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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it consists of a single sentence that conveys no information beyond the title of the invention, because it is substantially shorter than the range of 50 to 150 words contemplated by the guidelines, and because it employs the implied phrase “The present disclosure provides”. The abstract should be a concise statement of the technical disclosure in narrative form. Applicant’s attention is directed to the original abstract, from the PCT application, which contains a fuller statement of the disclosure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 14 on page 3, “ackaline activators” should be replaced with “alkaline activators”.
In line 4 on page 4, in lines 22, 25, 28 and 31 on page 7, and in lines 3 and 5 on page 8, “an drying operation” should be replaced with “a drying operation”.
In line 8 on page 6, “may be obtained if the form of waste” should be replaced with “may be obtained in the form of waste”.
In line 2 on page 9, “corresponding to between 50 - 90% or the total thickness” should be replaced with “corresponding to between 50 - 90% of the total thickness”.
In line 22 on page 10, “the metakaolin may added to” should be replaced with “the metakaolin may be added to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not describe “an activated alkaline component” in the context recited in claim 14. The specification instead describes an “alkaline activator component” that is included in the first layer mixture and that is activated by means of water. See lines 22-23 and 29-33 on page 8. Additionally, see the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “fragmentizing the mineral wool material for obtaining a fragmentised mineral wool material” employs two different spellings of the same term within a single limitation. A consistent spelling should be adopted in claim 1 and carried through claim 3, which recites “fragmentized”, and claim 4, which recites “fragmentised”.
In claims 6 and 11, subscript and superscript formatting appears to have been lost, such that the claims recite “Ca(OH)2”, “Na2ySiyO2y+x”, “K2ySiyO2y+x” and “kg/m3”. Correction is required so that the chemical formulae and the unit of density are presented with their intended subscripts and superscripts. See also the treatment of the formulae of claim 6 under Claim Interpretation below.
In claim 7, “is carried out in an drying operation” should be replaced with “is carried out in a drying operation”.
In claim 11, “the tile shape element” should be replaced with “the tile shaped element” for consistency with claim 1.
In claim 16, “is subjected to fibre separation operation” should be replaced with “is subjected to a fibre separation operation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “removing excess liquid from the wetted mineral wool material for obtaining a semi-dried mineral wool material”. The terms “excess” and “semi-dried” are terms of degree which render the claim indefinite. Neither term is defined by the claim, and the two terms are defined only in relation to one another: the liquid to be removed is the liquid whose removal yields the semi-dried mineral wool material, and the semi-dried mineral wool material is the material that remains once the excess liquid has been removed.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of liquid removal. The specification states that the semi-dried mineral wool material “may have a weight ratio between mineral wool material and liquid comprising alkaline activators in the range of 1:1-2” (see lines 6-8 on page 3 and lines 8-10 on page 8), but that range is presented as permissive rather than as a definition, and no other quantitative or qualitative measure of the semi-dried state is disclosed. The specification further indicates that the purpose of the step is to obtain a material “suitable for handling in a moulding operation” (see lines 2-4 on page 3). That statement identifies the objective of the step but does not supply a standard for determining how much liquid must be removed in order to meet it. Whether a given quantity of retained liquid renders the material suitable for handling would further depend on variables that the claim does not recite, including the size of the fragments, the compaction pressure applied during moulding, and whether the material has been subjected to a fibre separation operation. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, “removing excess liquid from the wetted mineral wool material for obtaining a semi-dried mineral wool material” is interpreted as requiring removal of liquid such that the resulting mineral wool material has a weight ratio between mineral wool material and liquid comprising alkaline activators in the range of 1:1-2, consistent with lines 6-8 on page 3.
Claim 1 further recites “wetting the fragmentised mineral wool material with a liquid comprising alkaline activators”. It is unclear whether the plural term “alkaline activators” requires that the liquid comprise two or more distinct alkaline activators, or whether the plural is used generically to denote alkaline activator material without regard to the number of distinct activators present. The specification uses the plural form throughout, but the only embodiment described discloses a single alkaline activator, stating that the liquid 22 “may for instance be Na2SiO3 (water glass)”. See line 5 on page 11. The ambiguity is compounded by claim 6, which recites that “the alkaline activators are selected from the group consisting of” five identified materials, and by claim 14, which recites a single “activated alkaline component”. For purposes of examination, “a liquid comprising alkaline activators” is interpreted as requiring a liquid comprising at least one alkaline activator.
Claim 14 recites “an activated alkaline component”. Read according to its literal terms, an activated alkaline component is a component that is already in an activated state. The specification does not describe any such component. The specification instead describes an “alkaline activator component” which is included in the first layer mixture, which “will when activated initiate a geopolymerization process together with the milled mineral wool”, and which “may be activated by means of water”. See lines 22-23 and 29-33 on page 8. It is therefore unclear whether claim 14 requires a component that is in an activated state at the time it is arranged in the mould, or whether it requires the alkaline activator component described in the specification, which is activated only after being arranged. It is further unclear whether the component recited in claim 14 is the same material as, or a material distinct from, the alkaline activators recited in claim 1, particularly in view of the differing terminology used in the two claims.
For purposes of examination, “an activated alkaline component” in claim 14 is interpreted as reciting an alkaline activator component consistent with lines 22-23 and 29-33 on page 8, and as a material distinct from the liquid comprising alkaline activators recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-16 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1. Claim 15 is further rejected based on its dependency from claim 14.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “fragmentizing the mineral wool material for obtaining a fragmentised mineral wool material”. For purposes of examination, “fragments” and “a fragmentised mineral wool material” are interpreted as requiring pieces of the mineral wool material that retain a plurality of fibres, and as not encompassing individual mineral wool fibres separated from one another.
The specification describes the fragmentizing step as one in which the mineral wool material, provided in the form of panels or tiles, is shredded or fragmentised “into fragments or pieces” and is “converted by shredding, cutting or the like into fragments or pieces of non-uniform size and shape”. See lines 23-27 and lines 30-33 on page 6, and Figure 3, in which the fragments 21 produced by the shredding device 11 are depicted as discrete pieces. The specification separately describes a fibre separation operation, recited in claim 16 and performed on the semi-dried mineral wool material, by which that material “may become sufficiently fluffy or voluminous to enable controlled compacting during the subsequent moulding step”. See lines 1-8 on page 5 and lines 14-23 on page 10. The specification thus describes fragmentizing and fibre separation as distinct operations producing distinct results, and attributes the separation of fibres from one another to the latter operation rather than to the former.
This interpretation does not import into claim 1 the average piece size recited in claim 3. No lower limit on the size of a fragment is applied beyond the requirement that a fragment comprise more than a single fibre.
Claim 2 recites that the mineral wool material “is obtained in the form of waste generated during manufacturing, installation and/or demounting after end of life of elements comprising mineral wool”. This limitation describes the origin of the material worked upon rather than any manipulative step of the claimed method, and neither the claim nor the specification identifies any structural or compositional characteristic that the recited origin imparts to the mineral wool material. Mineral wool material obtained as waste is not thereby distinguishable in structure or composition from mineral wool material obtained from any other source. Accordingly, and by analogy to the treatment of product-by-process limitations set forth in MPEP 2113, the recited origin of the mineral wool material is not given patentable weight.
Claim 3 recites fragments “having an average piece size in the range of 10x10x10 mm to 50x50x50 mm”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring that each of the three dimensions of the average piece size fall within the range of 10 mm to 50 mm.
Claim 6 recites that the alkaline activators are selected from a group that includes “Na2ySiyO2y+x” and “K2ySiyO2y+x”. Neither the claim nor the specification states any value, range or other constraint for the variables x and y, and the specification discloses only the specific compounds Na2SiO3 and K2SiO3 as examples. See lines 1-2 on page 4 and lines 17-19 on page 7. Read according to their literal terms, these formulae recite a fixed ratio of two alkali metal atoms per silicon atom, together with an oxygen content of 2y+x that is unconstrained because x is unconstrained. For purposes of examination, the formulae are interpreted according to their literal terms, that is, as encompassing any alkali metal silicate having an alkali metal to silicon atomic ratio of 2:1, without limitation as to oxygen content.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0307171 (“Freundorfer”) in view of WO 2022/248771 (“Yliniemi”), US 2017/0144912 (“Yammine”) and DE 10 2015 120 721 (“Gröper”).
