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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the Grounds that groups I and II relate to a single patentably indistinct inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because the product can be made by another process such as cold bonding a shell material including one or more of GGBS, fly ash, recycled concrete powder, recycled glass powder, OPC or biochar powder on a porous core materials selected from expanded polyethylene or expanded polypropylene.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 3 recites “wherein the aggregate size ranges” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recite “wherein aggregate size ranges”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turpin (US Patent Application No. 2016/0332911) in view of Zhu et al. (US Patent Application No. 2023/0042195).
Regarding claim 1, Turpin teaches lightweight core-shell aggregates (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0011], page 2, paragraph [0012]) from waste materials (page 3, paragraph [0033], page 4, paragraph [0042]) comprising porous core materials (page 3, paragraphs [0033], [0038]) the at least one layer of shell material including fly ash (page 4, paragraph [0048]).
Turpin does not disclose wherein the porous core materials selected from large size cenospheres having a size of approximately 1.18 mm to 4.75 mm. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in size involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the porous core materials size of Turpin in order to provide adequate void space within lightweight aggregates (Turpin, page 3, paragraph [0038]).
The product-by-process limitation “at least one layer of shell material formed on the porous core materials by cold bonding” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the shell material. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the shell material of Turpin possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed shell material.
Turpin does not disclose wherein the aggregates have a carbon emission of approximately 181 kgCO2eq/t or less. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in carbon emission involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the carbon emission of the aggregates of Turpin in order to create a green lightweight aggregate (Turpin, page 3, paragraph [0033]).
Turpin fails to teach high strength core-shell aggregates having a loose bulk density less than approximately 980 kg/m3, a crushing strength higher than approximately 4 MPa, a water absorption of less than 20%. However, Zhu et al. teach high strength, lightweight core shell aggregates (page 1, paragraphs [0006], [0007]) comprising porous core materials (page 1, paragraph [0007]); at least one layer of shell material including fly ash (page 1, paragraphs [0007], [0013]); wherein the high strength, lightweight core shell aggregates having a density of about 850 kg/m3 which reads on Applicant’s claimed bulk density less than approximately 980 kg/m3 (page 3, paragraph [0043]), a crushing strength over 4.2 MPa which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of higher than approximately 4 MPa (page 3, paragraph [0043]), and a water absorption of below 3% which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than 20% (page 4, paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the density, crushing strength and water absorption rate of the aggregates of Turpin to that of Zhu et al. in order to provide lightweight granules with lower and stable water absorption rate, which improve durability and strength, and crushing strength (Zhu et al., page 1, paragraph [0006], page 3, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Turpin teaches wherein the aggregates further comprise a second layer of shell material comprising fly ash (page 2, paragraph [0012], page 4, paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Turpin teaches wherein the aggregate size ranges from 0.5 mm to about 2 cm which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of approximately 2.36 mm to 30 mm (page 3, paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, Turpin fails to teach wherein aggregates have been strengthened by one or more hydration, geopolymerization or carbonization. However, Zhu et al. teach high strength, lightweight core shell aggregates (page 1, paragraphs [0006], [0007]) comprising porous core materials (page 1, paragraph [0007]); at least one layer of shell material including fly ash (page 1, paragraphs [0007], [0013]); wherein the high strength, lightweight core shell aggregates having a density of about 850 kg/m3 (page 3, paragraph [0043]), a crushing strength over 4.2 MPa (page 3, paragraph [0043]), and a water absorption of below 3% (page 4, paragraph [0054]), wherein the aggregates have been strengthened by hydration (page 3, paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hydrate the aggregates of Turpin as that of Zhu et al. in order to increase the strength of the lightweight particles (Zhu et al., page 3, paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Turpin teaches a lightweight concrete (page 7, paragraphs [0069], [0072]) including lightweight core-shell aggregates (page 1, paragraphs [0010], [0011], page 2, paragraph [0012]) from waste materials (page 3, paragraph [0033], page 4, paragraph [0042]) comprising porous core materials (page 3, paragraphs [0033], [0038]) the at least one layer of shell material including fly ash (page 4, paragraph [0048]).
Turpin does not disclose wherein the porous core materials selected from large size cenospheres having a size of approximately 1.18 mm to 4.75 mm. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in size involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the porous core materials size of Turpin in order to provide adequate void space within lightweight aggregates (Turpin, page 3, paragraph [0038]).
The product-by-process limitation “at least one layer of shell material formed on the porous core materials by cold bonding” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the shell material. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the shell material of Turpin possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed shell material.
Turpin does not disclose wherein the aggregates have a carbon emission of approximately 181 kgCO2eq/t or less. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in carbon emission involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the carbon emission of the aggregates of Turpin in order to create a green lightweight aggregate (Turpin, page 3, paragraph [0033]).
Turpin fails to teach high strength core-shell aggregates having a loose bulk density less than approximately 980 kg/m3, a crushing strength higher than approximately 4 MPa, a water absorption of less than 20%. However, Zhu et al. teach lightweight concrete (page 3, paragraph [0045]) including high strength, lightweight core shell aggregates (page 1, paragraphs [0006], [0007]) comprising porous core materials (page 1, paragraph [0007]); at least one layer of shell material including fly ash (page 1, paragraphs [0007], [0013]); wherein the high strength, lightweight core shell aggregates having a density of about 850 kg/m3 (page 3, paragraph [0043]), a crushing strength over 4.2 MPa (page 3, paragraph [0043]), and a water absorption of below 3% (page 4, paragraph [0054]), the lightweight concrete having a density of 1680 kg/m3 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of 1900 kg/m3 or less (page 3, paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the density of the concrete of Turpin to that of Zhu et al. in order to produce lightweight concrete (Zhu et al., page 3, paragraph [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 8/28/2026
Prosecution Insights