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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/7/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1 and 9, canceled Claims 8 and 11, and withdrawn Claims 13-22 in the response filed on 10/7/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12 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.
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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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.”).
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].
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).
Claim 1 is 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.”).
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.
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
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