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 Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment submitted on 13 October 2023 has been entered. After entry of the amendment, claims 1-18 are currently pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-10 and 16-17 in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-15 and 18 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Specification No. CN 109437772 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a composite thermal insulation material comprises 10-20 pts. wt. mineral wool, 35-45 pts. wt. Portland cement, 5-15 pts. wt. glass fiber, 0.5-2 pts. wt. water repellent, 7-15 pts. wt. vermiculite, 20-35 pts. wt. deionized water, 8-18 pts. wt. iron tailings powder and 15-25 pts. wt. mixed resin powder.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a composition comprising at least mineral wool, Portland cement and a water-repellent. The composition is used for the same purpose as instantly claimed, that is, an insulation material. The Portland cement meets the cement powder. As for the mineral wool being in the form of flakes, while the reference fails to recite the form or shape of the mineral wool it is would have been obvious to utilize any form or shape of mineral wool without producing any unexpected results as one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize any form or shape of mineral wool absent evidence showing otherwise as applicant has not shown that the use of a particular shape or form produces results that are unexpected.
As for claim 2, as the reference does not specify the type of mineral wool it would have been obvious to utilize any mineral wool useful as an insulation material without producing any unexpected results as any type of mineral wool material would be expected to work absent evidence showing otherwise.
As for claim 3, as the reference does not specify the size of the mineral wool in the insulation material it would have been obvious to utilize any size known in the art for use as an insulation without producing any unexpected results as it would appear that any size would be expected to work absent evidence showing otherwise.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches Portland cement which meets the hydraulic binder.
As for claim 6, the reference teaches, in the abstract, that the water-repellent is a silicone which would meet the organosilicon compound.
As for claim 7, the reference teaches, on page 2, lines 13-14, that the silicone water repellent is a powder.
As for claim 8, as the reference teaches a silicone powder it would appear to be a redispersible powder absent evidence showing otherwise.
As for claim 9, the resin powder is believed to meet the redispersible polymer powder absent evidence showing otherwise.
As for claim 17, the silicone powder is believed to possess at least one of these groups absent evidence showing otherwise.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wasserfaller, Sr. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0223546 A1).
The reference teaches, in paragraphs [0037]-[0039], a granulate consisting of flakes. The flakes can be produced from fibers, in particular mineral fibers. Examples of the mineral fibers include rock wool. Paragraph [0042] teaches that the granulate may also be glass wool or cotton wool. Paragraph [0043] teaches that fibrous plant parts having a wool like structure can be utilized. Paragraph [0045] teaches that the granulate can be treated with a chemical prior to use as a raw insulation material. Example include a silicate binder such as a water glass, preferably potassium water glass. Paragraph [0054] teaches that a hydrophobing agent can be used such as an oil, preferably vegetable oil. Paragraph [0058] teaches that the adhesive is preferably a liquid.
The instant claims are obvious over the reference.
As for claim 1, the reference teaches a granulate consisting of flakes of rock wool, glass wood, cotton wool and other fibrous plant parts having a wool-like structure. The adhesive which may be a silicate binder such as a water glass meets the mineral binder. As for the water glass being in powder form the reference teaches that the adhesive is preferably a liquid and this suggests that although a liquid is preferred it does not preclude using the water glass in powder form. The vegetable oil meets the water-repellent agent.
As for claim 2, the reference teaches glass wool.
As for claim 3, as the reference does not specify the size of the granulate consisting of flakes utilized it would have been obvious to utilize any size known in the art for use as an insulation without producing any unexpected results as it would appear that any size would be expected to work absent evidence showing otherwise.
As for claim 4, the reference teaches a silicate binder such as a water glass which is a hydraulic binder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitations found in these claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
January 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights