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Examiner acknowledges canceled Claims 8 and 11, withdrawn Claims 13-22, and new Claim 23 in the response filed on 5/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office that suggested that calcium oxide and hydrated lime are the same material. Calcium oxide has the chemical formula CaO, while hydrated lime has the chemical formula Ca(OH)2.
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Claim 4 was objected because the instant claim recites both calcium hydroxide and hydrated lime. As acknowledged by Applicant, hydrated lime has the chemical formula Ca(OH)2, which is calcium hydroxide.
Applicant argues that clinker production is a complex science involving high-temperature chemistry, materials variability and tightly coupled process controls. The raw meal of the present invention is being used to create a clinker comprising (a) 10-80 weight percent calcium sulfoaluminate, (b) 5-50 weight percent tricalcium phosphate, (c) 0-75 weight percent calcium aluminates, and (d) 0-25 weight percent minor phases including at least one of anhydrite calcium sulfate hydroxyapatite and free lime.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. As acknowledged by Applicant, the raw meal is used to create a clinker. It is noted that intended use or intended result limitation and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product (i.e. raw meal) is concerned. Note that “in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." In the instant case, the composition of the prior art of record’s raw meal is substantially identical to the claimed and disclosed raw meal, and hence deemed to be capable of making the argued clinker.
Furthermore, Applicant elected Group I: Claims 1-12, which was directed to a raw meal of a cement clinker. A raw meal is a mixture of selected raw materials that are used to produce a clinker (i.e. before forming the clinker). The elected claims are not directed to a cement clinker and/or to a clinker production/method. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments on Page 6 of the response directed to a cement clinker with specific phases and method of making said clinker by a rotary kiln, reactions occurring at specific temperatures, calcination, etc. are moot.
Applicant argues that Wang relates to the production of a second, completely different type of clinker: a phosphoaluminate clinker. Bullejahn relates to the use of copper as a flux/mineralizer for the production of a third, completely different type of clinker: belite-CSA-ferrite-ternesite clinker.
Applicant’s arguments that the teachings from Wang and Bullejahn will not necessarily work when combined are not persuasive. Wang teaches a raw meal of a cement clinker and teaches that its raw meal is used to produce a cement clinker of a C4A3$ type (Abstract). Similarly, Bullejahn teaches its raw meal is used to produce all kinds of calcium sulfoaluminate cements, usually comprising 10-100% by weight of C4A3-xFx$, with x ranging from 0 to 2 ([0048]-[0049]). That is, both Wang and Bullejahn broadly disclose its raw meal is used to produce a C4A3$ type clinker. It is the Examiner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two references for the reasons set forth in the rejections. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings relating to a raw meal used to form a clinker with another raw meal used to form a clinker, absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: The instant claim recites both calcium hydroxide and hydrated lime, which are the same materials. Examiner suggest to amend to delete one of the materials. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 23 does not limit the raw meal composition recited in Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108059377 A (“Wang et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20160214891 (“Bullerjahn et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, Wang et al. teaches a raw meal for a C4A3$ cement clinker comprising 35-50 weight percent calcium oxide, 20 to 40 weight percent aluminum oxide, 1.5 to 3 weight percent iron oxide, 2 to 3 weight percent sulfur trioxide, and 10 to 20 weight percent of phosphorus pentoxide (Abstract).
Although Wang et al. does not teach its raw meal comprising about 0-1 weight percent iron oxide and about 5-15 weight percent sulfur trioxide, it is noted that Wang et al. does not explicitly disclose any issue(s) with respect to the claimed concentrations for iron oxide and sulfur trioxide.
In that regard, Bullerjahn et al. teaches a raw meal for a C4A3-xFx$, with x ranging from 0-2, cement clinker comprising 0 to 30 weight percent iron oxide and 5 to 25 weight percent sulfur trioxide [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wang et al.’s raw meal comprise about 0-1 weight percent iron oxide and about 5-15 weight percent sulfur trioxide to produce a stable raw meal for a C4A3-xFx$, with x ranging from 0-2, cement clinker [0049].
With regards to Claim 23, the instant claim recites the intended result of the raw meal (i.e. intended result/structure is a cement clinker with the recited (a)-(d) phases), and does not limit the raw meal itself. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." In the instant case, Wang’s raw meal is deemed capable of performing the claimed intended result of a clinker. Regardless, it is noted that Wang teaches a cement clinker comprising 30-40 weight percent calcium sulfoaluminate, 15-25 weight percent tricalcium phosphate, and 5-10 weight percent calcium aluminates [0010].
Claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108059377 A (“Wang et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20160214891 (“Bullerjahn et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Staněk, Theodor, et al. “Mechanism and kinetics of binding of meat and bone meal ash into the Portland cement clinker.” SN Applied Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, 14 Feb. 2020 (“Staněk et al.”).
With regards to Claims 2-3, Wang et al. does not teach the source of the phosphorus pentoxide.
However, Staněk et al. recognizes that meat and bone meal (MBM) is the alternative fuel with good calorific value used in cement production. It has good calorific value and at the same time, a biodegradation occurs there as well as possible disposal of harmful substances at high temperatures in the cement kiln. MBM is dosed in the cement kiln dispersed in a flow of air or fuel and its particles spontaneously burn. The combustion residues consisting of calcium phosphate then react with clinker in its whole volume. P2O4 influences clinker melt properties, enters into the structure of clinker phases and influences the phase composition of clinker and thus the quality of cement (Abstract and 1 Introduction section). Therefore, 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 the source of phosphorus pentoxide in Wang et al.’s raw meal be from meat and bone meal as it is recognized as being useful and effective in cement production (1 Introduction).
With regards to Claims 4, 9, and 10, Wang et al. does not teach its raw meal of a cement clinker further including the claimed material(s).
However, Bullerjahn et al. teaches a raw meal for a C4A3-xFx$, with x ranging from 0-2, cement clinker comprising 35 to 65% by weight calcium oxide, 0 to 28% by weight silicon dioxide, 7 to 45% by weight aluminum oxide, 0 to 30% by weight iron oxide, 5 to 25% by weight sulfur trioxide, and 0.1 to 5% by weight phosphorus pentoxide (Abstract, [0024], [0025], [0028], and [0049]). Bullerjahn et al.’s raw meal further includes glass powder in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 5% by weight, wherein the glass powder comprises, inter alia, 0 to 20% of sodium oxide and 0 to 10% of magnesium oxide. Therefore, Bullerjahn et al.’s raw meal includes 0 to 1% by weight of sodium oxide and 0 to 0.5% by weight of magnesium oxide. Bullerjahn et al. further teaches its raw meal further including calcium fluoride [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate about 0.1-1 weight percent sodium oxide, calcium fluoride, and about 0.1-5 weight percent magnesium oxide in Wang et al.’s raw meal as it known to be advantageous in a raw meal for a C4A3-xFx$, with x ranging from 0-2, cement clinker ([0023], [0046], and [0049]).
With regards to Claims 5-7, please see rejected Claim 1 above.
With regards to Claim 12, Wang et al. teaches a cement clinker made from the raw meal (Abstract).
Claims 1 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160214891 (“Bullerjahn et al.”) in view of CN 108059377 A (“Wang et al.”).
With regards to Claim 1, Bullerjahn et al. teaches a raw meal for a C4A3-xFx$, with x ranging from 0-2, cement clinker comprising 35 to 65% by weight calcium oxide, 0 to 28% by weight silicon dioxide, 7 to 45% by weight aluminum oxide, 0 to 30% by weight iron oxide, 5 to 25% by weight sulfur trioxide, and 0.1 to 5% by weight phosphorus pentoxide (Abstract, [0024], [0025], [0028], and [0049]). Bullerjahn et al.’s raw meal further includes glass powder in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 5% by weight, wherein the glass powder comprises, inter alia, 0 to 20% of sodium oxide and 0 to 10% of magnesium oxide. Therefore, Bullerjahn et al.’s raw meal includes 0 to 1% by weight of sodium oxide and 0 to 0.5% by weight of magnesium oxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Bullerjahn et al. does not teach the raw meal includes about 10-50 weight percent phosphorous pentoxide.
However, Wang et al. teaches a raw meal for a C4A3$ type cement clinker comprising 10 to 20 weight percent of phosphorus pentoxide (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 10 to 20 weight percent of phosphorus pentoxide in Bullerjahn et al. in order to obtain a stable and desirable clinker formation and hydration behavior.
With regards to Claim 23, the instant claim recites the intended result of the raw meal (i.e. intended result/structure is a cement clinker with the recited (a)-(d) mineral phases), and does not limit the raw meal itself. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art.” In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." In the instant case, Bullerjahn et al.’s raw meal is deemed capable of performing the claimed intended result of a clinker.
Claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160214891 (“Bullerjahn et al.”) in view of CN 108059377 A (“Wang et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Staněk, Theodor, et al. “Mechanism and kinetics of binding of meat and bone meal ash into the Portland cement clinker.” SN Applied Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, 14 Feb. 2020 (“Staněk et al.”).
With regards to Claims 2-3, Bullerjahn et al. does not teach the source of the phosphorus pentoxide.
However, Staněk et al. recognizes that meat and bone meal (MBM) is the alternative fuel with good calorific value used in cement production. It has good calorific value and at the same time, a biodegradation occurs there as well as possible disposal of harmful substances at high temperatures in the cement kiln. MBM is dosed in the cement kiln dispersed in a flow of air or fuel and its particles spontaneously burn. The combustion residues consisting of calcium phosphate then react with clinker in its whole volume. P2O4 influences clinker melt properties, enters into the structure of clinker phases and influences the phase composition of clinker and thus the quality of cement (Abstract and 1 Introduction section). Therefore, 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 the source of phosphorus pentoxide in Bullerjahn et al.’s raw meal be from meat and bone meal as it is recognized as being useful and effective in cement production (1 Introduction).
With regards to Claim 4, Bullerjahn et al. teaches its raw meal further including calcium fluoride [0046].
With regards to Claims 5-7, 9, and 10, please see rejected Claim 1 above.
With regards to Claim 12, Bullerjahn et al. teaches a cement clinker made from the raw meal (Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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