by Radford in view of Monkman so as to form closed spaces that is capable of extracting the water contained in the hemp and enabling it to migrate toward the surface in the form of water as liquid and then water vapor, which ultimately is propagated to the exterior.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, and 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach all the cumulative limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6, 10 and 22-24.
Specifically, with respect to claims 6 and 10, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Radford further teaches wherein the mixture comprises natural or artificial pozzolan (see Radford at [0112] teaching suitable alternative binding agents can include… pozzolans… such alternative agents may also be used in combination with the lime component of the preferred embodiment). Pozzolan is taken to meet the claimed natural or artificial pozzolan (claim 10).
Additionally, please see claim 11 rejection based on Walker as it applies here as well. Walker teaches two pozzolans: metakaolin and GGBS (or ground granulated blast furnace slag) were identified as having potential for use in hemp-lime concrete on account of their fast setting and high reactivity (see Walker at page 341, right column, section 2.1, paragraph 1). GGBS (or ground granulated blast furnace slag) is taken to meet the claimed wherein the mixture comprises slag (claim 6). Walker also teaches 30% GGBS and 20% Metakaolin (see Walker at page 342, Table 2).
However, Radford in view of Monkman and Walker do not explicitly teach wherein the mixture comprises between about 50 wt% and about 70 wt% slag (claim 6), and wherein the mixture comprises between about 50 wt% and about 70 wt% natural or artificial pozzolan (claim 10). And, there are no prior art references that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Radford in view of Monkman and Walker as claimed.
Specifically, with respect to claim 22, Radford in view of Monkman and Rizza teach the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and Rizza further teaches (a) additive for formation of the microcapillary system… 0.1% to 2% of the total weight of the binder (see Rizza at [0062]-[0063]).
However, Radford in view of Monkman and Rizza do not explicitly teach wherein the balloons or encapsulants filled with air are present in the mixture in an amount of about 10% vol to about 30% vol. And, there are no prior art references that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Radford in view of Monkman and Rizza as claimed.
Specifically, with respect to claims 23-24, Radford in view of Monkman teach the limitations as applied to claim 1. However, Radford in view of Monkman do not explicitly teach wherein the mixture includes between about 2 wt% and about 20 wt% of a phase change material (claim 23), and wherein the phase change material comprises one or more of a paraffin and polyethylene glycol (claim 24). And, there are no prior art references that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Radford in view of Monkman as claimed.
As such, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of independent claim 1 and the respective dependent claims 6, 10, and 22-24 as claimed. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of independent claim 1 and the respective dependent claims 6, 10, and 22-24 are considered allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied – Monkman et al. (US 2016/0272542 A1), in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner clarifies that the new grounds of rejection is based on Radford in view of Monkman et al. (US 2017/0015598 A1).
Conclusion
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