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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 122 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 122 recites the limitation "the composite cement" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 83, 106-108,110,112-117, 121-122, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20100130806A1(US’806).
Regarding claim 83 and 114, US’806 discloses a method of treating asbestos. Asbestos is naturally produced mineral fibers and includes serpentinite based chrysotile (3MgO.2SiO2.2H2O), amphibole based amosite ((Mg, Fe)7Si8O22(OH)2), crocidolite (Na2Fe3 2+Fe2 3+Si8O22(OH)2), anthophyllite (Mg7Si8O22(OH)2), toremolite (Ca2Mg5Si8O22(OH)2) and actinolite (Ca2(Mg, Fe)5Si8O22(OH)2). See [0008] and abstract.
The method of treating an asbestos-containing waste material characterized in that the treated, non-asbestos product is a solid gained through the first step of fusing the waste material containing asbestos with a first acid such as hydrogen cholride for generating a water soluble salt through reaction with calcium or magnesium, the second step of depositing calcium sulfate by making the liquid treated in the first step make contact with sulfuric acid, and the third step of separating a solid from the liquid treated in the second step. The acid is one or more selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrochloric acid and fluoric acid. See examples 1-3 and [0046] and [0048].
The treated, non-asbestos material which is put in the rotary kiln together with the cement material after acid treatment rotates inside the rotary kiln while heating and fusing treatment is carried out for 20 minutes to 60 minutes at 1000° C. to 1500° C., for example. See [0181]. Dehydrate cake is treated. It is reasonable to expected that water is present during treatment. See [0148].
Although the prior art is silent about “wherein the thermally treating comprises thermal decomposition of the CaCO3 and/or CaSO4 to form CaO”, it has been held that “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977
Regarding claims 106-107, dehydrate cake is thermal treated. It is reasonable to expected that water is present during the treatment. See [0148]. it has been held that “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977
Regarding claims 117, 108 , 110, 112, 113 and 125, an alkali, for example sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, calcium oxide or calcium carbide, is added to this solution, and thus, a precipitate, for example of calcium fluoride (CaF2), iron hydroxide (Fe(OH)3), aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3), magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) or a silicate compound, is generated, and the cake including this precipitate can be mixed as a material for the production of a cement clinker. See [0150].
Regarding claim 115, the waste containing Si, thus byproduct congaing SiO2 is formed. it has been held that “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977
Regarding 116, calcium contained in waste materials includes compounds that function as a calcium source, such as calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, minerals included in cement, such as alite, belite, calcium aluminate and ferrite, and hydrates of these, in addition to calcium itself. See [0085].
Regarding claims 121-122, conventional Portland cement is produced. See [0200].
Regarding claim 125, the second step of depositing calcium sulfate by making the liquid treated in the first step make contact with sulfuric acid. See [0046].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 109 and 111 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights