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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 5-28 are pending. Claims 2-4 are canceled. Claims 14-28 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 01/21/2026, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 10/28/2025:
Claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
New grounds of rejection are made in response to claim amendments.
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 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcinskas et al., US 20200024201 A1 (of record), in view of Noro et al., WO 2023190909 A1 (Espacenet translation attached and referenced below), 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]);
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]) and form a cellular cement-based material (to form the foam having closed pores, [0211]), 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 (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).
In the applied working example, Turcinskas is silent as to elevating the temperature of the mold to 60-80°C to activate the foaming and curing.
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. 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). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select at least the overlapping portion of the ranges for the elevated temperature with a reasonable expectation of success to ultimately achieve the hardened foam. 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.
In the referenced example, Turcinskas does not explicitly disclose that the foaming and the curing occur “simultaneously” and that the fixing of the bubbles is by the simultaneous curing of the cement slurry due to the elevated temperature of the mold. It is noted that the foaming and the curing occurring “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 in an oven at 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 as indicated above, placing a mold containing a cement slurry otherwise meeting the requirements of claim 1 into an elevated temperature environment for both foaming and curing is interpreted to meet “simultaneous.”
In the analogous art of molding inorganic cellular foams ([0007]) providing heat resistance and thermal insulation ([0061]) via the use of a decomposable foaming agent such as hydrogen peroxide ([0045], [0050]), Noro teaches that it is preferable to heat a foaming slurry to a temperature near the decomposition temperature of the foaming agent to cause foaming ([0054]-[0056]), which for hydrogen peroxide is between 50 and 80°C ([0055]). The prior art range overlaps the claimed range and that of Turcinskas.
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 containing the foamable cement slurry was placed into the elevated temperature environment taught by Turcinskas to activate the cement slurry to undergo the foaming and the curing simultaneously, where the bubbles are fixed by the simultaneous curing of the cement slurry at the elevated temperature of the mold, in order to provide the mold and foaming mixture at a temperature additionally suitable for the decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide blowing agent for causing the foaming, as taught by Noro. Turcinskas teaches at least the hardening/curing being preferably performed at the elevated temperature ([0171]), and, if it was not already the case, it would have been obvious to perform both processes in the same step so as to produce the foam product at an appropriate temperature suitable for the particular blowing agent, as taught by Noro.
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, Noro teaches that a cellular foam product density of 300 kg/m3 is a desirable density for achieving lightweight properties of an otherwise strong, height-resistant, and insulating molded product ([0059], [0061]). 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcinskas et al., US 20200024201 A1, in view of Noro et al., WO 2023190909 A1, evidenced by Prat et al., US 20120286190 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andersen et al., US 20160347662 A1 (of record).
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.
In the analogous art of manufacturing lightweight thermal insulating cement based materials (Abstract), Andersen discloses, after molding and foaming cement-based mixtures, a further step of cutting to size or trimming the hardened material so that it can be cut into panels, sheets, or other desired shapes ([0023], claim 110).
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 sheet or board in order to produce the intended shape by a known method suitable for shaping the foamed cement-based materials, as taught by Andersen.
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 Noro et al., WO 2023190909 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 01/21/2026 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 (pp. 8-9) that Turcinskas does not disclose heating the slurry during the foaming process, or elevating the temperature to simultaneously trigger both foaming and curing.
The present rejection has applied the teachings from Noro regarding elevating the temperature also during the foaming when using the hydrogen peroxide blowing agent as disclosed by Turcinskas in order to provide a suitable foaming temperature for the decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide.
Applicant argues (p. 9) that it would not have been obvious to modify the composition of Turcinskas to incorporate additives or high density fillers.
This argument is not found persuasive because Turcinskas discloses the density can be higher, including in the range of up to 300 kg/m3 depending, e.g., on the particular inorganic binder mixture ([0174]), and Turcinskas 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 change/increase the density.
Applicant argues (pp. 9-10) that none of the cited references disclose or imply the recited fire resistance properties of the resulting cellular material which are critical to the present invention.
This argument is not found persuasive as Turcinskas specifically discloses the obtained cellular cement being used as a fire protection element ([0172]) and the arguments do not address the merits of the reasoning set forth that the same product should have the same properties. As set forth above, since the prior art as applied discloses the product being used for fire protection, being made from the claimed composition of materials, having the same final form/structure of a closed-cell hardened foam, and being produced by substantially the same process, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded the same properties must be present. Further evidence was provided in the prior rejection showing that the claimed properties would have been within the realm of those known to be expected based on the resulting product. As a result, the burden has been shifted to the applicant for showing that the products are not the same. Applicant has not shown that the properties of the products would not be the same.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 108609965 A, Liu et al. disclose a method for manufacturing a fireproof board including foaming in two stages at elevated temperatures from 40 to 110 degrees centigrade using bicarbonate foaming agents, and the molding, foaming, and curing occur in the same step S5.
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
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights