DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed 06/30/2025. Applicant filed a Response on 09/30/2025, amended claims 38, 53-45 and 60, cancelled claims 44 and 52, and added claims 61-62.
Claims 38-43, 45-51 and 53-62 are pending.
Claims 38-43, 45-51 and 53-62 are rejected.
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 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.
Claims 38-43, 45-51 and 53-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathieu, U.S. 9,499,980 B2 (Mathieu).
With respect to claims 38, 45-47 and 57-61, Mathieu teaches a lightweight cementitious panel (i.e., cement board) formed from a core mix comprising 0.5-5 weight% of one or more lightweight aggregates; 35-75 weight% of one or binders; 0.5-5 weight% of rheological admixture; 0-0.1 weight% of one or more surfactants; and 5-50 weight% of one or more normal weight aggregates, the percentages based on the core mix (Mathieu; col. 4, lines 24-34 and col. 12, lines 14-25).
The panel comprises a core mix (10) (i.e., cement core), a first surface (38) and a second surface opposite the first surface (39) (Mathieu; see e.g. Fig 14; col. 16.lines 26-28; and col. 19, lines 37-40).
The binder is a cementitious material (i.e., a binder comprising cement) (Mathieu; col. 10, lines 50-55).
0.5-5 weight% of one or more lightweight aggregates, falls within the claimed range of 0.1-50 wt% lightweight aggregate, based on the weight of the cement core (claims 47 and claim 61 with respect to the lightweight aggregate).
The core mix is composed so as to comprise lightweight mineral and/or non-mineral aggregate(s), e.g., expanded shale, expanded perlite, expanded vermiculite, expanded pumice, expanded glass, hollow spheres, and expanded polystyrene beads. Suitable lightweight aggregates may, for example, be cellular in nature such as expanded closed-cell polystyrene beads (Mathieu; col. 11, lines 14-26). The aggregate may be selected in accordance with the desired density of the finished panel. Lightweight aggregates may have, e.g., a density up to 120 pounds per cubic foot. For example, lightweight aggregates such as obtained from expended forms of shale or perlite may produce panels having a density of from about 80 to 115 pounds per cubic foot. On the other hand, plastic such as polystyrene beads may be used to obtain a panel having a density from about 40 to 70 pounds per cubic foot or lower (Mathieu; col. 11, lines 27-38).
In one preferred embodiment, the core mix comprises small-diameter closed-cell polystyrene beads with decreased diameter of 0.06-0.13 inches, as compared to those conventionally used in the art. The use of such small-diameter expanded closed-cell polystyrene beads improves rheology and compressive strength of the core mix as compared to using expanded polystyrene beads of a larger diameter (Mathieu; col. 13, lines 21-29). The use of small-diameter expanded closed-cell polystyrene beads improves the ability to make a clean cut with a utility knife or other cutting apparatus (Mathieu; col. 14, lines 39-48). The use of the small-diameter lightweight aggregates within the core mix also improves fire performance of a resulting cementitious board as compared to a normal weight board. In at least one test, the fire performance of a cementitious board with lightweight aggregates produces a fire performance of 5.2 minutes more than a target duration of 60 minutes (Mathieu; col. 15, lines 5-11).
Mathieu teaches board characteristics for a panel made from the core mix in the Table found in col. 33, lines 39-65. Fire resistance has a preferred value of 1-2 hours, and flame spread and smoke density have a preferred value of 0 (Mathieu; col. 33, lines 58-61).
Mathieu does not explicitly teach a cement panel wherein the core mix comprises a lightweight aggregate in combination with greater than 0 wt% to less than 0.5 wt% (claims 38 and 60), to less than 0.45 wt% (claim 45), or to less than 0.4 wt% (claim 46) of a combustible additive, wherein the combustible additive comprises expanded polystyrene.
Mathieu also does not explicitly teach wherein the cement board passes CAN/ULC-S114:2018 (claim 38) and/or ASTM E136-19a (claims 58 and 60); wherein the mean of the maximum temperature under CAN/ULC-S114:2018 is 350C or less, there is no flaming under CAN/ULC-S114:2018 during the last 14.6 minutes of the test, and/or the maximum loss of weight under CAN/ULC-S114:2018 is 19 wt.% or less (claim 57); or wherein the cement board exhibits an average weight loss of 50% or less when tested in accordance with ASTM E136-19a and/or the surface temperature of the cement board does not rise more than 300C when tested in accordance with ASTM E136-19a (claim 59).
In light of the motivation provided by Mathieu to use small-diameter expanded closed-cell polystyrene beads as a lightweight aggregate in the core mix, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use expanded polystyrene as at least a portion (emphasis added) of the lightweight aggregate in the core mix of Mathieu in order to obtain improved rheology, compressive strength, and fire performance of the core mix, while obtaining a board that enables a clean cut with conventional cutting tools.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to add additional lightweight aggregates, other than expanded polystyrene, as needed in order to obtain the desired density of the cementitious panel. Those skilled in the art would recognize that such combinations clearly fall within the scope of the teachings of Mathieu wherein the lightweight aggregate may comprise mixtures of lightweight aggregates selected in accordance with the desired density of the finished panel.
Using a mixture of expanded polystyrene and an additional lightweight aggregate in a total amount of 0.5 to 5wt%, overlaps in scope with the claimed ranges of greater than 0 wt% to less than 0.5 wt% (claims 38 and 60), or less than 0.45 wt% (claim 45), or less than 0.4 wt% (claim 46), of a combustible additive comprising expanded polystyrene.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each lightweight aggregate, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired concrete panel characteristics, e.g., rheology, compressive strength and fire resistance, while achieving the desired panel density.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("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."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding the claim 38 limitation “wherein the cement board passes CAN/ULC-S114:2018,” and the claim 57 limitation “wherein the mean of the maximum temperature under CAN/ULC-S114:2018 is 350C or less, there is no flaming under CAN/ULC-S114:2018 during the last 14.6 minutes of the test, and/or the maximum loss of weight under CAN/ULC-S114:2018 is 19 wt.% or less,” because the cementitious panels of Mathieu are substantially identical to those as claimed in that they comprise a core mix which may comprise the claimed components in the claimed amounts, and which have a fire resistance of 1-2 hours and a flame spread and smoke density of 0, those skilled in the art would expect such cementitious panels to meet the claimed requirements under CAN/ULC-S114:2018, absent a teaching or showing otherwise.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding the limitations of claims 58 and 60, “wherein the cement board passes ASTM E136-19a,” and the limitations of claim 59, “wherein the cement board exhibits an average weight loss of 50% or less when tested in accordance with ASTM E136-19a and/or the surface temperature of the cement board does not rise more than 300C when tested in accordance with ASTM E136-19a,” because the cementitious panels of Mathieu are substantially identical to those as claimed in that they comprise a core mix which may comprise the claimed components in the claimed amounts, and which have a fire resistance of 1-2 hours and a flame spread and smoke density of 0, those skilled in the art would expect such cementitious panels to meet the claimed requirements under ASTM E136-19a, absent a teaching or showing otherwise.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claims 39-41 and 61, Mathieu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 38 as set forth above. The binder is a cementitious material (i.e., wherein the binder is a cement of claim 61), i.e., a hydraulic cement which is able to set on hydration such as Portland cement, magnesia cement, alumina cement, a pozzolan such as fly ash or blast furnace slag, or a blend thereof (Mathieu; col. 10, lines 50-55).
Given that Mathieu discloses core mixes that overlaps the presently claimed cement cores, including cement cores comprising Portland cement, magnesia cement, or alumina cement, optionally blended with a pozzolan such as fly ash or blast furnace slag, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the binders comprising Portland cement, magnesia cement or alumina cement (claim 39), wherein the binder further comprises a pozzolan material (claim 40) comprising blast furnace slag (claim 41), which is both disclosed by Mathieu and encompassed within the scope of the present claims.
Regarding claims 42-43, Mathieu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 38 as set forth above. Although Mathieu teaches the binder may comprise a pozzolan such as fly ash (Mathieu; col. 10, lines 50-55), fly ash is not required. Therefore, Mathieu teaches wherein the cement board comprises 10 wt% or less (claim 42), or 1 wt% or less (claim 43) of fly ash. The claim language “or less” reads on zero.
Regarding claims 48-51, Mathieu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 38 as set forth above. The core mix is composed so as to comprise lightweight mineral and/or non-mineral aggregate(s), e.g., expanded shale (claim 50), expanded perlite (claim 49), expanded vermiculite, expanded pumice, expanded glass, and hollow spheres (the lightweight aggregates of claim 48). The aggregate may be selected in accordance with the desired density of the finished panel. Lightweight aggregates may have, e.g., a density up to 120 pounds per cubic foot. For example, lightweight aggregates such as obtained from expended forms of shale or perlite may produce panels having a density of from about 80 to 115 pounds per cubic foot. On the other hand, plastic such as polystyrene beads may be used to obtain a panel having a density from about 40 to 70 pounds per cubic foot or lower (Mathieu; col. 11, lines 27-38).
Given that Mathieu discloses core mixes that overlap the presently claimed cement cores, including those comprising, e.g., expanded shale and/or expanded perlite light weight aggregates, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use, e.g., expanded shale and/or expanded perlite, which is both disclosed by Mathieu and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, in order to obtain a panel of the desired density, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Lightweight aggregates having a density up to 120 pounds per cubic foot, wherein the lightweight aggregate may comprise expanded shale, overlaps in scope with the claimed expanded shale having a density of 30-70 pcf (claim 51).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claims 53-54 and 61, Mathieu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 38 as set forth above. The cement cores comprise a normal weight aggregate in an amount of 5-50 weight% of the core mix (Mathieu; col. 4, lines 24-33).
5-50 weight% of one or more normal weight aggregates falls within the claimed range of 0.1-80 wt% normal weight aggregate, based on the weight of the cement core (claim 54), and 5-50wt% normal weight aggregate based on the weight of the cement core (claim 61).
The normal weight aggregate can be sand, stone, limestone, shale, clay, granite, or mixtures thereof (claims 53 and 61) (Mathieu; col. 10, lines 58-62).
Given that Mathieu discloses core mixes that overlap the presently claimed cement cores, including those comprising sand, stone, limestone, shale, clay, granite, or mixtures thereof as the normal weight aggregate, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sand, stone, limestone, granite, or mixtures thereof as the normal weight aggregate, which is both disclosed by Mathieu and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 55, Mathieu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 38 as set forth above. Mathieu teaches that the lightweight aggregate may be selected in accordance with the desired density of the finished panel. For example, lightweight aggregates such as obtained from expended forms of shale or perlite may produce panels having a density of from about 80 to 115 pounds per cubic foot. On the other hand, plastic such as polystyrene beads may be used to obtain a panel having a density from about 40 to 70 pounds per cubic foot or lower (Mathieu; col. 11, lines 27-38).
Panels having a density of from about 80 to 115 pounds per cubic foot, and panels having a density from about 40 to 70 pounds per cubic foot or lower, overlap in scope with the claimed cement boards having a density of form 40-80 lbs/ft3.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 56, Mathieu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 38 as set forth above. Mathieu discloses cementitious boards from core mixes having compressive strengths ranging from 595-1018 psi (Mathieu; col. 14, lines 7-28), i.e., about 1700 psi or less as claimed.
Regarding claim 61, Mathieu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 38 as set forth above, wherein the core mix comprises normal weight aggregates as claimed in the claimed amounts, lightweight aggregates in the claimed amounts, and a binder comprising cement (Mathieu; col. 10, lines 41-43 and 50-62; col. 12, lines 16-25). The binder may be present in an amount ranging from 35-75 weight% (Mathieu; col. 12, line 19). From 35-75 weight% of a cement binder overlaps in scope with the claimed cement binder range of 15-50 wt%, based on the weight of the cement core.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 62, Mathieu is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 61 as set forth above, wherein the lightweight aggregate may comprise expanded perlite, and wherein the lightweight aggregate is present in a total amount of 0.5 to 5 wt%, i.e., less than 8 wt% as claimed (Mathieu; col. 11, lines 14-17 and col. 12, line 21-22). Note: “Less than 8 wt%” as claimed includes zero%.
Claims 49 and 62 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathieu as applied to claims 38 and 61 respectively, and further in view of Wang et al, CN 1079213A (Wang).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Wang. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
With respect to claims 49 and 62, Mathieu is relied upon as set forth above as teaching the limitations of claim 38 and 61 respectively, wherein the core mix may comprise 0.5 to 5wt% light weight aggregates (Mathieu; col. 11, lines 14-16 and col. 12, lines 16-22). The lightweight aggregate may comprise, e.g., expanded polystyrene beads and/or expanded perlite (Mathieu; col. 11, lines 14-20). The aggregate may be selected in accordance with the desired density of the finished panel (Mathieu; col. 11, lines 27-38).
Mathieu teaches that the cementitious board may be used as a backboard for exterior insulation, or any place that requires water resistance (Mathieu; col. 6, lines 41-50). The panels have a preferred water absorption of 8.60%, and freeze/thaw resistance (Mathieu; col. 33, lines 39-58).
Mathieu does not explicitly teach cement mix core comprising greater than 0 wt% to less than 5 wt% of a combustible additive comprising expanded polystyrene, and wherein the lightweight aggregate comprises expanded perlite (claim 49) in an amount less than 8 wt% (claim 62).
With respect to the difference, Wang teaches a wall material which has low thermal conductivity and sufficient strength, durability, workability and plaster adhesion, and its performance satisfies the requirements of a lattice building system or other non-load bearing walls of a building system (Wang; page 2, lines 13-15). The lightweight thermal insulation wall material comprises a cement expanded perlite concrete wherein the inner and outer surfaces are compounded with a layer of expanded polystyrene concrete, or a mixture of expanded perlite and expanded polystyrene (Wang; page 2, lines 17-21).
Expanded perlite and its concrete have the characteristics of high heat preservation performance, wide source and low cost, but the water absorption rate is high, and the frost resistance and adhesion to plaster is poor. Expanded polystyrene has a low water absorption rate, high frost resistance, sufficient toughness and good adhesion to plaster mortar. By combining the characteristics of the two materials, a wall material having lower thermal conductivity, better thermal insulation performance, and improved water absorption, frost resistance, adhesion to plaster mortar, and breakage rate during transportation and installation, can be obtained (Wang; page 2, lines 38-46).
Wang is analogous art as it teaches cement comprising a mixture of expanded polystyrene and expended perlite.
In light of the motivation provided by Wang to use a mixture of expanded perlite and expanded polystyrene cements, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a mixture of lightweight aggregates in a total amount ranging from 0.5 to 5 wt%, wherein the lightweight aggregate mixture comprises expanded polystyrene beads and expanded perlite, in order to obtain a cement core mix with reduced thermal conductivity and breakage rate, and improved thermal insulation, water absorption characteristics, frost resistance, and adhesion to plaster mortar. Using mixture of expanded polystyrene and expanded perlite in an amount of 0.5 to 5wt%, overlaps in scope with the claimed ranges of greater than 0 wt% to less than 0.5 wt% expanded polystyrene, and lightweight aggregate comprising expanded perlite (claim 49) in an amount less than 8 wt% (claim 62).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of each lightweight aggregate, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired concrete characteristics while achieving the desired panel density.
It has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("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."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
Response to Arguments
1) The amended Abstract filed 09/30/2025 has overcome the previous objection to the abstract of the disclosure.
2) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 6, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Francis, U.S. 8,088,217 B2 (Francis) taken in view of evidence by IPCS INCHEM, “Polyvinyl Alcohol” (IPCS); over Francis taken in view of evidence by IPCS and further in view of Dubey, US 6,641,658 B1 (Dubey); and over Francis taken in view of evidence by IPCS, and further in view of Guzzetta et al, US 2016/0016852 A1 (Guzzetta), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Specifically, Francis, alone or in combination with IPCS, Dubey and Guzzetta, does not teach or suggest cement boards which comprise a combustible additive in an amount greater than 0 wt% to less than 0.5 wt.%, wherein the combustible additive comprises expanded polystyrene as presently claimed.
3) Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 6, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Jiang, US 8,070,876 B1 (Jiang) in view of Dicalite, “Stay Warm Year-Round with Perlite in High-Temperature Insulation” (Dicalite); over Jiang in view of Dicalite, and further in view of Guzzetta et al, US 2016/0016852 A1 (Guzzetta) taken in view of evidence by Goodrich, “Thermal conductivities of expanded shale and clay lightweight aggregates” (Goodrich); and over Jiang in view of Dicalite, and further in view of Guzzetta et al, US 2016/0016852 A1 (Guzzetta), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Specifically, Jiang, alone or in combination with Dicalite, Guzzetta, Goodrich and Guzzetta, does not teach or suggest wherein the cement board comprises a normal weight aggregate as presently claimed.
4) However, upon further consideration and search due to Applicant’s claim amendments, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Mathieu, and over Mathieu in view of Wang, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rejections over these references would be cumulative to the above rejections.
Zhu, CN 104692738A, teaches a self-insulation board comprising 25% to 35% fast hard low alkali 425R cement, 25% to 35% PC ordinary silicate cement (i.e., 50-70% Portland cement); 8% to 15% fly ash (i.e., pozzolan material); 1% to 4% fine sand (i.e., normal weight aggregate); 0.5% to 1.3% polystyrene particles (i.e., a combustible additive comprising polystyrene); 0.3% to 1.1% expanded perlite (i.e., light weight aggregate). The self-insulation board has strong fireproof performance (see provided machine translation; page 2, lines 28-38).
Guevara et al, US 7666258 B2 (cited in the IDS filed 05/08/2023), teaches a lightweight cementitious material which can be used to make structural units having a cement core, and a first and second major face, wherein the cement core comprises 22-90 vol% cement and 10-78 vol% of particles (Abstract and col. 5, lines 29-41). The cement may comprise additional lightweight aggregates such as perlite and expanded shale at a level of at least 0.5 vol% (col. 12, line 61-col. 13, line 36). Guevara teaches fire-resistance (col. 37, lines 21-27). Various cement compositions are exemplified which comprise Portland cement, sand (i.e., normal weight aggregate), and EPS (i.e., expanded polystyrene particles) in an amount of 0.6 wt%, with varying volume percentages, dependent upon the density of the particles (Samples D-E, H-K, U, AA).
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 CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732