Regarding claim 1, Freundorfer teaches a method for producing a recycled insulating material from insulating wool comprising the steps of comminuting insulating wool to give a first intermediate comprising fibre balls, adding binder to the first intermediate to give a second intermediate, hot pressing the second intermediate into the desired shape to obtain a third intermediate, and curing the third intermediate to obtain the recycled insulating material. See paragraphs [0005] through [0009].
The comminuting step of Freundorfer corresponds to the recited fragmentizing of the mineral wool material. Freundorfer teaches that the insulating wool is mineral wool, in particular rock wool or glass wool, and that the comminution yields a fraction comprising fibre balls having a diameter preferably between 0.1 mm and 1 cm, which fraction is included in the first intermediate used in the method. See paragraphs [0011] and [0092]. The fibre balls of Freundorfer are pieces of the mineral wool material that retain a plurality of fibres, consistent with the interpretation of “a fragmentised mineral wool material” set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above.
The addition of binder in step S2 of Freundorfer corresponds to the recited wetting of the fragmentised mineral wool material with a liquid comprising alkaline activators. Freundorfer teaches that the fibre balls are heaped up to form a fibre body onto which the binder is poured or sprayed, and that the wetting may be carried out by mixing, stirring, wetting or impregnating, the second intermediate taking the form of a fibre pulp or a wetted fibre body. See paragraphs [0012] and [0093]. Freundorfer teaches that the binder may be inorganic, water glass and in particular low sodium water glass being expressly identified, and teaches that rock wool is advantageously combined with an inorganic binder comprising water glass. See paragraphs [0014] and [0015]. In the worked embodiment, rock wool is comminuted in step S1 and water glass together with a water glass hardener is added in step S2 by heaping the first intermediate in a desired form and pouring the binder onto it. See paragraph [0096].
The hot pressing of step S3 corresponds to the recited moulding of the material into a tile shaped element. Freundorfer teaches that the desired shape may be a panel shape, and that the hot pressed product may be a panel having a thickness ranging from 2 mm to 15 mm or more. See paragraphs [0012] and [0098]. The curing of step S4 corresponds to the recited curing of the tile shaped element. See paragraphs [0009] and [0044].
Freundorfer does not expressly teach removing excess liquid from the wetted mineral wool material for obtaining a semi-dried mineral wool material prior to the moulding step. Freundorfer does recognize that the wetted material carries liquid in excess of the amount required in the finished article. Freundorfer teaches that water added in step S2 for better formability may be removed again by evaporation (paragraph [0013]), and, in the embodiment in which layers of a fire resistant wood based material have fibre pulp poured over them, teaches that the press templates are provided with outlet openings in the form of bores of 6 mm to 15 mm “so that the excess fibre-binder pulp can escape”. See paragraphs [0111] and [0114].
Yliniemi teaches a method of processing an inorganic solid material, the inorganic solid material being mineral wool (claim 14; page 1). Yliniemi teaches mechanically breaking the structure of the inorganic solid material by grinding, milling, comminuting, crushing, beating, cutting or tearing (claim 1; page 7), and teaches that for agglomerates of mineral wool the particle size could be 5 cm to 0.5 mm in diameter (page 9). Yliniemi teaches treating the structurally broken material with a fluid including water, the treating being carried out by immersing the material in the fluid (claims 1 and 2), and teaches that the fluid may also be an alkaline solution (page 9). Yliniemi further teaches “stopping the treatment with the fluid, and removing the fluid” from the structurally broken inorganic solid material (claim 3), and teaches that the fluid may be removed by applying centrifugal force in a centrifuge, by filtering, or by drying (pages 6 and 7). Yliniemi teaches that the material so treated is thereafter input into a utilization process including alkali activation (claim 12; page 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have removed the excess liquid from the wetted fibre body of Freundorfer, in the manner taught by Yliniemi, prior to hot pressing the material in the press template. Freundorfer expressly recognizes that the wetted material carries excess liquid and makes provision for its escape, and Yliniemi teaches that fluid may be removed from wetted, structurally broken mineral wool by centrifugation or filtration as a discrete operation preceding alkali activation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to dispense with the outlet bores in the press template, to avoid the loss of binder and fibre through those bores during pressing, and to deliver to the press template a material whose liquid content is already suited to the pressing operation. The modification would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a wetted mineral wool material of reduced liquid content, that is, a semi-dried mineral wool material.
Further, the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention recognized the problem of bringing an alkali wetted mineral wool material to a liquid content sufficient for the binder to be distributed through the mass while low enough for the moulded article to hold its shape, and had available a small number of identified, predictable means of solving it. Yammine teaches that the water is introduced in an amount sufficient for the mineral binder to be distributed throughout the mass to be moulded, and yet “insufficiently so that the shaped composite retains its shape on removing from the mold”. See paragraph [0079]. Gröper teaches the same condition reached by mixing to a target consistency, teaching that shredded mineral wool waste is mixed with an aqueous binder suspension so that all surfaces are wetted, that the resulting mixture may range in consistency from “liquid to earth-moist”, and that the earth moist mixture is placed in a mould, compacted by the application of an external force, and may be removed from the mould before it hardens. See paragraphs [0006] and [0011]. The means available in the art for reaching this condition thus included metering the water to a predetermined proportion (Yammine), mixing to a predetermined earth moist consistency (Gröper), expressing the excess during pressing (Freundorfer), and removing the excess after wetting (Yliniemi). Selection among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to a recognized problem is within the ordinary skill in the art and is obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The proportion of liquid present in the material at the time of moulding was recognized in the prior art as a variable affecting recognized results. Gröper teaches that where a high proportion of binder suspension is chosen the mixture is liquid to pasty and can be poured into moulds or pumped, whereas with a lower proportion of binder suspension an earth moist mixture is obtained which must be compacted or pressed when placed in a mould and which can then be removed from the mould before it hardens. See paragraph [0011]. Gröper further teaches that the mechanical and physical properties of the hardened bodies can be influenced within wide limits, in particular by the ratio of mineral wool fibres to binder. See paragraph [0012]. Yammine likewise teaches that the amount of water introduced governs both whether the mineral binder is distributed throughout the mass to be moulded and whether the shaped composite retains its shape on removal from the mould, and teaches that the water is generally present in a proportion of 5 to 30 percent of the weight of the mixture. See paragraph [0079]; see also claim 18.
Where the prior art recognizes a variable as affecting a result, the determination of the optimum or workable value of that variable is ordinarily within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977); In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It would accordingly have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have removed liquid from the wetted mineral wool material of the combination in an amount selected to render the material sufficiently coherent to be handled and compacted in the press template while retaining sufficient liquid for the alkaline activators to act upon the fibre surfaces.
Gröper further teaches a mass ratio of mineral wool fibres to binder suspension of 5:1 to 1:5, and preferably of 1:1 to 1:3. See claim 4. The ramming compound of Example 1 and the mixture of Example 3 employ mineral wool to binder suspension ratios of approximately 1:1.1 and 1:1.2 respectively, each falling within the range relied upon in the Claim Interpretation section above. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Applicant has not identified any criticality in the amount of liquid retained in the semi-dried mineral wool material. The recited condition is presented permissively in the specification, and the application contains no examples and no comparative data establishing that the condition produces results that would have been unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Freundorfer teaches that the insulating wool to be recycled is waste arising when a house is demolished, which is otherwise taken to landfill. See paragraph [0003]. As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above, the recited origin of the mineral wool material is in any event not accorded patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3, Yliniemi teaches that for agglomerates of mineral wool the particle size could be 5 cm to 0.5 mm in diameter (page 9), which overlaps the recited range of 10x10x10 mm to 50x50x50 mm in each of the three recited dimensions. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Yliniemi teaches immersing the inorganic solid material into the fluid (claim 2). Freundorfer further teaches that the binder may be sprayed onto the fibre body (paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Freundorfer teaches water glass as the inorganic binder (paragraphs [0014] and [0096]), water glass being an aqueous solution of an alkali metal silicate.
Regarding claim 6, the water glass of Freundorfer is an alkali metal silicate having a ratio of alkali metal atoms to silicon atoms of 2:1, falling within the formula Na2ySiyO2y+x as interpreted in the Claim Interpretation section above. See paragraphs [0014] and [0096]. Freundorfer further teaches the addition of slaked lime, that is, Ca(OH)2, in step S2 for use in conjunction with an inorganic binder. See paragraphs [0020] and [0093].
Regarding claim 7, Yliniemi teaches removing the fluid from the structurally broken material by applying centrifugal force in a centrifuge, by filtering, or by drying. See pages 6 and 7. Claim 7 recites its operations in the alternative, and centrifugation and heating are each expressly recited.
Regarding claim 12, Freundorfer teaches that the curing of step S4 in the simplest case comprises cooling of the third intermediate obtained from the hot pressing, after which the recycled insulating material can already be marketed. See paragraphs [0044] and [0094]. Yammine further teaches that it is generally unnecessary to heat the mixture by introducing heat from the outside, and that the shaped composite subsequently cures naturally. See paragraphs [0079] and [0081]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cured the moulded element of the combination at ambient temperature, as taught by Yammine, in order to avoid the energy cost of externally heating the element. Ambient temperature falls within the recited range of 20 - 80 °C.
Regarding claim 13, Freundorfer teaches that the second intermediate is pressed in a press template, which is a mould. See paragraphs [0111] and [0112].
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freundorfer in view of Yliniemi, Yammine, and Gröper, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pavlin et al., “Preparation of façade panels based on alkali-activated waste mineral wool, their characterization, and durability aspects”, International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1227-1234, first published 5 January 2022 (“Pavlin”).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Freundorfer and Yliniemi do not teach adding metakaolin.
Pavlin teaches the alkali activation of waste stone wool with sodium silicate and NaOH to produce moulded façade panels, metakaolin being added as a co-binder together with the stone wool as part of the dry mass, at 16 weight percent and 18 weight percent of the dry precursors in mixtures B and C respectively. See Table 2 at page 1229 and the conclusion at page 1234. Pavlin teaches that the co-binders were added to increase early strength and thus consume less energy, and to improve the mechanical properties and freeze-thaw resistance (page 1228), and teaches with respect to metakaolin in particular that “The addition of M as a source of aluminium improved the workability of the mixtures” (page 1229).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added metakaolin to the fragmentised mineral wool material of Freundorfer as taught by Pavlin, in order to increase the early strength of the alkali activated material and to improve its mechanical properties, as expressly taught by Pavlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have recognized that mineral wool is deficient in aluminium relative to the proportion required for geopolymerization, and would have been motivated to supply that deficiency using metakaolin as a source of aluminium, as taught by Pavlin.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freundorfer in view of Yliniemi, Yammine, Gröper, and Pavlin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2018/0111878 (“Hoffmann”).
Regarding claim 9, Pavlin adds the metakaolin to the dry precursors rather than to the activating liquid.
Hoffmann teaches a construction material composition comprising a matrix predominantly containing metakaolin together with an alkaline activation solution comprising a source of sodium or potassium silicate and an alkaline base such as NaOH or KOH (claim 22). Hoffmann teaches that the metakaolin containing matrix is first mixed with the activation solution, the two together forming a thick liquid, and that this liquid is thereafter mixed with one or more neutral compounds such as granulates or fibres, for which it forms the binder. See paragraph [0042]; see also claim 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have mixed the metakaolin with the liquid comprising alkaline activators, as taught by Hoffmann, rather than blending it with the solid material as taught by Pavlin, in order to obtain a binder liquid that distributes throughout and coheres the fibrous component as taught by Hoffmann. Moreover, the selection of the point at which a component is introduced into a mixture is a matter within the ordinary skill in the art where, as here, applicant has identified no advantage attaching to any particular point of addition. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Claims 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freundorfer in view of Yliniemi, Yammine, and Gröper, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/048843 (“Karlsson”).
Regarding claim 11, Freundorfer does not teach a density of the cured element in the range of 90 - 400 kg/m3.
Karlsson teaches an acoustical geopolymer panel element comprising a layer having a fibre component and a geopolymer binder comprising ground mineral wool, the layer having a density in the range of 20 - 400 kg/m3 (claim 1), and teaches that the inclusion of the fibre component makes it possible to obtain a desired density of the panel element in that range (page 5). The recited range of 90 - 400 kg/m3 lies inside the range taught by Karlsson. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have compacted the material of Freundorfer during pressing so as to obtain a density in the range taught by Karlsson, in order to obtain an acoustical panel element having the sound absorbing properties taught by Karlsson. Freundorfer further teaches that the density of the pressed article depends principally on the pressure applied during hot pressing, with higher pressure leading to higher density. See paragraphs [0032] and [0033].
Regarding claim 14, Freundorfer does not teach arranging a first layer of a mixture comprising wood wool, milled mineral wool and an activated alkaline component in a mould, and arranging a second layer thereon.
Karlsson teaches a method for the production of acoustical geopolymer panel elements comprising grinding elements comprising mineral wool for provision of a powder component, mixing the powder component with an alkali activator component for provision of a geopolymer mixture, mixing the geopolymer mixture with a fibre component, forming the mixture into acoustical geopolymer panel elements, and activating the mixture (claim 7), the activating being carried out by means of water (claim 8) and the forming being performed as an intermittent moulding process (claim 9). Karlsson teaches that the fibre component may be a wood fibre such as wood wool (page 7; claim 14). Karlsson further teaches that the panel element comprises the layer so formed together with an additional layer comprising mineral wool (claim 1), and that the additional layer improves the sound absorbing properties of the panel element (page 3). The alkali activator component of Karlsson, being a dry constituent of the first layer mixture that is activated by the later addition of water, corresponds to the “activated alkaline component” of claim 14 as interpreted in the Claim Interpretation section above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged in the mould of Freundorfer a first layer of the wood wool, milled mineral wool and alkali activator component mixture taught by Karlsson, and to have arranged the semi-dried mineral wool material of the combination thereon as a second layer, in order to improve the sound absorbing properties of the resulting panel element as taught by Karlsson. Freundorfer further teaches building the pressed article in layers, each layer having fibre pulp poured over it before pressing in the press template. See paragraph [0111].
Regarding claim 15, Karlsson teaches that the provision of the powder component from ground or milled elements comprising mineral wool enables the utilization of “recovered waste generated during manufacturing, installation or demounting after end of life” of elements comprising mineral wool. See page 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest subjecting a semi-dried mineral wool material, obtained by wetting a fragmentised mineral wool material with a liquid comprising alkaline activators and thereafter removing excess liquid from the wetted material, to a fibre separation operation prior to moulding that material into a tile shaped element, as required by claim 16.
Operations of the kind encompassed by the recited fibre separation operation, including carding, air laying, and hammer milling, are themselves well known in the mineral wool art. In the art of record, however, such operations are performed upon dry mineral wool in advance of the application of any binder, for the purpose of opening or loosening the wool so that a binder may thereafter be distributed through it. For example, see lines 62-67 in column 1 of US 3,682,670, in which glass wool and rock wool are carded and plaster powder is added to the fibres during the carding to provide a dry composition, which composition is thereafter mixed with water and cast in moulds. The art of record does not perform such an operation upon a mineral wool material that has already been wetted with an alkaline activator and from which excess liquid has already been removed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2021/140295 (Saint-Gobain Isover) teaches applying an aqueous binder composition to virgin or recycled mineral wool by spraying, roller coating or immersion, drying the impregnated wool to obtain a handleable intermediate product that is not tacky and can be stored and transported, shaping the intermediate product by moulding or compression, and thereafter heating the shaped product to cure the binder.
EP 3 156 381 (Saint-Gobain Ecophon AB) teaches combining fragments of mineral wool with a hydraulic binder and a setting accelerator comprising an alkali metal silicate and a water-soluble calcium salt, granulating the mixture, and thereafter drying the granules.
US 4,698,257 teaches forming an aqueous slurry of mineral fibres, dewatering the slurry to form a wet mat, pressing the wet mat to consolidate it to a water content of about 50 to 75 percent, pressure moulding the consolidated wet mat while it remains wet, and thereafter drying the moulded mat. Sodium silicate is identified among the useful binders.
US 2003/0121454 teaches suspending a powdered binding agent in a reacting liquid, draining the resulting slurry so that the majority of the surplus reacting liquid is removed, compacting the material during final draining, and thereafter permitting the material to harden by reaction between the binding phase and the remaining liquid.
US 1,769,519 teaches combining granular mineral wool, described as porous balls of irregular shape and of the size of a pea or larger, with a binder and water to form a plastic mass, moulding the mass into slabs, and drying the moulded slabs to form acoustical tile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, Sam Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights