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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 01/07/2026 and the Amendment filed 05/12/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 12-23 are presently pending and under examination; claim 11 is canceled; claims 1, 13 and 15 are amended.
The objection to the abstract is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the abstract.
A new objection to claim 15 is present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-10, and 12 over CLODIC is withdrawn; the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 13-15, 18 and 20-23 over CLODIC, claim 16 over CLODIC in view of GILLIAM, claim 17 over CLODIC in view of WEISS, claim 19 over CLODIC in view of PANESAR are maintained; the rejection of claim 11 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 15 contains a grammatical error; it appears that “further a blending” should read “and further blending” (see claim 15 at lines 4-5).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
11. Claim 12 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.
12. Claim 12 is dependent on canceled claim 11; therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained and the claim is indefinite.
13. Claim 12 recites the limitations "the alkali metal accelerator" and “the alkaline earth metal accelerator” (see claim 12 at lines 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
14. 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.
15. Claim 12 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.
16. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 11, which is canceled. Therefore, claim 12 is of improper dependent form as it cannot further limit the subject matter of or include all the limitations of a canceled claim.
17. 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 § 102
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 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clodic, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0255542-A1) (hereinafter, “CLODIC”).
Regarding claim 1, CLODIC teaches a cement blend composition (see CLODIC generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0004]), comprising: reactive vaterite cement (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0003]-[0004]) and supplementary cementitious material (SCM) comprising aluminosilicate material (see CLODIC at paragraph [0004], teaching SCMs comprising aluminosilicate material, e.g., pozzolan-lime cement and slag-lime cement), and further comprising a sulfate salt comprising sulfate and an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0007] and [0009], teaching gypsum, i.e., calcium sulfate, which is a sulfate salt comprising sulfate and an alkaline earth metal).
Regarding claim 2, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition is a cement paste or cement slurry composition (see CLODIC at paragraph [0004], teaching a wet paste, and teaching combining the cement with water, i.e., forming a cement slurry composition) further comprising at least one of aragonite cement, calcite, carboaluminate hydrate, water, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraph [0004], teaching water).
Regarding claim 3, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the reactive vaterite cement has at least one of a specific surface area of between about 100-10,000 m2/kg (see CLODIC at paragraph [0091], teaching a specific a specific surface area range with a minimum of 10 m2/gm, i.e., 10,000 m2/kg); a spherical particle shape having an average particle size of between about 0.1-100 μm (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004], [0037], [0058] and [0091], teaching spherical particles of vaterite, wherein the composition comprising carbonate (i.e., the vaterite cement) has a mean particle size of between 1 to 25 μm); and/or further comprises magnesium oxide (see CLODIC at paragraph [0119], teaching magnesium oxide).
Regarding claim 4, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the reactive vaterite cement reacts with the aluminosilicate material to form carboaluminate hydrate comprising monocarboaluminate, hemicarboaluminate, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004] and [0037], teaching that the carbonate material (i.e., the vaterite cement) reacts with aluminate phases (i.e., of the aluminosilicate material) to form carboaluminate hydrate comprising monocarboaluminates and hemicarboaluminates).
Regarding claim 5, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the aluminosilicate material comprises at least one of a heat-treated clay, natural or artificial pozzolan, granulated blast furnace slag, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004], [0056], [0092] and [0096], teaching pozzolan cement, pozzolan-lime cement, natural and artificial pozzolans, fly ash (which is a pozzolan), slag-lime cement, blast furnace cement (i.e., blast furnace slag), and metakaolin, which is a heat-treated clay).
Regarding claims 6-8, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 5, wherein the heat-treated clay comprises calcined clay as required by claim 6; wherein the heat-treated clay is obtained from clay material or from the untreated clay material belonging to a mineral from the kaolin group, as required by claim 7; and wherein the kaolin group comprises kaolinite, as required by claim 8 (see CLODIC at paragraph [0092], teaching metakaolin, which is a heat-treated, calcined kaolinite clay).
Regarding claim 9, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises Portland cement clinker (see CLODIC at paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the SCM further comprises a carbonate material comprising at least one of limestone, calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, calcium magnesium carbonate, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004], [0052] and [0056], teaching SCMs including, e.g., amorphous calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, calcium carbonate, and limestone).
Regarding claim 12, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises alkali metal accelerator and/or an alkaline earth metal accelerator, and wherein the alkali metal accelerator or alkaline earth metal accelerator is selected from sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, potassium hydroxide, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraph [0113], teaching an alkaline/alkali agent such as potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate or potassium carbonate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 13-15, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLODIC.
Regarding claims 13-14, as applied to claim 1 above, CLODIC teaches a composition according to claim 1, comprising by weight
between about 10-50% reactive vaterite cement (see CLODIC at paragraph [0092], teaching 10% to 70%, by weight, of the composition comprising carbonate, i.e., the reactive vaterite),
and between about 10-35% aluminosilicate material comprising heat-treated clay (see CLODIC at paragraph [0092], teaching that the remainder (after the 10-70% vaterite) of the composition is primarily CAC (i.e., 30% to 90% by weight), wherein the CAC has admixtures such as metakaolin, a heat-treated clay aluminosilicate material; see also CLODIC at paragraph [0056], teaching that the composition may comprise 10% to 50% by weight of e.g. blast furnace slag or fly ash, which are aluminosilicate materials),
and further comprising between about 0-10% limestone (see CLODIC at paragraph [0056], teaching 0.1% to 1% limestone by weight),
and between about 15-90% Portland cement clinker (see CLODIC at paragraph [0088], teaching 10% to 90% by weight of Portland cement, e.g., 20% to 80%, e.g., 75%)
as required by claim 13,
and further comprising between about 0.1-5% by weight gypsum (see CLODIC at paragraph [0056], teaching 0.1% to 10% gypsum by weight), as required by claim 14.
Each of these ranges lies within, encompasses, or overlaps with the claimed ranges, thereby rendering the claimed ranges obvious. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 15, CLODIC teaches a method of producing a cement blend composition (see CLODIC generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0003]-[0005] and [0097]-[0100]) comprising:
(i) producing a reactive vaterite cement composition (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0003]-[0005]); and
(ii) blending a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) comprising aluminosilicate material with the reactive vaterite cement composition to produce a cement blend composition (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0003]-[0005], teaching blending a composition comprising carbonate, i.e., reactive vaterite cement, with SCMs comprising aluminosilicate material, e.g., pozzolan-lime cement and slag-lime cement), and further blending with a sulfate salt comprising sulfate and an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0007] and [0009], teaching gypsum, i.e., calcium sulfate, which is a sulfate salt comprising sulfate and an alkaline earth metal),
wherein the cement blend composition comprises by weight an amount of aluminosilicate material overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 10-35% (see CLODIC at paragraph [0092], teaching that the remainder (after the 10-70% vaterite) of the composition is primarily CAC (i.e., 30% to 90% by weight), wherein the CAC has admixtures such as metakaolin, a heat-treated clay aluminosilicate material; see also CLODIC at paragraph [0056], teaching that the composition may comprise 10% to 50% by weight of e.g. blast furnace slag or fly ash, which are aluminosilicate materials). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 18, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, wherein the aluminosilicate material comprises heat-treated clay, natural or artificial pozzolan, granulated blast furnace slag, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004], [0056], [0092] and [0096], teaching pozzolan cement, pozzolan-lime cement, natural and artificial pozzolans, fly ash (which is a pozzolan), slag-lime cement, blast furnace cement (i.e., blast furnace slag), and metakaolin, which is a heat-treated clay).
Regarding claims 20-21, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, further comprising mixing a carbonate material with the aluminosilicate material before the blending step (ii), as required by claim 20, and mixing Portland cement clinker with the aluminosilicate material before the blending step (ii), as required by claim 21 (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0009] and [0096], teaching that Portland cement (which comprises some carbonate material) may be mixed with, e.g., masonry cements comprising limestone (which is a carbonate material) and SCMs comprising aluminosilicate material, such as pozzolan-lime cements and slag-lime cements; i.e., carbonate material and aluminosilicate material may be combined/mixed prior to mixing these SCMs with the vaterite cement).
Regarding claim 22, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, further comprising adding water to the cement blend composition and transforming the reactive vaterite cement to aragonite cement and/or calcite upon dissolution and re-precipitation in water (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005] and [0057], teaching contacting the cementitious composition with water and converting the vaterite to aragonite and/or calcite as the carbonate compounds dissolve and re-precipitate).
Regarding claim 23, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 22, further comprising reacting the reactive vaterite cement with the aluminosilicate material to form carboaluminate hydrate comprising monocarboaluminate, hemicarboaluminate, or a combination thereof (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0004] and [0037], teaching that the carbonate material (i.e., the vaterite cement) reacts with aluminate phases (i.e., of the aluminosilicate material) to form carboaluminate hydrate comprising monocarboaluminates and hemicarboaluminates).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLODIC in view of Gilliam, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0261428-A1) (hereinafter, “GILLIAM”).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 15 above, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, further comprising producing the reactive vaterite cement composition by
(a) providing calcined limestone to form a mixture comprising lime, and providing a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005], [0100] and [0116]-[0117], teaching contacting a gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with a proton removing agent to form CO2 charged water, wherein the proton-removing agent may be a naturally occurring proton-removing agent, e.g., a mineral such as lime (CaO), i.e., calcined limestone);
(b) dissolving the mixture comprising lime in a N-containing salt solution to produce an aqueous solution comprising calcium salt (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0016], [0089], [0116]-[0117] and [0128]-[0136], teaching contacting the CO2 charged water (i.e., the mixture comprising lime) with, e.g., a salt water absorbing solution, which may comprise nitrates (i.e., an N-containing salt solution), having a source of divalent cations, wherein the source of divalent cations may be, e.g., hydrated lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide, which is a calcium salt), or gypsum, which is a calcium salt, may be used as a source of calcium to form carbonate compositions such as calcium carbonate, which is a calcium salt); and
(c) treating the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide to form a composition comprising reactive vaterite cement (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005], [0098]-[0100], [0113] and [0115]-[0117], teaching contacting the gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with the aqueous solution forms the composition comprising carbonate, i.e., the reactive vaterite cement).
However, regarding (a) above, CLODIC fails to explicitly teach a process step of calcining the limestone to form the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide.
GILLIAM teaches a method of forming calcium carbonate comprising vaterite (which may be used as a supplementary cementitious material) comprising calcining limestone to form a mixture comprising lime and a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide, then dissolving the lime in an aqueous N-containing salt solution, then contacting the solution with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide to for a precipitation material comprising calcium carbonate which comprises vaterite (see GILLIAM at paragraphs [0057]-[0059] and [0071]). GILLIAM teaches that this method of calcining limestone to form the carbon dioxide gas which is used to precipitate the vaterite provides several advantages such as reduction of carbon dioxide emissions through the incorporation of the carbon dioxide back into the process, operating expense savings through reduction in fuel consumption, and reductions in carbon footprint (see GILLIAM at paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of CLODIC by calcining limestone to produce the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide and mixture comprising lime, then dissolving the lime in the aqueous N-containing salt solution and contacting that solution with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide in order to form the vaterite as taught by GILLIAM (see GILLIAM at paragraphs [0057]-[0059] and [0071]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and carbon footprint and reducing operating expense and fuel consumption as taught by GILLIAM (see GILLIAM at paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLODIC in view of Weiss, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0261429-A1) (hereinafter, “WEISS”).
Regarding claim 17, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 15, further comprising producing the reactive vaterite cement composition by
(a) dissolving calcined limestone in a N-containing salt solution to produce an aqueous solution comprising calcium salt, and providing a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005], [0016], [0089], [0100], [0116]-[0117] and [0128]-[0136], teaching contacting a gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with, e.g., a salt water comprising a proton removing agent to form CO2 charged water, wherein the salt water absorbing solution may comprise nitrates (i.e., an N-containing salt solution), and wherein proton-removing agent may be a naturally occurring proton-removing agent, e.g., a mineral such as lime (CaO), i.e., calcined limestone (i.e., the calcined limestone is dissolved in the N-containing salt solution), and contacting the CO2 charged water with a source of divalent cations, wherein the source of divalent cations may be, e.g., hydrated lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide, which is a calcium salt), or gypsum, which is a calcium salt, may be used as a source of calcium to form carbonate compositions such as calcium carbonate, which is a calcium salt); and
(b) treating the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide to form a composition comprising reactive vaterite cement (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0005], [0098]-[0100], [0113] and [0115]-[0117], teaching contacting the gas stream comprising carbon dioxide with the aqueous solution forms the composition comprising carbonate, i.e., the reactive vaterite cement).
However, regarding (a) above, CLODIC fails to explicitly teach a process step of dissolving limestone which produces the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide.
WEISS teaches a method of forming calcium carbonate comprising vaterite (which may be used as a supplementary cementitious material) comprising dissolving limestone in an aqueous N-containing inorganic salt solution to produce a first aqueous solution comprising calcium salt, and a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide, then treating the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt with the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide to form a precipitation material comprising calcium carbonate which comprises vaterite (see WEISS at paragraphs [0043] and [0061]). WEISS teaches that this method of using limestone directly then using the carbon dioxide gas produced to treat the aqueous solution and form the vaterite provides several advantages such as reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, operating expense savings through the reduction in fuel consumption, reductions in carbon footprint, and additional environmental benefits (see WEISS at paragraphs [0071]-[0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of CLODIC by directly dissolving limestone in an N-containing solution to produce the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt and the gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide, then using the produced gaseous stream to treat the aqueous solution and form the vaterite as taught by WEISS (see WEISS at paragraph [0043]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and carbon footprint and providing additional environmental benefits while also reducing operating expense and fuel consumption as taught by WEISS (see WEISS at paragraphs [0071]-[0072]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CLODIC in view of Panesar, Daman K., "3 - Supplementary cementing materials", Developments in the Formulation and Reinforcement of Concrete (Second Edition), pages 55-85, Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering, 2019 (hereinafter, “PANESAR”).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 18 above, CLODIC teaches a method according to claim 18.
However, CLODIC fails to explicitly teach that the method further comprises heating a clay material at a temperature between 500-1100 °C to produce the heat-treated clay before the blending step (ii) and/or further comprising grinding the heat-treated clay.
PANESAR teaches that metakaolin is a supplementary cementing material which is produced by the calcination of kaolinitic clay at temperatures between 500 °C and 900 °C (see PANESAR at pg. 1).
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 modified the method of CLODIC by incorporating, before the blending step (ii), a step of heating a clay material at a temperature of between about 500 °C and 900 °C to produce the heat-treated clay (metakaolin) as taught by PANESAR, as PANESAR teaches that it is known in the art of supplementary cementitious materials that this is the process by which metakaolin is produced. One of ordinary skill in the art could have obtained the metakaolin through this process with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of forming metakaolin which is useful as a supplementary cementitious material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that CLODIC does not teach the new limitation of claims 1 and 15 requiring a sulfate salt comprising sulfate and an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal (see Remarks at pg. 6-7). In response to this argument, the Examine respectfully disagrees; as set forth in the rejections above, CLODIC explicitly teaches that the composition comprises gypsum (see CLODIC at paragraphs [0007] and [0009]), i.e., calcium sulfate, which is a sulfate salt comprising sulfate and an alkaline earth metal.
Consequently, for at least these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 on 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights