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
Claims 1 and 5-28 are pending. Claims 14-28 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 06/23/2026, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 04/03/2026.
New grounds of rejection are made in response to claim amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-13 is/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.
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation “pouring the cement slurry into a mold maintained at a temperature of 60-80°C to initiate activation of the cement slurry and to cure the cement slurry…” The filed specification describes pouring the cement slurry into a mold ([0091]) and then placing the mold filled with the slurry into an oven at a temperature range of 60-80°C for the foaming and curing ([0092]). Applicant seems to rely on support for an interpretation of the amended limitation that the mold itself is already heated to a temperature of 60-80°C prior to pouring the cement slurry into the mold, which causes the foaming and curing in the mold (as argued in Remarks dated 06/23/2026, pp. 8-10), as coming from a description of the slurry being “poured into a mold under an increased temperature for activation,” (in [0039]) and “the cement slurry is carefully poured into a mold with an increased temperature to initiate the activation process, where the crucial foaming and curing processes occur simultaneously,” (in [0041]). Neither of these passages specifically indicate that the mold itself was heated, as opposed to, e.g., the slurry or the environment, and neither of these paragraphs describe the mold being heated to the particular claimed temperature range. There is no description found of heating the mold prior to its being filled with the slurry, and the only description of the claimed temperature range is associated with the temperature of an oven into which the mold is placed after being filled with the slurry. As such, the examiner does not find adequate written description support for the amended claim language.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the step of elevating the temperature of the mold" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amended claim 1 no longer introduces this step.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcinskas et al., US 20200024201 A1 (of record), in view of Massa et al., US 20130087075 A1, with evidentiary support from Prat et al., US 20120286190 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Turcinskas discloses a method of manufacturing (preparing inorganic foam which is hardened into cellular material, [0001], [0172]) a lightweight (low-density, [0174], in line with the present specification and characterization of lightweight, see filed specification [0042]) thermal insulating (heat insulating, [0172]) cellular (cellular, [0001], [0172]-[0173]) cement-based material (calcium sulfoaluminate-based material, [0001]; inorganic binder, i.e., cement, mixture comprising calcium sulfoaluminate mixture, [0009]), comprising:
Providing a mixture (materials of Working Example 1 which are ultimately mixed, [0202]-[0210]) comprising a binder (calcium sulfoaluminate, [0204], which is a binder, [0086]-[0088]), an activator (water, [0208], which is an activator in that it reacts with a blowing agent, [0052]), and a blowing agent (hydrogen peroxide, [0209], which is a blowing agent, [0052], [0165]-[0166]), wherein the binder, the activator and the blowing agent are in an inactive state (foaming is not initiated until the blowing agent is reacted with water, [0210], such that the materials individually are initially inactive, in line with the present invention, see filed specification [0009]), wherein the blowing agent is hydrogen peroxide ([0209]-[0210]); the binder is calcium sulfoaluminate cement ([0204]); and the activator comprises water ([0208]);
Homogenizing the mixture to form a cement slurry (mixing and stirring the components, adding the hydrogen peroxide, obtaining a slurry, [0210]);
Pouring the cement slurry into a mold (pouring the slurry to a mold, [0210]), and activating the cement slurry to undergo a foaming and a curing (foaming is initiated, foam expansion evolved until decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide was completed, setting and solidifying occur, [0210]) to form a cellular cement-based material (to form the foam having closed pores, [0211]), and wherein the blowing agent decomposes (the hydrogen peroxide decomposes, [0210]) to form a plurality of closed-cell bubbles (the formed foam having closed pores, [0211], Fig. 3, where closed pores are equivalent to closed-cell bubbles) that are fixed within the cellular cement-based material (setting and solidifying took place, [0210]); and
Removing the cellular cement-based material from the mold (demolding the set foam, [0210]), wherein the lightweight thermal insulating cellular cement-based material has a thermal conductivity less than 0.08 W/mK (the product has a thermal conductivity of 42.1 mW/mK, [0211], equivalent to about 0.04 W/mK, entirely within the range of less than 0.08 W/mK).
Turcinskas further discloses, in a preferred embodiment, that the hardening (curing) of the foam can be performed by placing freshly prepared foam in a container at an increased temperature, e.g., increased relative to room temperature, preferably from 20 to 80°C ([0171]), i.e., elevating the temperature of the mold to a range from 20-80°C for at least the curing. Incorporating this step to the method of the Working Example 1 would involve pouring the foam-forming slurry into the mold and, at some point thereafter, placing the mold in the elevated temperature.
Turcinskas does not explicitly disclose that the mold is maintained at a temperature of 60-80°C to initiate activation and to cure the cement slurry, wherein the temperature of the mold causes the cement slurry to undergo foaming and curing substantially simultaneously to form the cellular cement-based material, and wherein the plurality of closed-cell bubbles are fixed within the material by the simultaneous curing of the cement slurry. It is noted that the foaming and the curing occurring “substantially simultaneously” is interpreted to encompass these processes occurring one directly after the other under the same conditions, or an overlapping time frame for the processes, since the foamed/expanded structure must be present before it can be cured. This interpretation is in line with the instant specification describing curing to “lock in” the foamed structure ([0041]), i.e., that the bubbles must be formed before their structure can be cured. The specification describes pouring the cement slurry into a mold ([0091]) and placing the mold filled with the cement slurry at the elevated temperature for the simultaneous foaming and curing ([0092]). Since it is understood that foaming must occur before curing of the same structure, in order to have the foamed structure (bubbles) present for said curing, and the specification does not further delineate specific foaming and curing intervals, then pouring a cement slurry otherwise meeting the requirements of claim 1 into a heated mold in the claimed temperature range for both foaming and curing is interpreted to meet “substantially simultaneous” with the corresponding claimed effect.
In the analogous art of forming lightweight cellular concrete ([0018]) from cementitious materials ([0023]) and hydrogen peroxide blowing agent ([0033]), wherein bubbles are formed in the mixture during its setting ([0018]), Massa teaches that pouring the mixture into a mold heated at a temperature from 30 to 90°C was a known method for performing heating of a cementitious mixture to achieve stiffening of the mixture ([0062]). As Massa discloses the bubbles are formed during the setting/stiffening of the mixture ([0018]), and the bubbles are formed via the blowing agent ([0033]), then the heated temperature of the mold is sufficient to activate and cure/harden the slurry to undergo foaming and curing substantially simultaneously, wherein bubbles formed by decomposition of the blowing agent are fixed by the simultaneous curing ([0018]). The prior art temperature range overlaps the claimed range and that of Turcinskas. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Turcinskas such that the mold into which the cement slurry was poured was maintained at a temperature of 60-80°C to initiate activation and to cure the cement slurry, wherein the temperature of the mold causes the cement slurry to undergo foaming and curing substantially simultaneously to form the cellular cement-based material, with the formed bubbles fixed within the material by the simultaneous curing of the cement slurry, as a known technique for providing heat to the mixture to achieve a stiffened porous product, as taught by Massa. Turcinskas teaches at least the hardening/curing being preferably performed at the elevated temperature ([0171]), and pouring the mixture into an already heated mold instead of or in addition to moving the mold to a similarly heated environment would have been a routine expedient so that the material could react and stiffen at the elevated temperature as taught by Massa.
In the referenced example, Turcinskas discloses the dry density of the product was 111 kg/m3 ([0211]) and therefore does not disclose the final product has a density ranging between 300 and 1200 kg/m3. However, Turcinskas discloses the density can be in the range of any value below 300 kg/m3 depending, e.g., on the particular inorganic binder mixture ([0174]), and Turcinskas further discloses the optional inclusion of other materials, such as a higher proportion of stabilizing, e.g., metal, fibers ([0134]) and high density fillers ([0135]), that would have been expected to change the product density. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exemplary mixture taught by Turcinskas to include other additives depending on a desired application, for example, including metal fibers for increased strength or stabilization ([0134]) and/or high density fillers to increase the volume of the material ([0135]), with a reasonable expectation of success and with the corresponding expectation of adjusting, specifically increasing, the resulting product density accordingly.
Within the context of Turcinskas, a product density in the range of below 300 kg/m3 would have been expected ([0174]), as set forth above. The range of below 300 kg/m3 is as close as possible to the claimed range of 300 and 1200 kg/m3 without clearly overlapping. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties. MPEP 2144.05 (I). In this case, a product having a dry density of, e.g., 299 kg/m3, within the range disclosed by Turcinskas, would have been expected to exhibit substantially similar properties to a product having a density of 300 kg/m3, within the claimed range, where the density was simply directly higher or lower corresponding to the value, i.e., the product was marginally less or more porous and lightweight. Furthermore, Massa teaches that a cellular product density within or overlapping the claimed range is a desirable density for achieving a concrete with lightweight properties that was suitable for construction use (200 to 1200 kg/m3, especially 300 to 800 kg/m3, [0018]-[0019]). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed range of a density ranging between 300 and 1200 kg/m3 obvious in view of the prior art disclosure of the touching or nearly overlapping suitable density range, particularly when incorporating higher density fillers or an increased concentration of stabilizing fibers to the mixture, as taught by Turcinskas, e.g., with the goal of producing a marginally stronger or denser product.
Turcinskas is silent as to a particular shrinkage, integrity fire resistance, and insulation fire resistance according to BS476-22 standard test. However, when the prior art is silent as to a particular characteristic of the product, 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. MPEP 2112. In this case, the composition of the cement slurry and the resulting cellular foam structure as disclosed by the prior art are substantially identical to that presently claimed and the product is produced by substantially the same process as presently claimed. While Turcinskas does not specifically disclose results of testing under fire conditions or extremely high temperature, Turcinskas does disclose that the obtained product may be used as a heat insulation element or specifically a fire protection element ([0172]), indicating its final properties are tailored for the same suitability. Since Turcinskas as applied discloses the product is suitable for fire protection, is made from the claimed composition of materials (i.e., substantially identical composition), has the same final form of a closed-cell hardened foam (i.e., substantially identical structure), and is produced by substantially the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded the same properties were present.
In a relevant method for forming cellular thermal insulating materials ([0001]), Prat discloses the formation of cellular products made from the same cement binder material (calcium sulfoaluminate, [0071], [0217]) foamed via the addition of a gas-generating agent such as a peroxide ([0252], [0258]). Prat evidences that such materials are characterized by exhibiting a low shrinkage contributing to their thermal insulation properties ([0085], shrinkage approaching zero) and that such cellular products were known to achieve a fire resistance at 1200 °C for three hours ([0101]) as a result of the same binder materials ([0102]). Since the present specification describes the claimed fire resistance ratings in the context of gradually increasing the temperature up to 1153 °C over the course of four hours (Table 11), one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasoned that a fire resistance at 1200 °C for three hours was at least substantially equivalent to the presently claimed ratings and therefore supportive of the above conclusion that the properties of the resulting products were also substantially the same.
Accordingly, based on the use in Turcinskas of the claimed composition of materials and the structure of the product which is produced according to substantially the same process as set forth above, together with the fact that the claimed properties were within the realm of those known to be present based on foaming the type of cement-based materials used in Turcinskas, as supported by Prat, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded the final product of the method of Turcinskas exhibited the claimed properties as a result of the method of production of the lightweight thermal insulating cellular cement-based material, and particularly given the intended application of the product for fire protection ([0172]). When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 5, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 1, and Turcinskas discloses the mixture further comprises a filler (PAN fibers, [0207]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 1. In the applied embodiment, Turcinskas does not disclose the mixture further comprises a surfactant. However, Turcinskas further discloses additives such as surfactants can be used ([0130], claim 12). Surfactants were known to stabilize foams generally ([0002]), though they can tend to yield an open-cell foam structure, which may be undesirable ([0002], [0136]). As such, Turcinskas teaches the incorporation of a surfactant with care so as to maintain the mostly closed cell structure ([0173]). Note that patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain, including nonpreferred embodiments (MPEP 2123).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mixture to further include a surfactant as an additive as appropriate in order to enhance stabilization of the foam, as was generally known in the art and taught by Turcinskas.
Regarding claim 7, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 1. Turcinskas discloses the ultimately obtained cellular material may be in the form of a specified shape including a sheet or board ([0172]). If the product as-removed from the mold was not in the final specified form, then a further shaping step would have been logical so as to achieved the intended sheet or board construction. However, Turcinskas does not specifically disclose a further step of cutting, trimming, or sanding the cement-based material into the specified shape.
Massa further discloses cutting the cellular cement-based material into a specified shape such as a block according to production needs ([0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify in the method as set forth for claim 1 a step of cutting, trimming, or sanding the cellular cement-based material into the specified shape of a block in order to produce the intended shape by a known method suitable for shaping the foamed cement-based materials, as taught by Massa.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcinskas et al., US 20200024201 A1, in view of Massa et al., US 20130087075 A1, evidenced by Prat et al., US 20120286190 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lau et al., US 20190315911 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 8, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 1. Turcinskas discloses that thermal insulation properties are desirable ([0172]) but does not disclose further processing steps to form a thermal insulation layer on the material as presently claimed.
In the analogous art, Lau discloses a fire retardant coating to be applied to concrete materials ([0028]). Lau teaches mixing (stirring to obtain a homogenous mixture, [0115]) a coating binder (epoxy resin, [0115], a presently exemplified coating binder, see filed specification [0045]), an acid source (ammonium polyphosphate, [0115], a presently exemplified acid source, see filed specification [0045]), a carbon source (pentaerythritol, [0115], a presently exemplified carbon source, see filed specification [0045]), a coating blowing agent (melamine, [0115], a presently exemplified coating blowing agent, see filed specification [0045]), and an inorganic filler (metal hydroxides being magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, [0115], functioning as inorganic filler, [0075]) to form a thermal insulation mixture (to form an intumescent composition, [0114]-[0115], where intumescent means swelling when heated to protect the underlying material and thus meets the characteristic of thermal insulation). The thermal insulation mixture is applied to the base material (the prepared compositions being applied to the base material using conventional methods such as spray, rolling, etc., [0028]), and cured to form a thermal insulation layer on the base material (dried at ambient temperature in a short period of time, e.g., less than 4 hours, [0028]; the mixture comprising an epoxy resin and corresponding curing agent, [0115], such that it is “cured” to reach its finished and useful condition, [0064]-[0067]). Lau teaches the coating achieves good fire retardancy, strong adhesiveness, good scratch resistance, good hardness, and is environmentally friendly and easy to apply ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Turcinskas as set forth above to include, after the step of elevating the temperature of the mold, the steps of mixing a coating binder, an acid source, a carbon source, a coating blowing agent, and an inorganic filler to form a thermal insulation mixture; applying the thermal insulation mixture to the cellular cement-based material; and curing the thermal insulation mixture to form a thermal insulation layer on the cellular cement-based material, in order to improve the fire resistance of the cellular material by providing a resilient and environmentally friendly coating with good fire retardancy, as taught by Lau.
The combination is silent as to the inorganic filler (metal hydroxide) being a thermal reflective agent. However, Lau further discloses that zinc oxide is a suitable alternative for metal hydroxide ([0075]) in functioning as an inorganic filler for improved fire retardancy ([0074]-[0075]). Zinc oxide is presently disclosed as a thermal reflective agent (filed specification, [0045]), and a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01(II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the zinc oxide taught by Lau for at least some of the metal hydroxide of the combination, such that the mixture included a thermal reflective agent, as a substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results of providing a suitable inorganic filler, as taught by Lau. MPEP 2143(I)(B). Lau teaches both materials function as inorganic fillers for improving the fire retardancy.
Regarding claim 9, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 8, and the combination discloses the coating binder is epoxy resin (Lau: [0115]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 8, and the combination discloses the acid source is ammonium polyphosphate (Lau: [0115]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 8, and the combination discloses the carbon source is pentaerythritol (Lau: [0115]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 8, and the combination discloses the coating blowing agent is melamine (Lau: [0115]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Turcinskas discloses the method of claim 8, and the combination discloses the thermal reflective agent is zinc oxide (Lau: [0075]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered. In view of the new grounds of rejection, the arguments are addressed to the extent they challenge a teaching or matter addressed by the present rejection.
Applicant argues (p. 8) that Turcinskas does not disclose pouring the cement slurry into an already heated mold. The present rejection has applied the teachings from Massa regarding pouring a cement slurry into a heated mold as a known suitable molding technique during which the formation of bubbles (foaming) and stiffening (curing) take place in the heated mold.
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 JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
