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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zaryoun et al. (Lightweight fiber-reinforced clay as a sustainable material for disaster resilient architecture of future buildings, Architectural Engineering and Design Management November 2018, Pages1-15, https://doi.og/10.1080/17452007.2018.1540968) alone, or in view of Zheng (CN111574119) (for applicant’s convenience, Machine translation has been provided hereof) .
Zaryoun et al. teaches a lightweight reinforced clay (LRC) material basically consisting of clay, small percentage of concrete foam to increase its porosity, small percentage of reinforcing materials including gypsums, plant fibers, wood fibers and also natural hair strands and water (page 5 “lightweight reinforced clay (LRC)” section, page 5 last para.), wherein such LRC material can be used as construction material. Zaryoun et al. expressly teaches a foamed hair-reinforced clay (FHRC) is a LRC material reinforced with 0.5% of natural hair reinforcement (page 5 2nd last para.-page 7 first para., and Fig. 5-6) wherein plurality of natural hair strands is involved.
Regarding claim 1, Zaryoun et al. does not expressly teach the foam being a foam liquid. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” such foam material in liquid form because selecting a material in its liquid form a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of either solid, liquid or gaseous form would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR). Zaryoun et al. already teaches foam, water and clay, natural hair being mixed together wherein the foam is mixed with water (either dispersed or dissolved in water). Therefore, a foam liquid being mixed with solvent to generate foam is expected.
Furthermore, Zheng teaches in a lightweight concrete composition, foaming agent can be used wherein the foaming agent is one or two of alkyl sulfonate, hydroxyalkyl ether sulfonate and alkyl ether sulfonate (para. [0015], [0021]). It is noted that sodium lauryl sulfate (SDS) – a commercially available liquid is a commonly used alkyl sulfonate.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt alkyl sulfonate of SDS as foam liquid as shown by Zheng to modify the foaming agent of Zaryoun et al. because adopting such well-known alkyl sulfonate, i.e. commercially available SDS liquid as foaming agent to a known FHRC for improvement would have predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR). Furthermore, commercially available SDS is readily available and convenient to obtain for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Zaryoun et al. expressly teaches the hair fiber content in the FHRC being 0.5%, foam being 2% while water being 25% (page 5 last three para.), for a 100% of FHRC, clay’s content is 72.5%. Zaryoun et al. already teaches water content overlapping with the claimed solvent, foam content close enough to the claimed foam content, clay content within the claimed clay content, the plurality of natural hair content within the claimed natural hair content, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to adopt a foam liquid content as that of instantly claimed via routine optimization (see MPEP §2144. 05 I) for help obtaining a desired FHRC material having improved properties as suggested by Zaryoun et al. (page 11 “Advantage of FHRC” section-page 12 last para.).
Regarding claim 3, Zaryoun et al. further teaches the hair can be human hair or hair of any animal (page 5 “lightweight reinforced clay (LRC)” section), while Zheng already teaches liquid foam being alkyl sulfonate, noted alkyl sulfonate (e.g. SDS) which is synthetic (i.e. artificial).
Regarding claim 4, as for the claimed “configured for making panels in buildings, including by in-situ fabrication or by prefabrication”, it is noted that such limitation just intended use for the instantly claimed FHRC material, but such limitation does not structurally limit the instantly claimed FHRC material’s composition, therefore, it cannot render the claimed FHRC material patentable distinct.
Regarding claim 5, Zaryoun et al. further teaches the clay can pass from sieve number 25 (table 1, page 5 2nd last para.) Zaryoun et al also discloses using hair with an average length of 20 mm (i.e. 2 cm) as soil reinforcement (page 9 3rd para.). Therefore, adopting hair fiber with a well-known length of 2cm to improve the known FHRC material for improvement would have predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP §2143 KSR). As for the claimed solvent amount being 24%, while foam being 1.5%, clay content being 73%, Zaryoun et al. already teaches water content close enough to the claimed solvent, foam content close enough to the claimed foam content, clay content close enough to the claimed clay content, thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to adopt a same solvent content, foam content and clay content via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144. 05 II) for help obtaining a desired FHRC material having improved properties as suggested by Zaryoun et al. (page 11 “Advantage of FHRC” section-page 12 last para.).
Regarding claim 17, Zaryoun et al. further teaches the FHRC material is a uniform composition of clay, water, foam and plurality of hair strands (page 6 first para.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 02/10/2026 have been acknowledged and thus previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments about Zaryoun et al. not teaching the foam being 1 wt% to 1.5 wt%, Zaryoun et al. disclosed foam content of 2 wt% is close enough to the instantly claimed 1 wt% to 1.5 wt% thus renders a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP §2144. 05 I). Furthermore, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical (see MPEP §2144. 05 II). It would have been obvious to adopt a same foam content as that of instantly claimed together with overlapping water, clay and plurality of natural content via routine experimentation (see) for help obtaining a desired FHRC material having improved properties as suggested by Zaryoun et al. (page 11 “Advantage of FHRC” section-page 12 last para.).
In response to applicant’s arguments about instantly claimed FHRC providing unexpected results, i.e. the specific weight of instantly claimed FHRC is approximately 1.5 times less than normal clay, the examiner would like to remind the applicant that evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range (MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e)). In this case, comparison of the instantly claimed FHRC material against a normal clay is not even comparing the closest prior art Zaryoun et al. disclosed lightweight reinforced clay material at all, therefore, such comparison is not against the closest prior art. It is also noted that Zaryoun et al. teaches a lightweight clay material as well. Hence, such arguments are not found convincing.
In response to applicant’s arguments about instantly claimed FHRC providing high workability, suitable for 3D-printing, such arguments are directed to intended application of such material while Zaryoun et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same material which has high workability as well (page 11 advantages of FHRC to page 12 2nd last para.). Therefore, such arguments are not found convincing.
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 JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights