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
In response to the amendment received on 04/22/2026:
claims 1-20 are currently pending;
claims 7-16 are withdrawn;
the objection to claim 5 is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the same. However, new claim objections are outlined below;
the 112(b) rejections to claim 2-6 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, and Applicant’s persuasive argument that the limitations are not directed to several species, but Markush claim that recites a list of elements (see Applicant’s arguments at page 1 paragraph 2); and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment to independent claim 1; however, new grounds of rejection are presented based on the same references as set forth herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 5 line 6 reciting “com flour” appear to have typographical error and should be “corn flour”;
claim 5 line 7 reciting “com husks” appear to have typographical error and should be “corn husks”;
claim 19 line 6 reciting “com flour” appear to have typographical error and should be “corn flour”: and
claim 19 line 7 reciting “com husks” appear to have typographical error and should be “corn husks”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment in claim 1 line 2, specifically “including fibers substantially reduced sugars and sap” is not supported by the specification and drawings or described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Applicant discussed that the limitation is described in paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0019], but the above mentioned paragraphs do not explicitly disclose the limitation. Specification at [0017] discloses “during the process of impregnation/stacking the cellulose/sawdust/fiber is forced to substantially swell and this allows sugars and saps from the tree phase of life to be diluted and ultimately reduced/removed through a process of thorough rinsing and or flushing while the fiber is in the swollen state prior to the introduction of the clay emulsion… this process allows for the use of “green”, “seasoned” or a combination of green and seasoned wood waste… after the sugars and saps are removed from the fiber structure the bond issues with Portland cement are reduced or resolved”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “written”, but suggests amending the claim or respond where in the specification the recitation are supported.
Claims 2-6 and 17-20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “sawdust… thoroughly coated and impregnated with fine clay…”. There is no definition given for “fine” in the specification. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation is given to the term “fine”, which is “not coarse” as evidenced by Merriam-Webster (“Merriam” hereinafter) (see Merriam at page 1, 2a(2) evidencing not coarse).
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 1-6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willson (US 2,703,289) (“Willson” hereinafter); as evidenced by Britannica (Bentonite, 2017) (“Britannica” hereinafter) with respect to claim 1 only.
Regarding claim 1, Willson teaches a cellulose-based structural webbing mixture for spray-on applications (see Willson at C1 L15 teaching molded masses, see Willson at C3 L42-49 teaching moldable masses… are produced for building construction that are thermally insulative, fire-safe, rot and insect proof and weather resistant: masses that may be formed by hand or machine processes into boards, panels, blocks, bricks and tiles or, more directly, into walls, floors and roofs; that may be… sprayed). The moldable masses is taken to meet the claimed cellulose-based structural webbing mixture based on the structure as outlined below, comprising
sawdust including fibers substantially reduced sugars and sap and thoroughly coated and impregnated with fine clay and mineral particulates (see Willson at C1 L15-18 teaching molded masses made from highly porous lightweight aggregate particles dispersed in a calcareous binder after the pores of the particles have been clogged with a clayey colloid, see Willson at C1 L74 to C2 L1 teaching lightweight aggregate materials suitable for use in concrete have a highly vesicular character, each particle housing a number of thin-walled blebs, pockets, cells or minute voids… among materials of this type having a vegetable origin are… sawdust… finely divided plant fibers both those retaining and those separated from their lignin, see Willson at C2 L10-21 teaching in vegetable aggregate particles, the crushed and broken cells permit entrance into the particles of caustic limewater and this releases soluble constituents of the particles such as sugar that contaminate the cement binder, weakening it or wholly preventing its setting… thus, another object of the disclosure is a molded mass of Portland cement bound highly porous lightweight aggregate particles, this mass strengthened by clogging the pores open at the surface of the particles with a clayey colloid to serve as a buffer concentrated between the ports and the binding matrix of cement, see Willson at C3 L40-42 teaching by first clogging the pores of such aggregate materials as above named with one or more types of swellable ingredients, colloidal, and crystalloidal, see Willson at C2 L23-29 teaching no single ingredient cheaper or more effective for clogging the pores of the aggregate particles… than one selected from the group consisting of bleaching clay, kaolin, pyrophyllite, common plastic clay such as is generally locally available, colloidal clay, hydrous aluminum silicate and bentonite, see Willson at C2 L55-59 teaches clogging pores with inert colloidal material… mixing of the porous aggregate particles in the mix water). Clay is taken to meet the claimed fine clay because it is used in clogging the pores of the lightweight aggregates, which is taken that it is “fine” or it is “not coarse”. Bentonite is taken to meet the claimed mineral particulate since it is a type of smectite clay mineral (see Britannica at page 1 paragraph 2 evidencing bentonite consists chiefly of crystalline clay minerals belonging to the smectite group), and also used in in clogging the pores of the lightweight aggregates. Clogged lightweight aggregate or sawdust is taken to meet the claimed “sawdust… thoroughly coated and impregnated” because the aggregate/sawdust is mixed with clay in water. Additionally, the claimed “substantially reduced sugars and sap” is seen to be met by Willson because Willson teaches vegetable aggregate particles, the crushed and broken cells permit entrance into the particles of caustic limewater and this releases soluble constituents of the particles such as sugar that contaminate the cement binder, weakening it or wholly preventing its setting… thus, another object of the disclosure is a molded mass of Portland cement bound highly porous lightweight aggregate particles, this mass strengthened by clogging the pores open at the surface of the particles with a clayey colloid to serve as a buffer concentrated between the ports and the binding matrix of cement,
cement (see Willson at C2 L66-69 teaching a molded mass comprising porous aggregate… diffused in a binder almost wholly of Portland cement), and
water (see Willson at C4 L46-47 teaching batches of porous vegetable aggregate material were mixed in water),
to be directly sprayed on building structures to create a monolithic fire-proof insulative structural-reinforcing cementitious webbing envelope around building structures (see Willson at C3 L42-49 teaching moldable masses… are produced for building construction that are thermally insulative, fire-safe, rot and insect proof and weather resistant: masses that may be formed by hand or machine processes into boards, panels, blocks, bricks and tiles or, more directly, into walls, floors and roofs; that may be… sprayed). Alternatively, this recitation is alluding to the intended use of the mixture, which is a different statutory category from the claimed cellulose-based structure webbing mixture (or product/manufacture) (see MPEP § 2106.03.I), and does not add to the structure of the claimed mixture. As such, this recitation is not given patentable weight or this recitation is being treated as being taught by Willson because the mold masses mixture is capable of being sprayed on building structures to create a monolithic fire-proof insulative structural-reinforcing cementitious webbing envelope around building structures).
Willson preferably teaches that the lightweight aggregates are clogged with clay, and the embodiments do not additionally comprise aggregate (see Willson at C1 L15-18, C1 L74-80, C2 L23-29 and C3 L40-42). However, Willson further teaches that the building industry is a lightweight aggregates concrete of low cost that has a density approaching that of wood (see Willson at C1 L30-32)… concretes made from wood fiber, Portland cement, clay and other ingredients (see Willson at C1 L44-45). Willson also teaches concretes… using Portland cement… expanded slag, vermiculite, perlite and wood fiber (see Willson at C4 L83 to C5 L1-2), which are taken to meet the claimed aggregate.
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 expanded slag, vermiculite, perlite and wood fiber are suitable aggregates.
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 expanded slag, vermiculite, perlite or wood fiber as aggregates in the mold masses mixture as taught by Willson because the aggregates are suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claims 2-3, Willson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Willson further teaches wherein the sawdust is thoroughly coated and impregnated with fine clay and mineral particulates by injecting an emulsion of fine clay and mineral particulates into a pressurized chamber containing a plurality of hydrated cellulose fibers (claim 2), and wherein the sawdust is thoroughly coated and impregnated with fine clay and mineral particulates by forcing raw clay particulates into a plurality of hydrated cellulose fibers (claim 3) (see Willson at C1 L15-18 teaching molded masses made from highly porous lightweight aggregate particles dispersed in a calcareous binder after the pores of the particles have been clogged with a clayey colloid, see Willson at C1 L74 to C2 L1 teaching lightweight aggregate materials suitable for use in concrete have a highly vesicular character, each particle housing a number of thin-walled blebs, pockets, cells or minute voids… among materials of this type having a vegetable origin are… sawdust… finely divided plant fibers both those retaining and those separated from their lignin, see Willson at C2 L10-21 teaching in vegetable aggregate particles, the crushed and broken cells permit entrance into the particles of caustic limewater and this releases soluble constituents of the particles such as sugar that contaminate the cement binder, weakening it or wholly preventing its setting… thus, another object of the disclosure is a molded mass of Portland cement bound highly porous lightweight aggregate particles, this mass strengthened by clogging the pores open at the surface of the particles with a clayey colloid to serve as a buffer concentrated between the ports and the binding matrix of cement, see Willson at C3 L40-42 teaching by first clogging the pores of such aggregate materials as above named with one or more types of swellable ingredients, colloidal, and crystalloidal, see Willson at C2 L23-29 teaching no single ingredient cheaper or more effective for clogging the pores of the aggregate particles… than one selected from the group consisting of bleaching clay, kaolin, pyrophyllite, common plastic clay such as is generally locally available, colloidal clay, hydrous aluminum silicate and bentonite). Clay is taken to meet the claimed fine clay because it is used in clogging the pores of the lightweight aggregates, which is taken that it is “fine” or it is “not coarse”. Bentonite is taken to meet the claimed mineral particulate since it is also used in in clogging the pores of the lightweight aggregates. Clogged lightweight aggregate or sawdust is taken to meet the claimed “sawdust thoroughly coated and impregnated” (claims 2 and 3),
The recitations “by injecting an emulsion of fine clay and mineral particulates into a pressurized chamber containing a plurality of hydrated cellulose fibers (claim 2), and by forcing raw clay particulates into a plurality of hydrated cellulose fibers (claim 3) (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitations because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Willson (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitations is the claimed “sawdust thoroughly coated and impregnated”, which is reasonably met by Willson as outlined above).
Regarding claim 4, Willson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Willson further teaches wherein the cellulose-based structural webbing mixture further comprises cellulose fibers selected from the group consisting of… fiber (see Willson at C5 L1-2 teaches wood fiber).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Willson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Willson teaches further comprising an additive selected from the group consisting of… lignin (claims 5 and 19) (see Willson at C1 L74 to C2 L1 teaching lightweight aggregate materials suitable for use in concrete have a highly vesicular character, each particle housing a number of thin-walled blebs, pockets, cells or minute voids… among materials of this type having a vegetable origin are… sawdust… finely divided plant fibers both those retaining and those separated from their lignin). Finely divided plant fibers retaining lignin is taken to meet the claimed “lignin”
Regarding claim 6, Willson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Willson further teaches wherein the sawdust comprises particulates of a certain size between microscopic to one inch (see Willson at C1 L79-80 teaching vegetable origin are… sawdust… milled wood waste… and finely divided plant fibers, see Willson at C4 L50-51 teaching waste wood fiber including pine shavings… milled to pass a 3/32” (or 0.1 inch) screen).
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 0.1 inch as the sawdust sizes similar to pine shavings as taught by Willson because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the size disclosed would be suitable.
Regarding claims 17-18, Willson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Willson teaches further comprising an additive selected from the group consisting of… calcium (claims 17-18) (see Willson at C2 L69-73 teaching an admix concentrated between the pores of the aggregate particles and the cement and comprising a greater part clay and a calcium aluminate differing somewhat from that most common in Portland cement). Calcium aluminate is taken to meet the claimed “calcium”.
Regarding claim 20, Willson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Willson teaches further comprising an additive selected from the group consisting of… salt (see Willson at C2 L59-60 teaching a wetting agent selected from the group consisting of… sodium salt). Sodium salt is taken to meet the claimed “salt”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discusses that claim 1 has been amended to recite “A cellulose-based structural webbing mixture… including fibers substantially reduced sugars and sap…”, which is not found in either Willson or Brittanica (see Applicant’s arguments at page 1 paragraph 3).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that Willson meets the limitation as outlined above. Additionally, Brittanica is used as an evidence to show that bentonite is a clay material. As such, the rejection to claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant discusses that new claims 17-20 each depends from amended claim 1… patentable over Willson for the same reasons as set forth above (see Applicant’s arguments at page 2 paragraph 1).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that the rejection to independent claim 1 is maintained. And, the rejection to the dependent claims are also maintained.
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
Prosecution Insights