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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election
1. This action is in response to the election filed March 9, 2026.
(Group I) Claims 1-18 were elected rendering (Group II) Claims 19-24 withdrawn as a non-elected invention.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
2. Applicant's election with traverse of a construction (Group II) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1 and 19 are obvious over or anticipated by US 2008/0245005 and/or US 2014/0196397 and argues that there are therefore no special technical features linking the two inventions. Applicants respectfully disagree with the Examiner in this regard. In particular, instant claim 19 recites a construction with a foam glass composite element that has the features of claim 1. The construction is therefore not claimed independently of the foam glass composite element, but only a construction with a foam glass composite element according to the invention is being claimed. In this respect, there can be no lack of unity, since the foam glass composite element according to the invention is always used for the construction. In response to Applicant’s arguments, it is maintained that claims 1 and 19 are either obvious over or anticipated by 2008/245005 (abstract, paragraphs 46-53 and claims 4-6) and/or 2014/196397 (abstract, paragraphs 37-57 and claims 2, 6, 7). Accordingly, the special technical feature linking the two inventions, at least two foam glass bodies connected to one another by at least one reinforcing element, does not provide a contribution over the prior art, and no single general inventive concept exists. Therefore, the restriction requirement is maintained for reasons of record.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 15, 2024, and March 21, 2024, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over Fennell (U.S. 2008/0245005).
Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50), as seen in Figure (2) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
535
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Figure 1 of Fennell shows at least two foam glass bodies connected to one another by at least one reinforcing element, as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
493
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 3, Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50), as seen in Figure (2) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
535
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Figure 2 of Fennell shows the foam glass bod(ies) have an identical design.
Concerning claim 4, Figures 1 and 2 of Fennell show a body which has at least one planar surface and at least two surfaces aligned parallel to one another.
Concerning claim 5, Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam structure comprising one or more optional tubular openings (circular bodies, paragraph 46).
Concerning claim 9, Figure 2 of Fennell shows the at least one reinforcing element extends at least partially through the at least one foam glass body.
Concerning claim 16, Fennell discloses a top that is substantially flat over its entire top surface without any part of central portion extending beyond top and an optional flashing extension that covers the structure (paragraph 64).
Concerning claim 18, Fennell discloses modular block system of the present invention is used to create a structural building enclosure wall construction system that provides a reusable product (paragraph 15).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
6. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 2, 6-8, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fennell (U.S. 2008/0245005).
Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50), as seen in Figure (2) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
535
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where the closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) is interpreted as a body made of foam glass with enclosed pores, as in claim 2. In claim 2, the phrase, “one-piece body made of foam-glass homogeneously formed”
introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a foam glass body. The reference suggests such a product because Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46).
Concerning claim 6, Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50), as seen in Figure (2) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
535
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where the connecting mechanism 110 has the structure of a rod.
Concerning claim 7, Fennell discloses the connecting mechanism is a screw (paragraph 65) where screws are known to be plastic or metal.
Concerning claim 8, Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50). In claim 8,
the phrase, “at least one of the at least one reinforcing element is elastically deformed and is under tensile stress” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a foam glass body. The reference suggests such a product because Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46).
Concerning claim 12, Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50). However, Fennell does not require the foam glass bodies to comprise binder between them. They are connected with mechanisms (paragraph 50).
Concerning claim 13, Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50). However, Fennell does not require the foam glass bodies to comprise a cohesive connection between them. They are connected with mechanisms (paragraph 50).
Concerning claim 14, Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50). Figure 1 shows the foam glass element is formed of a multilayer stack arranged in rows.
Concerning claim 15, Fennell discloses a two part closed cell foam glass structure (paragraph 46) having a plurality of vertical and horizontal connecting mechanisms (102, 110) within the insulating core structure (20) (paragraph 50). Figure 1 shows the at least two foam glass bodies lie at least partially directly against one another.
Claim Objections
8. Claims 10-11, 17 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 closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited composite foam glass element further including at least two reinforcing elements in the form of plates or bands or frames, between which there are arranged a plurality of the at least two foam-glass bodies and at least one preferably of the at least two a plurality of reinforcing elements in the form of cables, strips, bands or the like, in order to press the plates or bands or frames plates against the foam-glass bodies and to press the foam-glass bodies against each other. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited composite foam glass element further including wherein the at least one reinforcing element surrounds the at least one foam glass body in a completely annularly manner. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited composite foam glass element further including the foam glass body having a structured surface, where the structured surface comprises at least one element selected from the group having convex bulges, concave bulges, blind holes, steps, undercuts, sawtooth steps, and the like.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights