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 .
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.
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 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) 1-4, 7-8 and 11 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 WO2019/060992Al.
Regarding claim 1, WO2019/060992Al discloses the use of carbon dioxide gas to cure concrete media for standard 20 cm concrete masonry unit (CMU) production by applying a pressure differential created through a partial replacement of the original ambient volume of air present in a curing enclosure with pure CO2 gas. See Fig. 1, [0001] and [0022].
PNG
media_image1.png
482
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
469
883
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WO2019/060992Al discloses mixing aggregates, cement, and water for forming blocks having the shape of a standard 20 cm CMU. See Fig. 1, Fig. 7(a), [0022] and [0034] - [0036].
WO2019/060992Al discloses that the formed blocks are de-molded. The formed blocks contain water, cement and SCM. Thus, the formed blocks have a first water-to- binder ratio. See Fig. 1 and Fig.7.
WO2019/060992Al discloses that the blocks are dried. Thus, the dried pre-set blocks have a second water-to-binder ratio less than first water-to-binder ratio of the demolded formed blocks. See [0035]- [0037] and Fig. 1
WO2019/060992Al discloses a carbonation step and the pre-set blocks are
cured in a curing enclosure by injection of CO2 gas. The carbonation is carried out at a slightly positive gauge pressure, anywhere between 0 and 2 Psi. (for example 0.5
psi, corresponding to 3% of the atmospheric pressure). See Fig 1, [0005],
[0038] - [0041] and [0049].
WO2019/060992A discloses that the primed concrete blocks are placed inside an enclosure. A Neoprene polymer sheet, was subsequently affixed to the open-end of the enclosure and fastened using screws and a high-pressure sealant, thereby obtaining an air- tight enclosure. The expandable enclosure becomes inflated to a pressure of 0.5 Psi during the carbonation step. See Fig 7 and Fig 8, [0046] and [0049].
WO2019/060992A discloses that CO2 gas was injected in the enclosure until a positive pressure of 0.5 Psi was achieved therein and the enclosure was inflated. See [0049].
PNG
media_image3.png
460
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The flexible enclosure defining an inner volume that is greater in the in-use configuration than in the transportation configuration. See Figs 7 and 8.
In the alterative, the reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" ranges (0-1 psi), and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
Regarding claim 2, WO2019/060992Al discloses that the carbonation is carried out at a slightly positive gauge pressure, anywhere between 0 and 2 Psi (for example, 0.5 psi, corresponding to 3% of the atmospheric pressure). See Fig 1, [0005], [0038] - [0041] and [0049].
Regarding claim 3, WO2019/060992Al discloses that the carbonation is carried out at a slightly positive gauge pressure, anywhere between 0 and 2 psi. See Fig 1, [0005], [0038] - [0041] and [0049].
Regarding claim 4, WO2019/060992A discloses that the process can be adapted to existing steam curing systems through physical retrofit modifications without incurring large, non-recoverable capital costs.
Regarding claim 7, WO2019/060992Al discloses a target loss of 35 % of the total water content of the formed blocks. See [0037].
Regarding claim 8, WO2019/060992A1 discloses that the loss of water in the pre-setting step, preferably a mass loss in the range of 30 to 50 %, allows to create spaces or porosity. WO2019/060992ALdiscloses a water loss of 35% corresponding to 0.349 kg or 0.349 L for a standard 20 cm CMU having a weight of 16.8 kg. Such a standard 20 cm CMU has a standard volume of 7.8 L. The water loss as disclosed by WO2019/060992A1. implies that the pre-set formed blocks are defined by a porosity of more than 4.5% by volume (= 0.349 L/ 7.8 L) for a water loss of 35% and thus even
Regarding claim 11, WO2019/060992A discloses that air was evacuated from the enclosure using a venturi pump at a sub-atmospheric pressure or vacuum of -3 Psi after 5 to 10 minutes. See [0049].
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 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 filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that flexible polymer sheet of WO 2019/060992 does not constitute a complete flexible enclosure as claimed, nor does the cited reference disclose recited steps such as "expanding a flexible enclosure from a transportation configuration to an in-use configuration and inserting the conditioned article inside the flexible enclosure in the in-use configuration", as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Figure 7 and 8 discloses the expanding enclosure. And the Figure 8 disclose the expanding of the enclosure. It cn seen from the figures shows the volume change.
WO 2019/060992 is entirely silent about a volume variation, since the disclosed enclosure is substantially rigid and non-inflatable - and therefore exhibits little to no volume change.
Applicant respectfully submits that the cited reference never describes the enclosure as expandable. What "expands" is only the flexible polymer door sheet, which "protrudes outward during carbonation" (46) because it is the lone compliant element of an otherwise rigid wooden box (Fig. 7(a)) whose remaining five sides do not move. The enclosure as a whole is a fixed, rigid chamber that has been retrofitted with (a) an interior coating and (b) a flexible door - it is not an enclosure that is itself expanded from a transportation configuration to an in-use configuration.
The Examiner respectfully submits that there is no recitation in the claims the “expands” has to move in all directions. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., all the sides moving) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues that the prior art failed to teach that expansion from a transportation configuration to an in-use configuration. The '992 publication is silent regarding any transportation configuration of its curing apparatus, and silent regarding any expansion step performed on the apparatus prior to use. The rigid wooden box of Fig. 7 and the kiln/chamber/vessel of Fig. 2 exist in a single, fixed geometry; the polyurethane/polyurea inner lining is sprayed in place and is not deployed from a compact state. The Neoprene door sheet is likewise pre-affixed with screws and high-pressure sealant; it is not "expanded" from a transportation configuration - it merely flexes between deflated and inflated states under the applied pressure differential during operation. Inserting the conditioned article inside the flexible enclosure.
The Examiner respectfully submits that inflated is read on expanded. See Figures 7-8.
The applicant argues that in the '992 publication, the primed concrete blocks are placed inside the rigid wooden box (Fig. 7(a)), and the Neoprene sheet is then attached to the open end of that rigid box. The blocks are not inserted "inside" any flexible enclosure; they are inserted inside a rigid chamber that is subsequently closed by a flexible door. The allegedly flexible component (the Neoprene sheet) is a planar seal at one face of the chamber, not a vessel into which the article is inserted. Sealing the flexible enclosure to maintain pressure.
The Examiner respectfully submits even only one side of the enclosure is expandable, the enclosure is read on the claimed expandable enclosure. The blocks are inserted in to the expandable enclosure. The Examiner respectfully submits that there is no recitation in the claims the “expands” has to move in all directions. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., all the sides expand) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues that the function and purpose statements throughout the '992 publication confirm that the flexible material disclosed there is solely a means of modifying and sealing pre-existing curing systems that are not inherently air-tight.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the enclosure is designed or modified to be air-tight and capable of withstanding marginal deviations in pressure both below and above ambient conditions.
The applicant argues that nowhere does the '992 publication contemplate a self-contained flexible vessel that is transported in a compact configuration, expanded at the use site, loaded with conditioned articles, and sealed - which is precisely what amended claim 1 requires.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e is transported in a compact configuration) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues that the reference discloses, at most, a flexible polymer door affixed to a pre-existing rigid curing chamber - used solely to render that chamber air-tight - it does not anticipate the flexible-enclosure steps of amended claim 1, which require the flexible enclosure itself to be expanded from a transportation configuration, to receive the conditioned article inside it, and to be sealed to maintain the carbonation pressure.
The Examiner respectfully submits that WO2019/060992Al discloses a carbonation step and the pre-set blocks are cured in a curing enclosure by injection of CO2 gas. The carbonation is carried out at a slightly positive gauge pressure, anywhere between 0 and 2 Psi. (for example, 0.5 psi, corresponding to 3% of the atmospheric pressure). See Fig 1, [0005], [0038] - [0041] and [0049]. WO2019/060992A discloses that the primed concrete blocks are placed inside an enclosure. A Neoprene polymer sheet, was subsequently affixed to the open-end of the enclosure and fastened using screws and a high-pressure sealant, thereby obtaining an air- tight enclosure. The expandable enclosure becomes inflated to a pressure of 0.5 Psi during the carbonation step. See Fig 7 and Fig 8, [0046] and [0049].
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 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