DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 have been amended and claim(s) 4 has been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-19 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 18, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, in the preambles, the claims depend from “claim 1” however, proper antecedent basis for the claim limitation “the rear wall” would have the claims depending from --claim 8--. Therefore, for the purpose of this office action, it is best understood that the claims are meant to depend from --claim 8--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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. In particular, the limitation “the casing has: - front and rear walls connected by two longitudinal side walls, - an intermediate wall dividing the inner space formed between the front, rear, and longitudinal side walls into the first and second compartments, and - a bottom wall” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration and such a modification to include the structural configuration would require modifying the modifier reference which would involve hindsight reconstruction. Claim(s) 9-11, 18, and 19 depend from claim 8 and are therefore objected to as well.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable [if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and] if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the limitations “wherein step II) comprises: - separately providing an aqueous foam and an aqueous slurry comprising the at least one mineral binder B and optionally the at least one synthetic organic polymer SP and - mixing the aqueous foam with the aqueous slurry to obtain the foamed inorganic composition” are not taught or suggested by any prior art of record, either alone or in combination. In addition, such a process would require impermissible hindsight or piecemeal reconstruction to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, and 12-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul (WO 2012000063 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Paul teaches a modular green wall element (vegetating arrangement; abstract) comprising a casing (32) having a first (16-top) and a second (16-bottom) compartment (figure 3), wherein the first compartment is arranged to host a growing material for plants (figure 3) and wherein the second compartment is at least partially filled with a foamed material (foam; col. 3, lines 5-6), wherein the foamed material is a foamed inorganic material comprising: at least one mineral binder B (hydraulic cement; col. 3, line 20).
Regarding claim 2, Paul teaches the foamed material has a density of not more than 500 kg/m3 (preferably less than 500kg/cubic meter; col. 2, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 3, Paul teaches the foamed material includes that the at least one synthetic organic polymer SP (polyurethane; col. 2, lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 6, Paul teaches the at least one mineral binder B is selected from the group consisting of Portland cement, (hydraulic cement; col. 3, line 20).
Regarding claim 12, Paul teaches the casing is composed of a polymeric material (polystyrene; col. 7, lines 9-16).
Regarding claim 13, Paul teaches a method for producing a modular green wall element according to claim 1 comprising steps of: I) providing a casing-having a first and a second compartment (figure 3), II) providing a foamed composition (foam; col. 3, lines 5-6), II) at least partially filing the second compartment-with the foamed composition (figure 3), and IV) letting the foamed composition to harden (figure 3; it is understood that the foamed composition is hardened).
Regarding claim 14, Paul teaches the foamed material has a density of not more than 500 kg/m3 (preferably less than 500kg/cubic meter; col. 2, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 15, Paul teaches the foamed composition is a foamed inorganic composition comprising: a) At least one mineral binder B (hydraulic cement; col. 3, line 20), and d) Water (it is understood that hydraulic cement includes water).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul (WO 2012000063 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Paul does not specifically disclose the at least one mineral binder B comprises at least 35 wt.%, of the total weight of the foamed inorganic material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the at least one mineral binder B comprises at least 35 wt.%, of the total weight of the foamed inorganic material, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the at least one mineral binder B comprises at least 35 wt.%, of the total weight of the foamed inorganic material, in order to provide the optimal insulation with the optimal binder amount for the best balance between structural quality and insulative properties based on the building specifications.
Regarding claim 7, Paul does not specifically disclose the weight ratio of the amount of the at least one mineral binder B to the amount of the at least one synthetic polymer SP in the foamed inorganic material is from 100:0 to 70:30.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the weight ratio of the amount of the at least one mineral binder B to the amount of the at least one synthetic polymer SP in the foamed inorganic material is from 100:0 to 70:30, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the weight ratio of the amount of the at least one mineral binder B to the amount of the at least one synthetic polymer SP in the foamed inorganic material is from 100:0 to 70:30, in order to provide the optimal insulation with the optimal binder amount for the best balance between structural quality and insulative properties based on the building specifications.
Regarding claim 16, Paul does not specifically disclose the at least one mineral binder B comprises at least 35 wt.%, of the total weight of the foamed inorganic composition.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the at least one mineral binder B comprises at least 35 wt.%, of the total weight of the foamed inorganic material, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the at least one mineral binder B comprises at least 35 wt.%, of the total weight of the foamed inorganic material, in order to provide the optimal insulation with the optimal binder amount for the best balance between structural quality and insulative properties based on the building specifications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference(s) Paul (WO 2012000063 A1) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding “a) wherein the foamed material is a foamed inorganic material comprising: at least one mineral binder B, and b) optionally at least one synthetic organic polymer SP” has overcome the previous rejection in view of Gao. The new limitations are overcome in view of new reference Paul.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633