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 .
Applicant has amended the claims. The amendment finds sport in the original fling. No new matter is presented. The amended limitation is encompassed in the original rejection as below set forth.
The remarks filed 2/13/2026 in conjunction with the amended claims are not persuasive for the reasons below set forth.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/29/2024 has previously been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcinskas et al (US 2016/0244366) further in view of Ciuperca (US 2014/0087158)
Regarding Claims 1-19:
Turcinskas et al (US 2016/0244366) discloses a geopolymer forma formulation comprising
At least one inorganic binder selected from latently hydraulic binders pozzolanic binders and mixtures thereof
At least one alkaline activator selected from alkali metal hydroxide, alkali metal carbonate, alkali metal aluminate and alkali metal silicates and mixtures thereof
At least one surfactant anionic, cationic nonionic and mixtures a gas phase and Water (Abstract)
POZZOLANIC BINDER
The composition comprises inorganic binder systems based on reactive water insoluble compounds based on SiO2 in conjunction with Al2O3 which harden in an aqueous alkaline environment – geopolymers. Materials reactive include micro silica, metakaolin, aluminosilicate, fly ash, activated clay, pozzolan and mixtures thereof [0020][0037] (meeting claim 1 and 3)
GAS
The gas phase includes hydrogen gas liberated by reaction of the alkaline aqueous medium deriving from metals such as Mg Al Zn O2 gases from alkaline medium from peroxides, nitrogen gas from labile nitrogen compounds etc. [0018] (meeting claim 9) The gas phase is selected from air, nitrogen noble gases etc. mixtures thereof [0050] (Meeting claim 9)
[0051] In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, the gas phase makes up from 20 to 90 percent by volume, in particular from 50 to 80 percent by volume, of the geopolymer foam formulation. (overlapping claim 10)
ALKALINE ACTIVATOR
The alkaline environment used to activate the binders include aqueous solutions of alkali metal carbonate, fluoride, hydroxide aluminate silicates e.g. waterglass [0020]
It is preferable to use an alkaline activator selected from alkali metal hydroxides of the formula MOH and alkali metal silicates of the formula m SiO.sub.2.n M.sub.2O, where M is the alkali metal, preferably Li, Na or K or a mixture thereof, and the molar ratio m:n is ≦4.0, preferably ≦3.0, with further preference ≦2.0, in particular ≦1.70, and with very particular preference ≦1.20 [0038] (meeting claim 6)
Potassium waterglasses in the advantageous modulus range are mainly marketed as aqueous solutions because they are very hygroscopic; sodium waterglasses in the advantageous modulus range are also obtainable commercially as solids. The solids contents of the aqueous waterglass solutions are generally from 20% by weight to 60% by weight, preferably from 30 to 50% by weight. [0041] The preferred quantity present of the alkaline activator in the invention, based on the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention, is from 1 to 55% by weight and in particular from 20 to 50% by weight, where these data relate to solids contents [0044] (within the range of claim 15)
WATER:
[0052] The formulation of the invention is moreover characterized in that it advantageously comprises from 10 to 60% by weight, preferably from 25 to 50% by weight, of water. (meeting claim 11)
SURFACTANT
[0046] Not all surfactants are equally effective in the highly alkaline geopolymer foam formulation often comprising waterglass and in principle latently hydraulic, and also pozzolanic, binders. It has been found that non-ionic surfactants, preferably alkyl polyglucosides, have the best suitability for stabilizing the gas phase and therefore the foam.
[0047] Alkyl polyglucosides generally have the formula H—(C.sub.6H.sub.10O.sub.5).sub.m—O—R.sup.1, where (C.sub.6H.sub.10O.sub.5) is a glucose unit and R.sup.1 is a C.sub.6-22-alkyl group, preferably a C.sub.8-16-alkyl group and in particular a C.sub.8-12-alkyl group, and m=from 1 to 5. (overlapping the formula of claim 8) (overlapping the range of claim 15)
[0049] The proportion of the surfactant, based on the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention, can advantageously be from 0.1 to 2.5% by weight and in particular from 0.5 to 1.5% by weight.
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Further Regarding Claim 3:
POZZOLANIC BINDER
The composition comprises inorganic binder systems based on reactive water insoluble compounds based on SiO2 in conjunction with Al2O3 which harden in an aqueous alkaline environment – geopolymers. Materials reactive include micro silica, metakaolin, aluminosilicate, fly ash, activated clay, pozzolan and mixtures thereof [0020][0037] (meeting claim 1 and 3)
Further Regarding Claim 6:
ALKALINE ACTIVATOR
It is preferable to use an alkaline activator selected from alkali metal hydroxides of the formula MOH and alkali metal silicates of the formula m SiO.sub.2.n M.sub.2O, where M is the alkali metal, preferably Li, Na or K or a mixture thereof, and the molar ratio m:n is ≦4.0, preferably ≦3.0, with further preference ≦2.0, in particular ≦1.70, and with very particular preference ≦1.20 [0038] (meeting claim 6)
Further Regarding Claim 7:
[0043] In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, the alkaline activator therefore comprises a mixture of alkali metal hydroxides and of alkali metal silicates.
Further Regarding Claim 8:
SURFACTANT
[0046] Not all surfactants are equally effective in the highly alkaline geopolymer foam formulation often comprising waterglass and in principle latently hydraulic, and also pozzolanic, binders. It has been found that non-ionic surfactants, preferably alkyl polyglucosides, have the best suitability for stabilizing the gas phase and therefore the foam.
[0047] Alkyl polyglucosides generally have the formula H—(C.sub.6H.sub.10O.sub.5).sub.m—O—R.sup.1, where (C.sub.6H.sub.10O.sub.5) is a glucose unit and R.sup.1 is a C.sub.6-22-alkyl group, preferably a C.sub.8-16-alkyl group and in particular a C.sub.8-12-alkyl group, and m=from 1 to 5. (overlapping the formula of claim 8) (overlapping the range of claim 15)
[0049] The proportion of the surfactant, based on the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention, can advantageously be from 0.1 to 2.5% by weight and in particular from 0.5 to 1.5% by weight.
Further Regarding Claims 9-10
GAS
The gas phase includes hydrogen gas liberated by reaction of the alkaline aqueous medium deriving from metals such as Mg Al Zn O2 gases from alkaline medium from peroxides, nitrogen gas from labile nitrogen compounds etc. [0018] (meeting claim 9) The gas phase is selected from air, nitrogen noble gases etc. mixtures thereof [0050] (Meeting claim 9)
[0051] In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, the gas phase makes up from 20 to 90 percent by volume, in particular from 50 to 80 percent by volume, of the geopolymer foam formulation. (overlapping claim 10)
Further Regarding Claim 11
WATER:
[0052] The formulation of the invention is moreover characterized in that it advantageously comprises from 10 to 60% by weight, preferably from 25 to 50% by weight, of water. (meeting claim 11)
Further Regarding Claim 12:
REGARDING CEMENT
[0059] The solidification behavior or the setting time of the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention can be influenced advantageously by adding cement. A particularly suitable material here is Portland cement, calcium aluminate cement or a mixture thereof. Particular preference is given here to calcium aluminate cement. It is also possible to use composite cements.
[0061] It is preferable that the proportion of the cement in the geopolymer foam formulation is at least 1% by weight, preferably at least 2% by weight and in particular at least 3% by weight. The setting time can also be controlled by adding Ca(OH).sub.2. The proportion of Ca(OH).sub.2, based on the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention, can be from 1 to 15% by weight, in particular from 3 to 10% by weight. The proportion of cement in the formulation of the invention should be at most 20% by weight, (overlapping claim 12)
Regarding Claim 13:
[0017] For the purposes of the present invention, the expression “geopolymer foam formulation” is intended to mean that this formulation comprises all of the components required in order to provide a geopolymer foam, i.e. an inorganic binder, an alkaline activator, a surfactant, water, and a gas phase. These components can take the form of premix, or else can be in separate form as what is known as a “kit of parts”. As stated at a later stage below, the water and the alkaline activator can be provided separately from the other components, or the alkaline activator can be in dry form together with the other components, so that it is only then necessary to add water and to carry out foaming. It is, of course, also possible that the geopolymer foam formulation is in ready-foamed form.
Regarding Claim 14:
ADDITIVES
Additives for foam stabilization shrink reductions flexibilization, hydrophobization and dispersion, fibers, fillers and mixtures. (meeting claim 14)
The composition can be a single component or two component formulation.
The composition is formed via foaming by mechanical introduction of air
(Abstract)
FURTHER REGARDING CLAIM 15:
[0056] The geopolymer foam formulation of the invention can preferably comprise
from 20 to 75% by weight of inorganic binder, (i.e. metakaolin and micro silica)
from 3 to 50% by weight of alkaline activator (calculated as solids content – meeting claim 15 as amended),
from 10 to 50% by weight of water (entire quantity),
and also surfactant, gas phase and optionally other additives.
See Claim 8 Reference:
The composition comprises 3- 60 wt.% blast furnace slag
The composition comprises 3-70 % micro silica and/or metakaolin
The composition comprises 1-55 wt.% alkaline activator calculated as solids content
The composition comprises 10- 60 wt.% water
And a surfactant and a gas
[0049] The proportion of the surfactant, based on the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention, can advantageously be from 0.1 to 2.5% by weight and in particular from 0.5 to 1.5% by weight.
The reference teaches overlapping ranges.
Regarding Claims 16-18:
The formulation may be a premix (i.e. all solid and liquid mixed) The formulation is a dry mixt to which water is added and then foaming is carried out [0017] (meeting claim 16)
[0077] The present invention further provides a process for the production of the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention, characterized in that the formulation is subjected to foaming via mechanical introduction of gas, in particular of air. For acoustic effectiveness it is particularly preferable that the air content of the foam should be from 50 to 80 percent by volume. This process can be carried out with the aid of a stator-rotor process, or of an oscillating process or by means of mechanical agitation.
Reference claim 24. A process for the production of the formulation according to claim 1, wherein foaming of the formulation is carried out via mechanical introduction of air.
Reference claim 25. The process according to claim 24, wherein the foaming is carried out with the aid of a stator-rotor process, or of an oscillating process or by means of mechanical agitation.
Also, a process for the production of this formulation via foaming by mechanical introduction of air, the use of the formulation for the production of an incombustible, sound-absorbing, thermally insulating geopolymer foam element and the geopolymer foam element. (Abstract) (meeting claim 16)
The foam is allowed to harden and dry [0076] (meeting claim 17)
Further Regarding Claim 18:
A geopolymer foam element is formed [0001] (meeting claim 18) Turkinscas discloses a sound absorbing thermally insulating geopolymer foam element (Abstract)
Further Regarding Claim 19:
PNG
media_image1.png
714
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fly ash is not required meeting claim 19
As above set forth the prior art teaches the claimed components with overlapping ranges of carbons, ratios, and mass % thereby rendering same obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)
Regarding Claim 2: Turkinscas discloses [0058] A ratio of silicon atoms to aluminum atoms that has proved advantageous in the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention is from 10:1 to 1:1, and a preferred ratio here is from 6:1 to 1.5:1 and in particular from 1.8:1 to 2.2:1 and from 4.7:1 to 5.3:1. (overlapping the range of claim 2)
FURTHER REGARDING THE LIMITATION FOR PULVERANT BURNT CLAY:
Turkinscas discloses [0058] A ratio of silicon atoms to aluminum atoms that has proved advantageous in the geopolymer foam formulation of the invention is from 10:1 to 1:1, and a preferred ratio here is from 6:1 to 1.5:1 and in particular from 1.8:1 to 2.2:1 and from 4.7:1 to 5.3:1. (overlapping the range of claim 2)
Turkinscas discloses the composition comprising various components as above set forth including cement pozzolanic materials such as silica fume metakaolin etc. but does not expressly disclose the composition comprising burnt clay bricks / brick dust
However Ciuperca (US 2014/0087158) like Turkinscas discloses a foam composition for use in forming insulating panels (Abstract) Ciuperca discloses he composition comprising cement. Portland cement, fly ash, slag. The cement materials ae preferably educed by amount using increased amount of recycled supplementary cement materials which ae more environmentally friendly. Such materials include, pozzolanic materials including silica fume, metakaolin, ground burn clay bricks and brick dust and other aluminous siliceous and aluminisiliceous materials which are reactive with water and hydroxide containing compounds such as sodium hydroxide [0134] These materials are used in ranges of 0-100 % of the Cementous material [0135] (overlapping the range of claim 15) these materials may include particles preferably 90 % or more less than 10 microns [0137] (overlapping claim 15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add burnt clay brick dust having the particle size distribution as taught by Ciuperca in amounts taught therein in the method and composition of Turkinscas as it is a pozzolanic component and cement component where said components are already expressly contemplated by Turkinscas and will make the composition of Turkinscas more environmentally friendly and providing the silicon atoms to aluminium atoms required by Turkinscas.
Further Ciuperca teaches the burnt clay brick dust can be used as a substitute for cement along with microsilica and metakaolin which are used in mixtures. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add burnt clay brick dust taught by Ciuperca to the composition of Turkinscas as it is sued for the same purpose and combining them flows logically from the prior art. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
Turkinscas as modified by Ciuperca meets the limitation for burnt clay material, pulverulent burnt clay brick dust particle sizes and % by weight in overlapping ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the rejection asserting the prior art does not teach the claimed burn clay and that the combination of references does not teach said burnt clay or provide motivation to do so. This is not persuasive. The primary reference teaches metakaolin (i.e. calcined clay) and a variety of pozzolanic materials.
The secondary reference teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
726
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thereby expressly teaching burnt clay bricks and brick dust and metakaolin as pozzolanic materials. As more fully set forth in the rejection motivation for the addition of the burnt brick clay dust of the secondary reference is provided. To wit:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add burnt clay brick dust having the particle size distribution as taught by Ciuperca in amounts taught therein in the method and composition of Turkinscas as it is a pozzolanic component and cement component where said components are already expressly contemplated by Turkinscas and will make the composition of Turkinscas more environmentally friendly and providing the silicon atoms to aluminium atoms required by Turkinscas.
Further Ciuperca teaches the burnt clay brick dust can be used as a substitute for cement along with microsilica and metakaolin which are used in mixtures. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add burnt clay brick dust taught by Ciuperca to the composition of Turkinscas as it is sued for the same purpose and combining them flows logically from the prior art. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant appears to argue secondary consideration of unexpected and superior results of being less prone to cracking and refers to examples 2-5 and 6-7 in the specification. This is not persuasive.
First there is no assertion that reduced cracking is unexpected. The cited reference Cluperca in fact indicates the composition will have reduced cracking at [0109][0115][0118-0119] Turcinskas et al improved properties with regard to cracking [0068] as such this function is not unexpected. "Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967)
The argued results are not commensurate in scope with the claims especially as it related to the ranges of each of the claimed compositional components (the majority of claims including the independent do not recites ranges or ratios and the dependent claims which do so have very broad ranges)
PNG
media_image3.png
422
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The applicant has not explained the data – is appears that the examples 2-7 are not representative of the claimed composition as they do not recite the required surfactant, gas phase or water. There is not data presented to support a nexus of any improvement imparted solely by virtue of the burnt clay component.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)
The above rejections are made final.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying the previous office action.
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 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 PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732