Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 18-38 and 41-42 in the reply filed on 09/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 18-38 and 41-42 are 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.
The term “highly” in claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the microcrystalline component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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) 18-38 and 41-42 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)or 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over US20120082839(US’839).
Regarding claims 18,19, and 25 - 26, US’839 discloses formed building materials comprising a sequestered CO2. The building materials include a composition comprising a carbonate/bicarbonate component. The carbonate compound compositions include precipitated crystalline and/or amorphous carbonate compounds See abstract and [0096].
US’898 discloses the making of sequestered-CO2 components [0095-0097] in application 12/344,019 (0022-0028) which discloses a carbon dioxide gas contacted with carbonic acid that yields a bicarbonate rich product with a pH of 8-9 followed by a reaction with metal cations yielding a sequestered carbon dioxide carbonate.
As for the highly reflective microcrystalline/amorphous material, 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 claim 20, as for the crystalline size, 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 21-22, the sequestered-CO2 component further comprises calcium, magnesium, or a combination thereof. See [0009].
Regarding claims 23-24, the sequestered-CO2 component may be combined with water and other additional components, which may include, but are not limited to clay, shale, soft slate, calcium silicate, quarried stone, Portland cement, fly ash, slag, metakaolin, cement, aggregate (e.g., blast furnace slag, bottom ash, gravel, limestone, granite, sand, etc.), silica fume and pozzolans. See [0038].
Regarding claim 27, US’839 disclosure of the preparation of sequestered-CO2 components [0095-0097] is described in application 12/344,019 (0022-0028).The disclosures do not expressly disclose the specific bicarbonate rich product that comprises droplets of a liquid condensed phase (LCP) in a bulk liquid. However, the LCP is an inherent function of an identical method and conditions of the reaction. 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 claim 28-30, US’839 disclosure of the preparation of sequestered-CO2 components [0095-0097] is described in application 12/344,019 (0022-0028). The limitations of the claim are inherent US’839 disclosure of the preparation of sequestered-CO2 components [0095-0097] is described in application 12/344,019 (0022-0028). 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 31-32, US’839 discloses TiO2 pigment. See [0051].
Regarding claims 33-34, 38 and 42, US’839 discloses cementation material (reads on solid and granular). See [0035].
Regarding 35-37, US '839 discloses the process of forming building materials comprising sequestered CO2 carbonate. The building material is in the form of tiles,] fiber-cement sidings, which are then applied to the surface of roofs and to exterior structures. The sequestered carbonate is applied to the tile/sidings formation. The formation includes a homogenous mixture that would inherently yield at least a portion of the carbonate on the surface of the tile/siding. The sequestered carbonate material is used to reduce carbon emission via reduced lighting demands due to the high albedo of the material, See abstract; [0003]; [0043]; [0058]; and [0007].
Regarding claim 41, US '839 discloses the composition comprising silicon. See [0126].
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