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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1, 5, and 19, withdrawn Claims 8-9, 27-29, 35, and 43, canceled Claims 36-42 and 44-47, and new Claims 48-49 in the response filed on 9/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Quinn does not teach or suggest a method wherein the concrete precursor is not pre-cured prior to being placed in the carbonation reactor. To the contrary, Quinn discloses that water must be evaporated from the products to be cured. Quinn at paragraph [0085]. Further, Quinn discloses a method comprising two distinct phases – a first drying phase and a second carbonation phase. Quinn paragraph [0091]. For there to be a drying phase or for evaporation to occur, the concrete composite of Quinn must be pre-cured prior to carbonation. In contrast, the concrete precursor is not pre-cured before being placed in the carbonation chamber according to the presently claimed methods.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant limitation “the concrete precursor is not pre-cured prior to being placed in the carbonation reactor” has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQe2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the Examiner notes that this does not necessarily exclude the concrete precursor from being pre-cured, only that it cannot be pre-cured before it is placed in the carbonation reactor.
In that regard, Quinn teaches its concrete precursor is placed in a curing chamber (corresponding to the carbonation reactor) that undergoes a first drying phase (Phase 1) to a second carbonation phase (Phase 2). The curing chamber is configured to first expose the concrete precursor to the first drying phase (Phase 1) in the absence of deliberately added CO2. In another embodiment, the curing chamber is configured to expose the concrete precursor to the first drying phase in presence of CO2 ([0007], [0009], [0010], [0064], Example 3, Figs. 1A and 1B).
Therefore, Quinn teaches its concrete precursor is not pre-cured before it is placed in the carbonation reactor. The concrete precursor is already placed in the carbonation reactor that then undergoes Phase 1 and Phase 2. For these reasons, the Examiner deems that Quinn teaches “the concrete precursor is not pre-cured prior to being placed in the carbonation reactor”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 48 recites that the temperature and relative humidity remain constant in the carbonation reactor so a carbonation rate constant of the precursor is at or above 0.005. Applicant has not cited support for the instant limitation, and the Examiner was unable to find explicit teaching. Furthermore, Claim 1, in which Claim 48 is dependent from, recites “maintaining a suitable temperature, relative humidity, CO2 amount, gas stream flow rate, or a combination thereof”. That is, temperature or relative humidity is not necessarily required component to control a carbonation rate constant.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 15-18, 20, 30-34, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3515879 (“Quinn et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, Quinn et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a carbonated concrete composite, the method comprising placing a concrete precursor into a carbonation reactor for carbonation curing, the concrete precursor comprising a binder, one or more aggregates, and water, and the carbonation reactor having at least one gas stream inlet and an outlet, receiving a gas stream at the at least one inlet of the carbonation reactor, the gas stream comprising carbon dioxide ([0080], [0081], and Table 3). Quinn et al. further teaches that its curing is performed in its carbonation reactor, and therefore meets the limitation of “the concrete precursor is not pre-cured prior to being placed in the carbonation reactor” ([0007], [0009], [0010], [0064], Example 3, Figs. 1A and 1B).
Quinn et al. further teaches maintaining a suitable temperature, relative humidity, CO2 amount, gas stream flow rate, or a combination thereof in the carbonation reactor to react the concrete precursor with the gas stream and form the carbonated concrete composite [0063]. Quinn et al. also recognizes that the drying rate time and the carbonation rate are directly coupled to each other, so that the carbonation rate and extent can be controlled by controlling the drying rate [0082]. Thus, Quinn et al. teaches a process that maximizes the carbonation rate of a composite material by controlling the drying rate [0086].
Similarly, Applicant discloses a temperature, relative humidity, CO2 amount, gas stream flow rate, or a combination thereof is maintained in the carbonation reactor so that a carbonation rate constant is at or above 0.005 to form a carbonated concrete composite. Applicant’s Fig. 8B illustrates the dependence of carbonation rate constant on drying rate constant, and that there are similarities between carbonation and drying behavior of concrete that indicates carbonation rate constant is strongly correlated with and controlled by the drying rate constant ([0009], [0018], [0047], and [0065] in Applicant’s published application).
While Quinn et al. does not explicitly disclose a carbonation rate constant of the concrete precursor is at or above 0.005, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as a carbonation rate constant through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge that the carbonation rate constant controls the overall carbonation quality of the concrete composite. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the carbonation rate constant at or above 0.005, since the carbonation rate constant is a known results effective variable in producing a highly carbonated concrete composite.
With regards to Claims 2-5, Quinn et al. teaches its carbonated concrete composite is carbonated uniformly and through its entire thickness [0153]. Therefore, the Examiner deems that Quinn et al.’s carbonated concrete composite have uniform material performance.
With regards to Claim 6, 10, and 11, Quinn et al. teaches carbon dioxide gas stream through at least one inlet, and circulation systems configured to circulate the gaseous carbon dioxide throughout the carbonation reactor ([0007], [0054], and [0056]-[0061]).
With regards to Claim 15, Quinn et al. teaches the one or more aggregates comprises at least one of sand, gravel, and crushed stone (Table 1).
With regards to Claims 16-18, Quinn et al. teaches the concrete precursor comprises 17.3 mass % binder, 5.50 mass % water, and 82.7 mass % one or more aggregates (Table 1).
With regards to Claim 20, Quinn et al. recognizes using gas stream that comprises >95% carbon dioxide [0146].
With regards to Claims 30 and 34, Quinn et al. recognizes that its carbonized concrete composite can be formed into a concrete block [0147].
With regards to Claim 31, Quinn et al. recognizes that a concrete block can have the conventional claimed dimensions ([0147] and [0148]).
With regards to Claim 32, Quinn et al. recognizes that concrete composite can have a compressive strength of 64.73 MPa [0147], which meets the claimed limitation of about 50 MPa.
With regards to Claim 33, Quinn et al. teaches the concrete composite has a porosity of about 15% [0198].
With regards to Claim 48, Quinn et al. teaches the temperature and relative humidity remain constant during carbonation [0150].
With regards to Claim 49, Quinn et al. teaches the concrete precursor is shape-stabilized [0148].
Claims 7, 12-14, 19, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3515879 (“Quinn et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20190177220 (“Sant et al.”).
Quinn et al. does not teach the claimed materials for its binder, and the gas source/stream is flue gas stream.
However, Sant et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a carbonated concrete composite comprising a concrete precursor, wherein the concrete precursor comprises a binder of portlandite, hydrated lime, and/or fly ash, and exposing the concrete precursor to carbon dioxide sourced from a flue gas stream to form the carbonated concrete composite (Abstract, Fig. 1, and [0022]-[0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Quinn et al.’s carbonated concrete composite comprising the claimed materials as it is recognized as suitable materials in the production of carbonated concrete composite.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3515879 (“Quinn et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20180029934 (“Monkman et al.”)
Quinn et al. teaches having a flow regulation device configured to control a flow rate of the gas stream [0064].
Quinn et al. does not teach the gas stream is provided to the inlet of the carbonation reactor at a flow rate of about 0.1 standard liters per minute (slpm) to about 5 slpm.
However, Monkman et al. teaches appropriate flow rates for carbonation of a concrete precursor, such as at 5 slpm (Abstract and [0235]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an appropriate flow rate in Quinn et al. in order to sufficiently carbonate the concrete precursor as desired.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3515879 (“Quinn et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2016022522 (“Patten et al.”).
Quinn et al. teaches a temperature control subsystem to control a temperature of the gas stream, and a humidity control subsystem to control a humidity of the gas stream [0007]. As an example, the carbonation of its concrete precursor may be performed at 60°C and 60% relative humidity [0146].
Quinn et al. does not teach heating the gas stream while humidifying the gas stream prior to receiving the gas stream at the carbonation reactor.
However, Patten et al. teaches an equipment used to cure a CO2 composite material. The equipment may include to control the temperature, relative humidity, flow rate, pressure, and carbon dioxide concentration within the system; which includes the conditioning equipment, any vessel containing the CO2 composite material, and the material itself (Abstract). In that regards, Patten et al. teaches a temperature control subsystem and a humidity control subsystem, wherein the gas stream is heated while being humified (e.g. a steam generator including a heater) ([0030], [0042], [00113], and [00114]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat and humidifying the gas stream prior to receiving the gas stream at the carbonation reactor to have suitable carbonation conditions ready before starting to carbonate the concrete precursor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights