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 submitted on 17 November 2025. After entry of the amendment, claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-16 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites:
the broad recitation “Alkali-activated building materials”, and the claim also recites “(geopolymers)” which is the narrower statement of the limitation;
the broad recitation “Porous refractory materials” and the claim also recites “(refractory ceramics, refractory concrete)” which is the narrower statement of the limitation;
in lines 10 and 12 the broad recitation “formed concrete” and the claim also recites “(hydraulic)” which is the narrower statement of the limitation;
in lines 10 and 13 the broad recitation “aerated concrete” and the claim also recites “(autoclaved)” which is the narrower statement of the limitation;
The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 105198298 A.
The reference teaches, in example 1, 100 g of cement, 13 g of sodium dodecyl sulfate, 2 g of hydrolyzed protein, 2 g of magnesium alginate, 15 g of feather, 20 g of river sand, 3 g of silica, 0.01 g of air entraining agent and 70 g of water were placed at a stirring speed of 50 r/min. The mixture was stirred and mixed, and then molded into a foamed cement pile.
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the foamed cement meets the calcium-containing porous material and the alginic acid meets the biopolymer and it is present in an amount that falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 2, no plasticizer is present.
As for claim 3, the reference teaches alginic acid.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches foamed cement.
As for claim 13, the reference teaches alginic acid.
As for claim 14, this claim is met as pectin is not required to be present, just that, if it is, that it is selected from the recited materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plungulan et al (US Patent No. 3,989,534 A).
The reference teaches, in claim 1, a low density cementitious foamed composition comprising 100 parts by weight of a mineral cement; about 10-50 parts by weight of a filler, selected from the group consisting of an exfoliated lightweight aggregate and hollow silicate spheres; about 1-20 parts by weight of an organic, water-soluble film former selected from the group consisting of guar gum, pregelatinized starch, xanthan gum, and protein colloids; about 0.1-3.0 parts by weight of surface active foaming agents; and at least about 8% by volume, based on the total volume of said components, of air, said cementitious composition having been processed with from about 30 to about 150 parts by weight of water. Claim 2 recites that said mineral cement is selected from the group consisting of gypsum cement, Portland cement, calcium aluminate cement, and magnesia cement.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the mineral cement such as calcium aluminate cement and magnesia cement meets the calcium-containing porous mineral material and the guar gum is believed to meet the biopolymer which form a hydrogel and form crosslinks via divalent ions. The amount the guar gum overlaps the claimed range of amounts and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05.
As for claim 2, no plasticizer is present.
As for claim 5, the reference teaches a foamed cement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7, 9-11 and 15-16 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 or render obvious the claimed limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
January 23, 2026