DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 12/23/2025:
claims 1-6, 8-20 and 22 are currently pending
claims 6, 12 and 19 are amended
claim 22 is added
new grounds of rejection reapplying Ki, Zhu, Jacob, Benzerara, Durak, Constantz, Telschow and Ozerski are presented herein
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Regarding claim 22, statement “comprising pre-conditioning the mineral particles to mitigate excess organic matter prior to forming one or more of portland cement and portland cement paste” attempts to claim a process of “pre-conditioning” without setting forth any steps involved in the process. The written description does not clearly define the term “pre-conditioning” and the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Thus, claim 22 is rendered indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ki et al. (KR 101291725 B1) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as KI, in view of Zhu et al. (Assessment of cyanobacterial species for carbonate precipitation on mortar surface under different conditions, Ecological Engineering, 2018, 120, pages 154-163), hereinafter referred to as ZHU.
Regarding claim 1, KI teaches a method of forming cement paste (see KI at paragraph [0001]: a method for producing a cement mortar), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a growth medium (see KI at paragraph [0005]: a culture medium),
providing one or more of biomineralizing microorganisms and biomineralizing macroorganisms within the growth medium (see KI at paragraph [0005]: adding microorganism to the culture liquid),
producing mineral particles using the one or more of biomineralizing microorganisms and biomineralizing macroorganisms within the growth medium (see KI at paragraph [0005]: allowing the calcium-containing culture medium to stand so that the microorganisms precipitate calcium carbonate);
separating the mineral particles from the growth medium (see KI at paragraph [0005]: drying the calcium-containing culture liquid to extract calcium carbonate solids), and
forming one or more of Portland cement (see KI at paragraph [0023]: Portland cement) and Portland cement paste using the mineral particles separated from the growth medium (see KI at paragraph [0005]: cement mortar produced by mixing the calcium carbonate fine powder produced by the method of the present invention together with cement and water),
wherein the mineral particles comprise at least one of amorphous silicon dioxide particles or crystalline calcium carbonate particles (see KI at paragraph [0001]: calcium carbonate crystals).
But KI fails to explicitly teach producing mineral particles within the growth medium by photosynthesis.
However, ZHU teaches that microbial carbonate precipitation (MCP) has been vastly investigated due to its high application potential in construction restoration; concrete was studied under various aspects in order to enhance its performance and durability; MCP offers one of the solutions to improve its comprehensive strength and prevent damage from water penetration (see ZHU at Introduction, right column, paragraph 1, p. 154). ZHU also teaches that cyanobacteria contribute to the deposition of carbonate during Earth history (see ZHU at Introduction, left column, paragraph 1, p. 154). Additionally, ZHU teaches that cyanobacteria were cultivated with BG11 medium (see ZHU at 2.1. Cyanobacterial species and culture conditions). ZHU also teaches that Syn. PCC8806 had the most intense photosynthesis activity, while Syn. PCC6803 led to the highest amount of carbonate precipitation; Syn. LS0519 was the least active in photosynthesis as well as influencing the carbonate precipitation (see ZHU at 4.1.1. Solution alteration and calcium removal by cyanobacteria species, paragraph 5). Finally, ZHU discloses that by comparing the biomineralization mediated by three cyanobacterial species in experimental solutions and on mortar surfaces, it was concluded that one of the species exerted the highest impact in carbonate precipitation under both conditions (see ZHU at Abstract).
KI and ZHU both disclose the carbonate precipitation by microorganisms for use in cementitious compositions. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
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 modified the composition of KI by including the microorganisms producing mineral particles by photosynthesis, such as cyanobacterial species cultured in BG11 medium disclosed by ZHU, since ZHU explicitly teaches the high impact in carbonate precipitation exerted by cyanobacterial species (see ZHU at Abstract).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Regarding claim 2, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the biomineralizing microorganisms within the growth medium comprise bacteria selected from the group consisting of cyanobacteria (see rejection of claim 1 above and ZHU at 2.1. Cyanobacterial species and culture conditions).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a morphology of a first portion of the crystalline calcium carbonate particles is rounded, and wherein a morphology of a second portion of the crystalline calcium carbonate particles is angular (claim 6), and an average cross-sectional dimension of the mineral particles being between about 10 nm and 1 um/1000 nm (claim 8) (see rejection of claim 1 above and ZHU at 3.1.2. Characterization of mineral precipitation, left column, p. 157: crystals contain calcium, oxygen and carbon, indicating them to be calcium carbonate; globular precipitates; rhombohedral crystals; precipitate with a size of 300 nm). ZHU teaches size of 300 nm which is within the claimed range. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, KI teaches producing cement mortar by mixing the calcium carbonate fine powder produced by the method of the invention together with cement and water (see KI at paragraph [0005]). Therefore, KI as modified by ZHU describing obtaining calcium carbonate particles in the form of globular precipitates and rhombohedral crystals (see ZHU at 3.1.2. Characterization of mineral precipitation, left column, p. 157), discloses the method wherein a morphology of a first portion of the crystalline calcium carbonate particles is rounded, and wherein a morphology of a second portion of the crystalline calcium carbonate particles is angular.
Regarding claim 9, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an average cross-sectional dimension of crystalline calcium carbonate particles is between about 1 um and about 5 mm (see KI at paragraph [0021]: the calcium carbonate has a particle size of 50 to 300 µm). KI teaches range which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the mineral particles are an additive to Portland cement paste (see KI at paragraph [0023]: Portland cement; concrete specimens prepared by casting mortars by adding calcium carbonate).
Regarding claim 12, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the growth medium comprises at least one of A+, BG-11, BPU, or LB Broth (see rejection of claim 1 above and ZHU at 2.1. Cyanobacterial species and culture conditions: cyanobacteria were cultivated with BG11 medium) wherein the growth medium comprises about 1 to about 30 g/L CaCl2 (see ZHU at Supplementary data, lines 34-35, p. 2: BG-11 medium; stock solutions (g/L): CaCl2·2H2O 3.6). ZHU teaches 3.6 g/L, which is within the claimed range of about 1 to about 30 g/L.
Regarding claim 16, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: grinding the mineral particles to an average size of about 1 to about 100 um to form a powder (see KI at paragraphs [0018]: the dried calcium carbonate solids are pulverized and powdered to obtain the final calcium carbonate fine powder; and [0006]: the calcium carbonate fine powder in a size of 50 µm). KI teaches range which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KI in view of Jacob et al. (Biogenic calcite particles from microalgae – Coccoliths as a potential raw material, Engineering in Life Sciences, 2017, 17, pages 605-612), hereinafter referred to as JACOB.
Regarding claim 20, KI teaches a method of forming a composition (paragraph [0001]: a method for producing a cement mortar), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a growth medium (see KI at paragraph [0005]: a culture medium),
providing one or more microorganisms (see KI at paragraph [0005]: adding microorganism to the culture liquid),
producing mineral particles within the growth medium by the one or more microorganisms (see KI at paragraph [0005]: allowing the calcium-containing culture medium to stand so that the microorganisms precipitate calcium carbonate);
separating the mineral particles from the growth medium (see KI at paragraph [0005]: drying the calcium-containing culture liquid to extract calcium carbonate solids), and
forming one or more of paints, coatings, drywall, white pigment, source for lime material, lime material, agricultural lime, and a calcium source using the mineral particles (see KI at paragraph [0005]: drying the calcium-containing culture liquid to extract calcium carbonate solids),
wherein the mineral particles comprise crystalline calcium carbonate (see KI at paragraph [0001]: calcium carbonate crystals).
But KI fails to explicitly teach microorganisms comprising Emiliania huxleyi.
However, JACOB teaches biomineralizing microorganisms comprising microalgae (see JACOB at Abstract: the microalgae Emiliania huxleyi, which belongs to the group of coccolithophores, produces micro-structured calcite platelets, called coccoliths). JACOB also teaches that calcite particles exhibit versatile and unique properties and are therefore suitable for numerous applications (see JACOB at Introduction, left column, first paragraph). Finally, JACOB discloses that targeted design of coccolith composition might be utilized in research on a concrete application (see JACOB at Concluding Remarks, left column, first paragraph, p. 611).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of using microalgae such as Emiliania huxleyi as biomineralizing organisms since JACOB explicitly teaches that calcite particles exhibit versatile and unique properties and are therefore suitable for numerous applications (see JACOB at Introduction, left column, first paragraph), and that targeted design of coccolith composition might be utilized in research on a concrete application (see JACOB at Concluding Remarks, left column, first paragraph, p. 611).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Emiliania huxleyi disclosed by JACOB as biomineralizing microorganisms in the method of KI in order to obtain calcite particles exhibiting versatile and unique properties suitable for concrete application.
Claims 3-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KI in view of ZHU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JACOB.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 14, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1 and discloses that it is possible to use microorganisms having various element decomposition functions (see KI at paragraph [0012]), but fails to explicitly teach the biomineralizing microorganisms within the growth medium comprising microalgae (claim 3), wherein the microalgae is selected from the group consisting of diatoms and coccolithophores (claim 4), and comprise Emiliania huxleyi (claim 14).
However, JACOB teaches biomineralizing microorganisms comprising microalgae (see JACOB at Abstract: the microalgae Emiliania huxleyi, which belongs to the group of coccolithophores, produces micro-structured calcite platelets, called coccoliths). JACOB also teaches that calcite particles exhibit versatile and unique properties and are therefore suitable for numerous applications (see JACOB at Introduction, left column, first paragraph). JACOB also discloses that coccoliths are significantly different form all industrial particles; their structure is extremely sophisticated, while the overall particle morphology and particle size distribution are homogeneous (see JACOB at Abstract). Finally, JACOB discloses that targeted design of coccolith composition might be utilized in research on a concrete application (see JACOB at Concluding Remarks, left column, first paragraph, p. 611).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of utilizing microalgae as biomineralizing microorganisms based on the teaching of KI that it is possible to use microorganisms having various element decomposition functions (see KI at paragraph [0012]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used microalgae such as Emiliania huxleyi, which belongs to the group of coccolithophores, as biomineralizing organisms since JACOB explicitly teaches that calcite particles exhibit versatile and unique properties and are therefore suitable for numerous applications (see JACOB at Introduction, left column, first paragraph), and that targeted design of coccolith composition might be utilized in research on a concrete application (see JACOB at Concluding Remarks, left column, first paragraph, p. 611).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized microalgae, such as Emiliania huxleyi, which belongs to the group of coccolithophores, disclosed by JACOB as biomineralizing microorganisms in the method of KI in order to obtain calcite particles exhibiting versatile and unique properties suitable for concrete application.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KI in view of ZHU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JACOB and Durak et al. The role of cyctoskeleton in biomineralization in haptophyte algae, Scientific Reports, 2017, 7: 15409, hereinafter referred to as DURAK, with evidence from F/2 medium product description retrieved from https://utex.org/products/f-2-medium?variant=31722216915034 on 05/01/2025, as to the rejection of claim 15, hereinafter referred to as F/2.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the growth medium comprises seawater and carbon dioxide (claim 5), and wherein the biomineralizing microorganisms within the growth medium comprise one or more of Prymnesium neolepis and Cyclotella sp (claim 15).
However, JACOB teaches biomineralizing microorganisms comprising coccolithophores (see JACOB at Abstract: the microalgae Emiliania huxleyi, which belongs to the group of coccolithophores, produces micro-structured calcite platelets, called coccoliths). JACOB also teaches that calcite particles exhibit versatile and unique properties and are therefore suitable for numerous applications (see JACOB at Introduction, left column, first paragraph). JACOB discloses that targeted design of coccolith composition might be utilized in research on a concrete application (see JACOB at Concluding Remarks, left column, first paragraph, p. 611). Additionally, DURAK discloses the production of calcium carbonate by coccolithophores (haptophytes) contributes significant to global biogeochemical cycling; and that the identification of a silicifying haptophyte, Prymnesium neolepis, has provided new insight into the evolution of biomineralization in this lineage (see DURAK at Abstract). DURAC teaches that the cytoskeleton plays a crucial role in biomineralization in both silicifying and calcifying haptophytes/coccolithophores; and that there are some important similarities in the contribution of the cytoskeleton to these different forms of biomineralization (see DURAC at Abstract). DURAK also teaches that cultures of coccolithophores were maintained in aged filtered sea water with f/2 media (see DURAK at Materials and Methods). According to F/2 product description, F/2 medium comprises seawater and carbon dioxide (see F/2 at Important Notes To Consider on p. 2: please note that auto removes carbon dioxide from media).
JACOB and DURAC both teach biomineralization utilizing microalgae coccolithophores, furthermore, DURAC explicitly teaches that the cytoskeleton plays a crucial role in biomineralization in both silicifying and calcifying haptophytes/coccolithophores; and that there are some important similarities in the contribution of the cytoskeleton to these different forms of biomineralization (see DURAC at Abstract). According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). 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 modified the composition of KI by utilizing Prymnesium neolepis as biomineralizing microorganism, cultured in aged filtered sea water with f/2 media, as disclosed by DURAC based on teachings of JACOB describing that design of coccolith composition might be utilized in research on a concrete application (see JACOB at Concluding Remarks, left column, first paragraph, p. 611), and DURAC describing that the cytoskeleton plays a crucial role in biomineralization in both silicifying and calcifying haptophytes/coccolithophores; and that there are some important similarities in the contribution of the cytoskeleton to these different forms of biomineralization (see DURAC at Abstract).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KI in view of ZHU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ozerski et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190112228 A1), hereinafter referred to as OZERSKI.
Regarding claim 11, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach the crystalline calcium carbonate particles being pressed together to form larger particles having an average cross-sectional dimension of up to about 5 cm.
However, OZERSKI teaches a method of producing a macro-cement including cement, supplemental cementitious materials (SCMs) (see OZERSKI at Abstract). OZERSKI also teaches that SCMs may be siliceous-SiO2-containing particles including precipitated silica (see OZERSKI at paragraphs [0033] - [0034]). Additionally, OZERSKI discloses that the composition may be produced in the form of granules, pellets, briquettes or tablets by mechanical activation during the process of coating and/or loading of the cementitious materials (see OZERSKI at paragraph [0048]) and that the briquettes or tablets may be produced by compression from rollers with shaped voids following the coating and/or loading process of the cementitious materials, the briquettes or tablets having a somewhat round or somewhat rectangular shape and equivalent spherical diameter from about 10 to about 50 mm (see OZERSKI at paragraph [0107]). Finally, OZERSKI discloses that producing “engineered forms of macro-cement” such as granulated, pelletized, briquetted, tableted engineered dust-free macro-cement results in extended shelf life and high workability useful for preparing pastes, mortars, concretes and other cement-based materials with high density and strength, increased early and final strength and accelerated reaction rate in cementitious mixtures (see OZERSKI at paragraph [0162]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of utilizing compressing mineral particles into larger particles having spherical diameter from about 10 to about 50 mm as disclosed by OZERSKI into the method of KI. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used the method of compressing mineral particles into larger particles as disclosed by OZERSKI since OZERSKI discloses that producing “engineered forms of macro-cement” such as granulated, pelletized, briquetted, tableted engineered dust-free macro-cement results in extended shelf life and high workability useful for preparing pastes, mortars, concretes and other cement-based materials with high density and strength, increased early and final strength and accelerated reaction rate in cementitious mixtures (see OZERSKI at paragraph [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the method of compressing mineral particles into larger particles having spherical diameter from about 10 to about 50 mm to the method of KI in order to extend shelf life and obtain high workability useful for preparing pastes, mortars, concretes and other cement-based materials with high density and strength, increased early and final strength and accelerated reaction rate in cementitious mixtures.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KI in view of ZHU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benzerara et al. (Intracellular Ca-carbonate biomineralization is widespread in cyanobacterial, PNAS, 2014, Vol. 111, 30, pages 10933-10938), hereinafter referred to as BENZERARA.
Regarding claim 13, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the crystalline calcium carbonate particles are formed using Synechococcus sp. PCCC 7002.
However, BENZERARA discloses that cyanobacteria are known to promote the precipitation of Ca-carbonate (see BENZERARA at Significance, p. 10933). BENZERARA also discloses cyanobacterial strains forming Ca-carbonates (see BENZERARA at Fig. 1). Fig. 1 includes Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 disclosed by ZHU (see ZHU at 2.1. Cyanobacterial species and culture conditions), and Synechococcus sp. PCCC 7002 as claimed.
KI as modified by ZHU and BENZERARA both teach biomineralization utilizing cyanobacteria. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). 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 modified the composition of KI by utilizing Synechococcus sp. PCCC 7002 as biomineralizing microorganism as disclosed by BENZERARA as an equivalent substitute for Synechocystis sp. PCC 6803 disclosed by ZHU to reap the benefits of utilizing cyanobacteria as a biomineralizing microorganism discussed in rejection of claim 2 above spanning paragraphs on pages 5-6.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KI in view of ZHU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Constantz et al. (WO 2010048457 A1), hereinafter referred to as CONSTANTZ, with evidence from Telschow et al. (Cement formation – a success story in a black box: high temperature phase formation of Portland cement clinker, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 2012. 51, pages 10983-11004), hereinafter referred to as TELSCHOW, as to the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 17, KI as modified by ZHU teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
grinding the mineral particles (see KI at paragraphs [0018]: the dried calcium carbonate solids are pulverized and powdered to obtain the final calcium carbonate fine powder);
but KI fails to explicitly teach
heating the ground particles with other additives to a temperature of greater than 1500°C to form clinker;
grinding the clinker to form Portland cement.
However, CONSTANTZ teaches producing a synthetic carbonate component from divalent cation-containing solution (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [0007]). CONSTANTZ also teaches that the carbonate compounds precipitated from a solution of divalent cations are carbonate minerals including calcium carbonate (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [0058]); which obtained by subjecting the solution of divalent cations to conditions that facilitate precipitation; rapid precipitation of carbonate-containing material can be achieved by using naturally-occurring proton-removing agents, such as microorganisms (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [00105]). With respect to claim 17, CONSTANTZ teaches grinding the mineral particles (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [00157]: the dried precipitation material may undergo further processing (e.g., grinding)); the ground particles with other additives (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [00154]: one or more components may be added to the precipitation material); grinding the clinker to form Portland cement (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [00161]; use of a precipitated calcium carbonate as clinker replacement; resultant Portland cement). While CONSTANTZ discloses the use of precipitated calcium carbonate mixed with other components as clinker replacement, he does not explicitly teach heating the ground particles with other additives to a temperature of greater than 1500°C. However, TELSCHOW discloses that at the heart of cement production are high temperature processes (up to 2000°C temperatures), where raw materials undergo several chemical changes to form clinker crystal phases as the main constituents of most cement types (see TELSCHOW at Introduction, right column, paragraph 1). Therefore, heating a mixture to a high temperature to form clinker is a known technique and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Finally, CONSTANTZ teaches that the use of calcium carbonate additive from a carbon sequestration precipitation rather than natural mined limestone has several advantages, such as containing less impurities than mined limestone (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [00161]) and reducing carbon footprint (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [00160]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of incorporating the steps of forming Portland cement disclosed by CONSTANTZ into the method of KI. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used the steps of forming a cement paste disclosed by CONSTANTZ since CONSTANTZ explicitly teaches that the use of calcium carbonate additive from a carbon sequestration precipitation rather than natural mined limestone has several advantages such as containing less impurities than mines limestone (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [00161]) and reducing carbon footprint (see CONSTANTZ at paragraph [00160]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the steps of forming a cement paste disclosed by CONSTANTZ in order to reduce carbon footprint.
Regarding claim 18, KI as modified by ZHU and CONSTANTZ teaches the method of claim 17. Additionally, KI teaches adding water to the Portland cement (paragraphs [0023]: Portland cement, and [0005]: mixing calcium carbonate with cement and water).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 22 is 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, and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of KI with ZHU in rejecting claim 1 with respect to the limitation “producing mineral particles using the one or more of biomineralizing microorganisms and biomineralizing macroorganisms within the growth medium by photosynthesis” is improper (see Remarks received on 12/23/2025 spanning paragraphs on page 7).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. KI discloses a method for producing a calcium carbonate fine powder using microorganisms and a cement mortar containing calcium carbonate fine powder produced by the method (see KI at paragraph [0001]). The objective of KI’s invention is to provide a calcium carbonate fine powder of a desired size by precipitating calcium carbonate having the same chemical composition as that of limestone on a natural material by using microorganisms in order to alleviate issues associated with limestone production such as increased carbon emission (see KI at paragraphs [0003-4]). Moreover, ZHU discloses that a variety of microorganisms are capable of inducing carbonate precipitation through physiological activities such as photosynthesis, ureolysis, denitrification, and sulfate reduction, or by serving as a template for crystal nucleation (see ZHU at 1.Introduction, left column, second paragraph, p. 154). Thus, based on the aforementioned disclosure of ZHU, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the method of KI for forming a cement mortar containing a calcium carbonate can be practiced utilizing microorganisms capable of inducing carbonate precipitation through physiological activities such as photosynthesis as well as ureolysis. Moreover, microorganisms capable of inducing carbonate precipitation through physiological activities such as photosynthesis and ureolysis are art equivalences known for the same purpose. And while KI’s composition includes microorganisms having urea decomposition function, according to MPEP §2144.01 states: “"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that substituting microorganism disclosed by KI for microorganisms disclosed by ZHU would result in the cementitious mixture comprising calcium carbonate.
Similarly to the aforementioned reasoning, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that substituting microorganism disclosed by KI for microorganisms disclosed by JACOB would result in the cementitious mixture comprising calcium carbonate. The rationale to modify the method of KI by utilizing microalgae such as Emiliania huxleyi disclosed by JACOB (see JACOB at Introduction, left column, first paragraph) is based on JACOB’s disclosure describing biomineralizing microorganisms comprising microalgae (see JACOB at Abstract: the microalgae Emiliania huxleyi, which belongs to the group of coccolithophores, produces micro-structured calcite platelets, called coccoliths), and that calcite particles exhibit versatile and unique properties and are therefore suitable for numerous applications (see JACOB at Introduction, left column, first paragraph).
Therefore, the rejections of claims as being unpatentable over KI in view of ZHU and KI in view of JACOB are maintained.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding amended claim 6 (see Remarks received on 12/23/2025 at second paragraph on page 8), it is noted that KI discloses producing cement mortar by mixing the calcium carbonate fine powder produced by the method of the invention together with cement and water (see KI at paragraph [0005]). Therefore, KI as modified by ZHU describing obtaining calcium carbonate particles in the form of globular precipitates and rhombohedral crystals (see ZHU at 3.1.2. Characterization of mineral precipitation, left column, p. 157), discloses the method wherein a morphology of a first portion of the crystalline calcium carbonate particles is rounded, and wherein a morphology of a second portion of the crystalline calcium carbonate particles is angular.
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 ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731