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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 6 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-18 are subject to examination in this Office action. Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn (non-elected).
Election/Restriction
Because the 16 December 2025 Restriction Requirement was withdrawn in the Notice of Allowance mailed on 7 April 2026, the noted Restriction Requirement is reinstated as follows.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to a clad cellular glass block, and a passive fire suppression system comprising them, classified in E04C 1/42.
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to a method of preventing the fire spread and/or suppressing fire in a liquid hydrocarbon retention vessel, classified in A62C 2/06.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be utilized with a density higher than the 8 lbs./ft cubed of the process, or the integrated connecter flange mechanically interlocking with adjacent blocks, or being used in a liquid hydrocarbon retention vessel with defined at least one vessel wall and a vessel floor.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The noted differences between the apparatus and the process claims require divergent subject matter found in different classes and require different strategies and queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 12 February 2026 (and confirmed by Applicant by way of the claim amendments submitted on 6 July 2026) is acknowledged.
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 6 July 2026, which appear to be acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1 (1st limitation), the phrase “a cellular glass block having…” is recited. Is this block the same as or different from the previously recited block? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 1 (1st limitation), the phrase “less than about” is recited. As the word “about” implies a range having an upper and lower limit, the phrase “less than about” is contradictory in scope, and therefore, renders the claim ambiguous. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 6, the term “the length” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding independent claim 10 (1st limitation), the phrase “cellular glass blocks from a first row to cellular glass blocks in an adjacent row” is recited. Are these cellular glass blocks intended to refer back to the previously recited plurality of cellular glass blocks, or are they additional structure? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 10 (2nd limitation), the terms “a first cellular glass block” and “a second cellular glass block” are recited. Are these cellular glass blocks intended to refer back to the previously recited plurality of cellular glass blocks, or are they additional structure? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 11, the term “the cellular glass block” is recited. To which previously recited cellular glass block is this term referring? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the term “the integrated connector flange” is recited. To which previously recited connector flange is this term referring? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 13, the terms “a first clad cellular glass block” and “a second clad cellular glass block” are recited. Are these clad cellular glass blocks intended to refer back to the previously recited plurality of cellular glass blocks, or are they additional structure? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 15, the term “the length” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the term “the block” is recited. To which previously recited block is this term referring? Clarification is requested.
Accordingly, the examined claims will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Badger (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0250505).
Regarding independent claim 1, as best understood, Badger describes a clad cellular glass block comprising:
a cellular glass block (12) having a density of less than about 15 lbs./ft³ (see e.g., ¶ [0035]), the cellular glass block having a top surface, a bottom surface, two opposing side faces, and two opposing end faces (see e.g., Fig. 1b); and
a cladding material (14, 18) positioned on at least one of the top surface and the bottom surface of the cellular glass block (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e), the cladding material including at least one integrated connector flange (20 or 22) adapted for (i.e., capable of) linking the clad cellular glass block to an adjacent clad cellular glass block.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the cladding material is positioned on both the top surface and the bottom surface of the cellular glass block, wherein the cladding material positioned on the top surface contacts the cladding material on the bottom surface to form the integrated connector flange (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the integrated connector flange comprises at least one drainage hole (26).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the cladding material comprises stainless steel (see e.g., ¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the top surface tapers from a peak that runs the length of the top surface (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the cladding material is positioned on the top surface and has a shape to substantially match the tapered top surface (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 8, further comprising a surface coating on at least one surface of the block (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the cellular glass block has a density of 7 lbs./ft3 to 8 lbs./ft3 (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e; ¶ [0035]).
Regarding independent claim 10, as best understood, Badger describes a passive fire suppression system comprising
a plurality of cellular glass blocks (12) positioned in a reservoir (¶¶ [0029], [0030], [0033] and [0034]), each block having a density of less than 15 lbs./ft3 (see e.g., ¶ [0035]), and each block comprising a top surface, a bottom surface, opposing side faces, and opposing end faces (see e.g., Fig. 1b);
a cladding material (14, 18) positioned on at least one of the top surface and the bottom surface of each cellular glass block, the cladding material including a first integrated connector flange (20 or 22) and a second integrated connector flange (20 or 22), wherein the integrated connector flanges are adapted for (i.e., capable of) linking cellular glass blocks from a first row to cellular glass blocks in an adjacent row (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e),
wherein the first integrated connector flange of a first cellular glass block is adapted to (i.e., capable of) mechanically interlock with the second integrated connector flange of a second cellular glass block, but not with a first integrated connector flange of the second cellular glass block (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the cladding material is positioned on both the top surface and the bottom surface of the cellular glass block, wherein the cladding material positioned on the top surface contacts the cladding material on the bottom surface to form the integrated connector flange (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the integrated connector flange comprises at least one drainage hole (26).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the cladding material comprises stainless steel (see e.g., ¶ [0034]).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the top surface tapers from a peak that runs the length of the top surface (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the cladding material is positioned on the top surface and has a shape to substantially match the tapered top surface (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 17, further comprising a surface coating on at least one surface of the block (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the surface coating adheres the cladding material to the top surface of the block (see e.g., Figs. 1a-3e).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 would appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached on 571-270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights