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
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/08/2025.
Claims 16-57 are presently pending; claims 1-15 are canceled; claims 35-57 are withdrawn; claims 16, 21, 23, 25, 27 and 33-34 are amended; claims 16-34 are under examination.
The objection to the abstract is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the abstract.
The objections to claims 16-17 and 23 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejections of claims 16-34 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and of claims 25 and 33-34 under 35 U.S.C 112(d) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 16-34 over TARLTON in view of MONKMAN and of claims 16-21, 23-30 and 32-34 over TARLTON in view of PARVIZ are maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of claim interpretation, “green concrete part” as recited in claims 16 and 26 (see claim 16 at lines 11-12 and claim 26 at line 2) is interpreted as meaning a concrete part that has enough integrity to be handled, as this would appear most in keeping with Applicant’s intent as discussed in the specification at paragraph [0015].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarlton, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,238,279-A) (hereinafter, “TARLTON”) in view of Monkman, et al. (WO-2018/232507-A1) (hereinafter, “MONKMAN”).
Regarding claim 16, TARLTON teaches a method for manufacturing a concrete part (see TARLTON generally at col. 1, lines 9-12) comprising the following steps:
providing aggregate and a hydraulic cement containing calcium aluminates (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 32-42, teaching a concrete composition comprising aggregate and Portland cement, which contains calcium aluminates, and limestone; Portland cements and limestone-containing Portland cements are the most preferred hydraulic cements of the present invention as discussed in Applicant’s specification at paragraph [00017]),
mixing the cement and aggregate with water to provide a fresh concrete (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 32-42),
curing the fresh concrete until at least 15 wt.-% of the calcium aluminates are hydrated to provide a green concrete part (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 43-68, teaching curing the concrete until it reaches 90% hydration and is in a stable jell state),
subjecting the green concrete part to CO2 in an amount resulting in a carbonation degree of more than 10 wt.-% of the total carbonatable Ca and Mg phases for a final carbonation step (see TARLTON at col. 2, lines 42-55 and col. 8, line 43 - col. 9, line 2, teaching further curing the concrete by carbonating it with 10 to 20% by volume CO2 for 8 hours, then increasing the temperature and subjecting the concrete to a second carbonation stage for an additional 8 hours, resulting in complete carbonation of the concrete product), and
storing the concrete part for 0.5 hours to 28 days for further hydration of not-yet carbonated, not-yet hydrated cement to provide the concrete part (see TARLTON at col. 10, lines 59-64, teaching that the concrete product is submerged in cold water for 24 hours, i.e., is stored in water for 24 hours; see also TARLTON at col. 2, lines 8-20 and col. 8, lines 22-23, teaching that the process results in a salable concrete product, and that the product continues to air cure over time; it is obvious that when the concrete is removed from the kiln it must be stored somewhere for a certain amount of time in order to be sold or used, and TARLTON teaches that long periods of testing (during which the concrete would have to be stored somewhere) have revealed that there is no subsequent deterioration and that the structural characteristics continue to improve over time, therefore TARLTON explicitly teaches that the amount of time the concrete is stored is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).).
However, TARLTON fails to explicitly teach introducing CO2 into the fresh concrete mix in an amount resulting in a carbonation degree of more than 0.5 wt.-% and less than 5 wt.-% of the total amount of carbonatable Ca and Mg phases for a first carbonation step.
MONKMAN teaches a method for manufacturing concrete comprising mixing aggregate and Portland cement (see MONKMAN at Abstract and paragraphs [0007], [0017], [00117], and [00272]) and comprising carbonating the concrete mixture by introducing carbonated wash water, which is included such that an amount of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide reaction products provided by the carbonated wash water to the concrete mix can be, e.g., at least 0.01% by weight (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [0004], [00117] and [00192]). MONKMAN teaches that treating wash water with carbon dioxide and re-using the carbonated wash water and some or all of the solids in the wash water as cementitious material in subsequent concrete batches provides a method of sequestering and/or offsetting carbon dioxide while also decreasing costs and waste (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00213]-[00214] and [00219]), and that concrete made with carbonated wash water exhibits greater strength than concrete made with untreated water (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00211]-[00212]).
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 TARLTON by incorporating a step of carbonating the concrete mix prior to curing by introducing carbonated wash water to the mix such that the carbon dioxide reaction products provided by the carbonated wash water to the concrete mix are at least 0.01% by weight as taught by MONKMAN (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00117] and [00192]); i.e., the carbonation degree would overlap with and thereby render obvious the claimed range of more than 0.5 wt.-% and less than 5 wt.-%. 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)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of decreasing costs and waste, providing carbon sequestration, and increasing concrete strength as taught by MONKMAN (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00211]-[00214] and [00219]).
TARLTON and MONKMAN do not explicitly mention that the carbonation degree is calculated as 0.785 x (CaO - 0.56 CaCO3 - 0.7 SO3) + 1.091 x (MgO - 0.479 MgCO3); however, this formula is used to calculate carbonation degree, and TARLTON and MONKMAN teach carbonation degrees within or overlapping with the claimed ranges as set forth above, therefore the carbonation degrees resulting from calculating via the recited formula would be expected to be within or overlapping with the claimed ranges. Further, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a process and resulting product as claimed by the present claim, therefore the concrete of TARLTON in view of MONKMAN would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as the claimed concrete, including carbonation degrees as claimed when calculated using the recited formula. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the CO2 is provided in the fresh concrete by one or more of (i) mixing of cement, aggregate and water in the presence of CO2, (ii) adding solid CO2 during mixing, (iii) dissolving CO2 in an aqueous component added to form the fresh concrete, (iv) pre-carbonating the cement before mixing, and/or (v) soaking a part or all of the aggregate with a CO2 containing solution before mixing (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00105], [00117], [00121], [00187], [00192] and [00219], teaching carbonating the wash water which is subsequently added to the concrete mix by adding CO2 (as a solid, liquid, gas, or combination thereof) to a mixer with the wash water (i.e., (i), (ii) and (iii) as claimed), and teaching that that the wash water that is carbonated contains suspended solids in the form of aggregate and cementitious materials and that carbon dioxide is sequestered as part of carbonated wash solids (i.e., (v) as claimed, as aggregate is soaked in the CO2-containing wash water before being added to the concrete mix with the wash water)).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the hydraulic cement is selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, Portland composite cements, calcium aluminate cements, calcium sulfoaluminate cements and dicalcium silicate cements (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 32-42, teaching Portland cement).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16.
TARLTON does not explicitly mention that the water:cement weight ratio in the fresh concrete is set to range from 0.1 to 1.
However, TARLTON teaches that the amount of water added affects the ability of the ingredients to be bound together as well as the ability of the concrete mix to maintain its shape (see TARLTON at col. 4, lines 51-58), and MONKMAN teaches that the water/cement ratio affects the strength of the concrete, and provides an example wherein the water/cement ratio is 0.5 (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00192] and [00266]); both TARLTON and MONKMAN therefore explicitly teach that the water:cement ratio is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the unspecified water:cement ratio of TARLTON with a ratio of 0.5 as taught by MONKMAN (see MONKMAN at paragraph [00192]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used a ratio of 0.5 with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing enough water to bind the ingredients (see MONKMAN at paragraph [00192]; see TARLTON at col. 4, lines 51-58).
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the fresh concrete additionally contains one or more admixture(s) and/or one or more additive(s) (see TARLTON at col. 8, line 38-39, teaching including limestone and a retarding agent in the concrete mix).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the CO2 is introduced into the fresh concrete by dissolving the carbon dioxide in the mixing water or a part of it, in an admixture solution and/or suspension, in an additive solution and/orsuspension, or in more than one aqueous component (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [0004], [00107], [00117], [00147] and [00192], teaching carbonating the mixing water, e.g. by dissolving CO2 in the water, which is subsequently added to the concrete mix).
Regarding claim 22, as applied to claim 17 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 17, wherein the CO2 is introduced into the fresh concrete by a combination of two or more of the variants (i) to (v) (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00105], [00117], [00121], [00187], [00192] and [00219], teaching carbonating the wash water which is subsequently added to the concrete mix by adding CO2 (as a solid, liquid, gas, or combination thereof) to a mixer with the wash water (i.e., (i), (ii) and (iii) as claimed), and teaching that that the wash water that is carbonated contains suspended solids in the form of aggregate and cementitious materials and that carbon dioxide is sequestered as part of carbonated wash solids (i.e., (v) as claimed, as aggregate is soaked in the CO2-containing wash water before being added to the concrete mix with the wash water)).
Regarding claim 23, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the CO2 introduced in the first carbonation step has a concentration from 5 to 99 Vol.-% and/or is provided in the form of gas, solution or as solid material (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00121], [00150] and [00239], teaching providing the CO2 in the form of a gas, liquid or solid).
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the amount of CO2 introduced in the first carbonation step results in a carbonation degree overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of less than 4 wt.-% (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00117] and [00192], teaching including the carbonated wash water such that an amount of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide reaction products provided by the carbonated wash water to the concrete mix can be, e.g., at least 0.01% by weight; i.e., the carbonation degree would overlap with the claimed range of less than 4 wt.-%.). 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 25, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the fresh concrete is cured for an amount of time overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 60 to 300 minutes (see TARLTON at col. 5, lines 10-15, teaching curing the concrete block (having a size of 8” x 8” x 16” or similar) for a duration of 4 hours (i.e., 240 minutes) to 12 hours). 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 26, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the CO2 used for subjecting the green concrete part to CO2 is provided in the form of gas with a concentration from 5 to 99 Vol.-% (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 58-61, teaching 10 to 20% by volume CO2 gas).
Regarding claim 27, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the introduced CO2 and/or the CO2 to which the green part is subjected is a gas from modified clinker production lines or from carbon capture technologies (see MONKMAN at paragraph [00150], teaching that the source of the carbon dioxide can be flue gas recovered from a cement kiln operation).
Regarding claim 28, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the fresh concrete is filled into a mold after mixing or after the first carbonation step and demolded after curing (see TARLTON at col. 1, lines 37-44 and col. 8, lines 41-44, teaching molding the concrete mixture and removing from the molds once hydration is nearly complete).
Regarding claim 29, as applied to claim 18 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 18, wherein the hydraulic cement is selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, Portland composite cements and dicalcium silicate cements (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 32-42, teaching Portland cement).
Regarding claim 30, as applied to claim 19 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 19.
TARLTON does not explicitly mention that the water:cement weight ratio in the fresh concrete is set to range from 0.2 to 0.5.
However, TARLTON teaches that the amount of water added affects the ability of the ingredients to be bound together as well as the ability of the concrete mix to maintain its shape (see TARLTON at col. 4, lines 51-58), and MONKMAN teaches that the water/cement ratio affects the strength of the concrete, and provides an example wherein the water/cement ratio is 0.5 (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00192] and [00266]); both TARLTON and MONKMAN therefore explicitly teach that the water:cement ratio is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the unspecified water:cement ratio of TARLTON with a ratio of 0.5 as taught by MONKMAN (see MONKMAN at paragraph [00192]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used a ratio of 0.5 with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing enough water to bind the ingredients (see MONKMAN at paragraph [00192]; see TARLTON at col. 4, lines 51-58).
Regarding claim 31, as applied to claim 22 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 22, wherein the CO2 is introduced by using a carbon dioxide solution depleted in CO2 by soaking the aggregate according to variant (v) as mixing water according to variant (iii) or by using gaseous carbon dioxide with a CO2 concentration decreased by having been bubbled through the fresh concrete during mixing in variant (i) for pre-carbonating the dry cement according to variant (iv) (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00105], [00117], [00121], [00187], [00192] and [00219], teaching carbonating the wash water which is subsequently added to the concrete mix by adding CO2 (as a solid, liquid, gas, or combination thereof) to a mixer with the wash water (i.e., (iii) as claimed), and teaching that that the wash water that is carbonated contains suspended solids in the form of aggregate and cementitious materials and that carbon dioxide is sequestered as part of carbonated wash solids (i.e., (v) as claimed, as aggregate is soaked in the CO2-containing wash water before being added to the concrete mix with the wash water, which would deplete the CO2 in the wash water as the solids sequester CO2)).
Regarding claim 32, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the first carbonation step results in a carbonation degree overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of less than 3 wt.-% and more than 1 wt.-% (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00117] and [00192], teaching including the carbonated wash water such that an amount of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide reaction products provided by the carbonated wash water to the concrete mix can be, e.g., at least 0.01% by weight; i.e., the carbonation degree would overlap with the claimed range of less than 3 wt.-%. And more than 1 wt.-%). 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 33, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the fresh concrete is cured for an amount of time overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 30 to 240 minutes (see TARLTON at col. 5, lines 10-15, teaching curing the concrete block (having a size of 8” x 8” x 16” or similar) for a duration of 4 hours (i.e., 240 minutes) to 12 hours). 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 34, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16. TARLTON does not explicitly teach that the fresh concrete is cured for 10 to 120 minutes and/or until a strength of 2 MPa is reached.
However, TARLTON teaches that the time of the first phase of the curing cycle can vary over reasonably wide ranges depending upon the volume and density of the product to be cured, and that the curing time affects the extent of hydration and properties of the resulting product (see TARLTON at col. 2, lines 28-41). Therefore, TARLTON explicitly teaches that the curing time is a result-effective variable which can be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine experimentation and optimization, the curing time for the fresh concrete, including times of 10 to 120 minutes as claimed, in order to achieve the desired hydration extent and properties of the resulting stable jell state product for a concrete block of a certain volume/density as taught by TARLTON (see TARLTON at col. 2, lines 28-41).
Claims 16-21, 23-30 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TARLTON in view of Parviz Soroushian, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,935,317-A) (hereinafter, “PARVIZ”).
Regarding claim 16, TARLTON teaches a method for manufacturing a concrete part (see TARLTON generally at col. 1, lines 9-12) comprising the following steps:
providing aggregate and a hydraulic cement containing calcium aluminates (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 32-42, teaching a concrete composition comprising aggregate and Portland cement, which contains calcium aluminates, and limestone; Portland cements and limestone-containing Portland cements are the most preferred hydraulic cements of the present invention as discussed in Applicant’s specification at paragraph [00017]),
mixing the cement and aggregate with water to provide a fresh concrete (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 32-42),
curing the fresh concrete until at least 15 wt.-% of the calcium aluminates are hydrated to provide a green concrete part (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 43-68, teaching curing the concrete until it reaches 90% hydration and is in a stable jell state),
subjecting the green concrete part to CO2 in an amount resulting in a carbonation degree of more than 10 wt.-% of the total carbonatable Ca and Mg phases for a final carbonation step (see TARLTON at col. 2, lines 42-55 and col. 8, line 43 - col. 9, line 2, teaching further curing the concrete by carbonating it with 10 to 20% by volume CO2 for 8 hours, then increasing the temperature and subjecting the concrete to a second carbonation stage for an additional 8 hours, resulting in complete carbonation of the concrete product), and
storing the concrete part for 0.5 hours to 28 days for further hydration of not-yet carbonated, not-yet hydrated cement to provide the concrete part (see TARLTON at col. 10, lines 59-64, teaching that the concrete product is submerged in cold water for 24 hours, i.e., is stored in water for 24 hours; see also TARLTON at col. 2, lines 8-20 and col. 8, lines 22-23, teaching that the process results in a salable concrete product, and that the product continues to air cure over time; it is obvious that when the concrete is removed from the kiln it must be stored somewhere for a certain amount of time in order to be sold or used, and TARLTON teaches that long periods of testing (during which the concrete would have to be stored somewhere) have revealed that there is no subsequent deterioration and that the structural characteristics continue to improve over time, therefore TARLTON explicitly teaches that the amount of time the concrete is stored is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).).
However, TARLTON fails to explicitly teach introducing CO2 into the fresh concrete mix in an amount resulting in a carbonation degree of more than 0.5 wt.-% and less than 5 wt.-% of the total amount of carbonatable Ca and Mg phases for a first carbonation step.
PARVIZ teaches a method for manufacturing concrete comprising Portland cement and aggregate which includes a step of pre-curing the mixture for 1 hour with 20% CO2 gas prior to steam curing (see PARVIZ at Abstract and col. 5, lines 29-50 and claim 8). PARVIZ teaches that including a step of pre-treatment with CO2 before steam curing makes the concrete product more capable of withstanding elevated temperatures and pressure of the accelerated curing process without microcracking and damage and results in improved stability, impermeability and strength (see PARVIZ at col. 2, lines 5-21 and 43-63).
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 TARLTON by incorporating a carbonation step prior to steam curing as taught by PARVIZ (see PARVIZ at Abstract and col. 5, lines 29-50). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of making the concrete product more capable of withstanding elevated temperatures and pressure of the accelerated curing process without microcracking and damage, resulting in improved stability, impermeability and strength as taught by PARVIZ (see PARVIZ at col. 2, lines 5-21 and 43-63).
PARVIZ does not explicitly mention that the carbonation degree resulting from the pre-carbonation step is more than 0.5 wt.-% and less than 5 wt.-% of the total carbonatable Ca and Mg phases; however, PARVIZ teaches adjusting the relative humidity for optimum pre-carbonation, and teaches that the duration of the pre-carbonation step (and resulting degree of carbonation) depends on factors including the characteristics of the follow-on accelerated curing process and the target properties of the product after accelerated curing (see PARVIZ at col. 4, lines 9-23). PARVIZ therefore explicitly teaches that the carbonation degree resulting from the pre-carbonation step is a result-effective variable which affects the required curing characteristics and the properties of the concrete product and which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine experimentation and optimization, the carbonation degree of the pre-carbonation step, including carbonation degrees more than 0.5 wt.-% and less than 5 wt.-% as claimed, in order to achieve optimized parameters for the follow-on accelerated curing process and to achieve desired properties of the concrete product (see PARVIZ at col. 4, lines 9-23).
TARLTON and PARVIZ do not explicitly mention that the carbonation degree is calculated as 0.785 x (CaO - 0.56 CaCO3 - 0.7 SO3) + 1.091 x (MgO - 0.479 MgCO3); however, this formula is used to calculate carbonation degree, and TARLTON and PARVIZ teach carbonation degrees which are within the claimed ranges or which render obvious the claimed ranges as set forth above, therefore the carbonation degrees resulting from calculating via the recited formula would be expected to be within or overlapping with the claimed ranges. Further, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a process and resulting product as claimed by the present claim, therefore the concrete of TARLTON in view of PARVIZ would be expected to have the same or overlapping properties as the claimed concrete, including carbonation degrees as claimed when calculated using the recited formula. MPEP § 2112.01 (I) states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2112.01 (II) states that “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the CO2 is provided in the fresh concrete by one or more of (i) mixing of cement, aggregate and water in the presence of CO2, (ii) adding solid CO2 during mixing, (iii) dissolving CO2 in an aqueous component added to form the fresh concrete, (iv) pre-carbonating the cement before mixing, and/or (v) soaking a part or all of the aggregate with a CO2 containing solution before mixing (see PARVIZ at col. 5, lines 5-8 and 29-43, teaching that the pre-carbonation is accomplished by contacting the concrete with CO2 gas or by introducing a solution of CO2 during mixing, i.e., (i) as claimed).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the hydraulic cement is selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, Portland composite cements, calcium aluminate cements, calcium sulfoaluminate cements and dicalcium silicate cements (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 32-42, teaching Portland cement).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16.
TARLTON does not explicitly mention that the water:cement weight ratio in the fresh concrete is set to range from 0.1 to 1.
However, TARLTON teaches that the amount of water added affects the ability of the ingredients to be bound together as well as the ability of the concrete mix to maintain its shape (see TARLTON at col. 4, lines 51-58), and PARVIZ teaches that the moisture content of the concrete affects the penetration of CO2 gas into the product and amount of carbonation, and provides an example wherein the water-to-cement ratio is 0.5 (see PARVIZ at col. 3, lines 58-64 and col. 5, lines 29-32); both TARLTON and PARVIZ therefore explicitly teach that the water:cement ratio is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the unspecified water:cement ratio of TARLTON with a ratio of 0.5 as taught by PARVIZ (see PARVIZ at col. 5, lines 29-32). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used a ratio of 0.5 with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing enough water to bind the ingredients (see PARVIZ at col. 5, lines 29-32; see TARLTON at col. 4, lines 51-58).
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the fresh concrete additionally contains one or more admixture(s) and/or one or more additive(s) (see TARLTON at col. 8, line 38-39, teaching including limestone and a retarding agent in the concrete mix).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the CO2 is introduced into the fresh concrete by dissolving the carbon dioxide in the mixing water or a part of it, in an admixture solution and/or suspension, in an additive solution and/or suspension or in more than one aqueous component (see PARVIZ at col. 5, lines 5-8 and 29-43, teaching that the pre-carbonation is accomplished by introducing a solution of CO2 during mixing).
Regarding claim 23, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the CO2 introduced in the first carbonation step has a concentration from 5 to 99 Vol.-% and/or is provided in the form of gas, solution or as solid material (see PARVIZ at col. 5, lines 5-8 and 29-43, teaching that the pre-carbonation is accomplished by contacting the concrete with 20% CO2 gas or by introducing a solution of CO2 during mixing).
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 1.
TARLTON and PARVIZ do not explicitly mention that the amount of CO2 introduced in the first carbonation step results in a carbonation degree of less than 4 wt.-%; however, PARVIZ teaches adjusting the relative humidity for optimum pre-carbonation, and teaches that the duration of the pre-carbonation step (and resulting degree of carbonation) depends on factors including the characteristics of the follow-on accelerated curing process and the target properties of the product after accelerated curing (see PARVIZ at col. 4, lines 9-23). PARVIZ therefore explicitly teaches that the carbonation degree resulting from the pre-carbonation step is a result-effective variable which affects the required curing characteristics and the properties of the concrete product and which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine experimentation and optimization, the carbonation degree of the pre-carbonation step, including carbonation degrees of less than 4 wt.-% as claimed, in order to achieve optimized parameters for the follow-on accelerated curing process and to achieve desired properties of the concrete product (see PARVIZ at col. 4, lines 9-23).
Regarding claim 25, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the fresh concrete is cured for an amount of time overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 60 to 300 minutes (see TARLTON at col. 5, lines 10-15, teaching curing the concrete block (having a size of 8” x 8” x 16” or similar) for a duration of 4 hours (i.e., 240 minutes) to 12 hours). 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 26, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the CO2 used for subjecting the green concrete part to CO2 is provided in the form of gas with a concentration from 5 to 99 Vol.-% (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 58-61, teaching 10 to 20% by volume CO2 gas).
Regarding claim 27, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the introduced CO2 and/or the CO2 to which the green part is subjected is a gas from modified clinker production lines or from carbon capture technologies (see PARVIZ at col. 3, lines 10-12 and claim 5, teaching using gas derived from combustion emissions/flue gas as the carbon dioxide source; i.e., carbon capture technology, as captured CO2 gas is recycled and used to carbonate concrete).
Regarding claim 28, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the fresh concrete is filled into a mold after mixing or after the first carbonation step and demolded after curing (see TARLTON at col. 1, lines 37-44 and col. 8, lines 41-44, teaching molding the concrete mixture and removing from the molds once hydration is nearly complete).
Regarding claim 29, as applied to claim 18 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 18, wherein the hydraulic cement is selected from the group consisting of Portland cements, Portland composite cements and dicalcium silicate cements (see TARLTON at col. 8, lines 32-42, teaching Portland cement).
Regarding claim 30, as applied to claim 19 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 19.
TARLTON does not explicitly mention that the water:cement weight ratio in the fresh concrete is set to range from 0.2 to 0.5.
However, TARLTON teaches that the amount of water added affects the ability of the ingredients to be bound together as well as the ability of the concrete mix to maintain its shape (see TARLTON at col. 4, lines 51-58), and PARVIZ teaches that the moisture content of the concrete affects the penetration of CO2 gas into the product and amount of carbonation, and provides an example wherein the water-to-cement ratio is 0.5 (see PARVIZ at col. 3, lines 58-64 and col. 5, lines 29-32); both TARLTON and PARVIZ therefore explicitly teach that the water:cement ratio is a result-effective variable which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have simply substituted the unspecified water:cement ratio of TARLTON with a ratio of 0.5 as taught by PARVIZ (see PARVIZ at col. 5, lines 29-32). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used a ratio of 0.5 with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing enough water to bind the ingredients (see PARVIZ at col. 5, lines 29-32; see TARLTON at col. 4, lines 51-58).
Regarding claim 32, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16.
TARLTON and PARVIZ do not explicitly mention that the amount of CO2 introduced in the first carbonation step results in a carbonation degree of less than 3 wt.-% and more than 1 wt.-%; however, PARVIZ teaches adjusting the relative humidity for optimum pre-carbonation, and teaches that the duration of the pre-carbonation step (and resulting degree of carbonation) depends on factors including the characteristics of the follow-on accelerated curing process and the target properties of the product after accelerated curing (see PARVIZ at col. 4, lines 9-23). PARVIZ therefore explicitly teaches that the carbonation degree resulting from the pre-carbonation step is a result-effective variable which affects the required curing characteristics and the properties of the concrete product and which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine experimentation and optimization, the carbonation degree of the pre-carbonation step, including carbonation degrees of less than 3 wt.-% and more than 1 wt.-% as claimed, in order to achieve optimized parameters for the follow-on accelerated curing process and to achieve desired properties of the concrete product (see PARVIZ at col. 4, lines 9-23).
Regarding claim 33, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of MONKMAN teaches a method according to claim 16, wherein the fresh concrete is cured for an amount of time overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 30 to 240 minutes (see TARLTON at col. 5, lines 10-15, teaching curing the concrete block (having a size of 8” x 8” x 16” or similar) for a duration of 4 hours (i.e., 240 minutes) to 12 hours). 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 34, as applied to claim 16 above, TARLTON in view of PARVIZ teaches a method according to claim 16. TARLTON does not explicitly teach that the fresh concrete is cured for 10 to 120 minutes and/or until a strength of 2 MPa is reached.
However, TARLTON teaches that the time of the first phase of the curing cycle can vary over reasonably wide ranges depending upon the volume and density of the product to be cured, and that the curing time affects the extent of hydration and properties of the resulting product (see TARLTON at col. 2, lines 28-41). Therefore, TARLTON explicitly teaches that the curing time is a result-effective variable which can be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)), and that "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 138). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary, through routine experimentation and optimization, the curing time for the fresh concrete, including times of 10 to 120 minutes as claimed, in order to achieve the desired hydration extent and properties of the resulting stable jell state product for a concrete block of a certain volume/density as taught by TARLTON (see TARLTON at col. 2, lines 28-41).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 and the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed 11/18/2025 the have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“The hydrated blocks in Tarlton are completely hardened parts, not parts having only green strength, i.e., Tarlton applies carbonation to improve the properties of already hardened parts and not for hardening” (see Declaration at pg. 2).
“Tarlton clearly teaches hydration hardening as main strength developing process. Carbonation is applied to the hydrated blocks… Essentially no hydraulic cement phases are left for carbonation, only C-S-H phases” (see Remarks at pg. 15).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that TARLTON does not teach any carbonation hardening because the blocks are hydrated until they are “completely hardened”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection above, TARLTON explicitly teaches curing the concrete until it reaches at least approximately 80% hydration and is in a “stable jell state” (see TARLTON at, e.g., col. 2, lines 32-38 and col. 8, lines 43-68) before subsequent carbonation curing, and does not say that 100% hydration must be reached or a completely hardened part is achieved before carbonation curing. TARLTON explicitly teaches that after hydration to reach a stable jell state, curing takes place via concrete carbonation.
It is also noted that the present claim does not require that “main strength” of the concrete comes from carbonation; the requirements of the claim are a first carbonation step resulting in 0.5 to 5% carbonation, followed by curing, i.e., hardening, via hydration until at least 15 wt.-% of calcium aluminates are hydrated to provide a green part, followed by a second carbonation step resulting in a total carbonation degree of more than 10% (i.e., any amount above 15 wt.-% can be hydrated to provide the green part so long as an additional 5% to 9.5% of carbonation is possible to achieve a total of at least 10% carbonation of the Ca and Mg phases). As set forth in the claim interpretation section above, “green part” is interpreted as meaning having enough integrity to be handled as defined in Applicant’s specification, and TARLTON teaches hydration to achieve a green part, which is not fully hydrated/hardened, according to this definition, followed by further carbonation hardening.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“When carbonated wash water is used to partly replace fresh water for mixing concrete pastes, an unknown amount of carbonates is present during hydration of the cement phases” (see Declaration at pg. 4).
“Monkman contains no hint or motivation for adjusting the ratio of carbonates from the wash water to the total carbonatable Ca and Mg phases in the cement used for the fresh concrete… the ratio of carbonated wash water to fresh water as well as the amount of carbonates in the carbonated water is arbitrary… Monkman explicitly states that the carbonated wash water mainly contains carbonates and hydrogen carbonates. Thus, it comes clear that no CO2 shall be added to the fresh concrete via the carbonated wash water. An expert would refrain from it since excess CO2 is prone to escape during storage of the carbonated wash water for any length of time allowed in Monkman” (see Declaration at pg. 4).
“a formation of very small calcite crystals from reaction of Ca(OH)2 already liberated from the cement with the CO2 introduced into the fresh concrete is not possible by using carbonated wash water… Monkman introduces carbonates into the fresh concrete and not CO2” (see Declaration at pg. 6).
“The point stressed by Monkman is that hydration of cement and SCM in the wash water shall not influence the workability, setting, and hardening of the new concrete. The addition of CO2 is said to stop hydration of cement and SCM in the wash water by converting them into carbonates… While Monkman mentions that the new concrete may harden by carbonation e.g. in 0007 and claim 102, in the examples only hydration hardening is examined” (see Remarks at pg. 14).
“nothing in Tarlton or Monkman can prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to use a CO2 amount in the fresh concrete that results in a carbonation degree from 0.5 to 5 wt.-% of the total carbonatable Ca and Mg phases. The amounts of CO2 and ratios of it relating the cement/SCM in the wash water mentioned in Monkman are so variable that no specific ones can be recognized as optimum... When Tarlton is combined with Monkman, there is no first carbonation of the cement in the fresh concrete, instead only carbonates from the wash water are added and therein a high carbonation degree, presumably near to 100%, is aimed at” (see Remarks at pg. 15-16).
“Neither Tarlton nor Monkman describe or hint at a benefit from carbonating a small amount of the cement, then hydrating the calcium aluminates that hydrate very fast, and provide the main hardening via carbonation” (see Remarks at pg. 16).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is not obvious because in MONKMAN no carbon dioxide is introduced into the fresh concrete via the carbonated wash water, and an expert would not add any because it would escape during storage of the wash water, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MONKMAN very explicitly teaches introducing carbon dioxide to a wet cement mix to produce a carbonated wet cement mix (see MONKMAN at, e.g., paragraphs [0007], [00212], [00233]-[00235] and [00237]). MONKMAN explicitly teaches that there is carbon dioxide in the wash water, not just carbonates (see MONKMAN at, e.g., paragraphs [00192]-[00193], [00218] and [00233]-[00235]). Further, MONKMAN explicitly teaches that the carbon dioxide may be added to the wash water either just before use in the concrete or during mixing it with the fresh concrete, not before, resulting in carbonation reactions from addition of carbon dioxide to the fresh concrete (see MONKMAN at, e.g., paragraphs [00118]-[00119], [00218], [00233]-[00235]), which directly contradicts Applicant’s arguments that there are only carbonates and no CO2 introduced to the fresh concrete and that no CO2 can be added to the fresh concrete because excess CO2 is prone to escape during storage of the carbonated wash water for any length of time allowed in MONKMAN.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is nothing in MONKMAN that can prompt one of ordinary skill to use CO2 resulting in a carbonation degree of 0.5 to 5 wt.-% in the fresh concrete, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MONKMAN explicitly teaches that the carbon dioxide may be introduced to the wash water simultaneously to using the wash water as the mix water, and that the dose of carbon dioxide introduced to the fresh concrete during mixing with the carbonated wash water (i.e., carbon dioxide and wash water) may be an amount such that the amount of the total carbon dioxide reaction products in the concrete mix, i.e., the carbonation degree, is at least 0.01% by weight of cement, e.g., at least 0.5% and not more than 5.0% by weight of cement (see MONKMAN at, e.g., paragraphs [00192] and [00233]-[00235]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is not obvious because neither TARLTON nor MONKMAN describe a benefit of hydrating calcium aluminates and hardening via carbonation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the primary reference, TARLTON, explicitly teaches hydrating the cement until reaching a green state then hardening via carbonation as set forth in the rejection above.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references because MONKMAN does not describe a benefit of pre-carbonating a small amount of cement, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as set forth in the rejection above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a pre-carbonation step as taught by MONKMAN in the method of TARLTON for the benefit of decreasing costs and waste, providing carbon sequestration, and increasing concrete strength as taught by MONKMAN (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00211]-[00214] and [00219]).
It is also noted that the present claim does not require that “main strength” of the concrete comes from carbonation, as discussed above in paragraph 52.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., formation of “very small” calcite crystals) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is also noted that, although not relevant to the method as claimed, MONKMAN does explicitly teach that conditions of carbonation may be used that produce nanocrystalline carbonates such as nanocrystalline calcium carbonate (see MONKMAN at paragraphs [00115] and [00145]).
In response to Applicant's arguments against MONKMAN individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As set forth in the rejection above, the primary reference, TARLTON, teaches hydration (curing until at least 15 wt.-% of the calcium aluminates are hydrated) to achieve green strength followed by carbonation hardening, and MONKMAN teaches a first carbonation step followed by hydration, and it is the combination of these references which renders the claimed invention obvious (although, as acknowledged by Applicant, MONKMAN also teaches carbonation hardening).
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Parviz adds CO2 after drying of the fresh concrete for a precuring, so that CO2 is only added after initial hydration and not before. After the precuring with CO2, the hardening by steam curing does not use CO2 so that the parts harden by hydration and not by carbonation” (see Declaration at pg. 4).
“Parviz fails to describe a hardening by carbonation that provides the principal strength development phases” (see Remarks at pg. 14-15).
“Parviz optimizes amount and reaction time with CO2 for steam curing and not for a hydration with carbonation as main strength providing process. Thus, precarbonation in Parviz provides parts having green strength… whereas the present invention achieves green strength via hydration” (see Remarks at pg. 17).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the present invention is not obvious because PARVIZ adds CO2 after initial hydration, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. PARVIZ teaches that the concrete may be subjected to drying if needed to adjust the moisture content of the product before the pre-carbonation step, or that instead of drying, additional moisture may need to be introduced to adjust the moisture content of the product before the pre-carbonation step. Optionally adjusting the moisture content prior to the pre-carbonation step is not relevant to PARVIZ rendering obvious the pre-carbonation step as claimed. There is no limitation in claim 16 regarding whether the CO2 is introduced into the fresh concrete after it is mixed with water or during mixing with water, and some amount of initial hydration prior to the first carbonation step is not excluded from the claim.
In response to Applicant's arguments against PARVIZ individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As set forth in the rejection above, the primary reference, TARLTON, teaches hydration (curing until at least 15 wt.-% of the calcium aluminates are hydrated) to achieve green strength followed by carbonation hardening, and PARVIZ teaches a first carbonation step followed by hydration, and it is the combination of these references which renders the claimed invention obvious.
It is also noted that the present claim does not require that “main strength” or “principal strength” of the concrete comes from carbonation, as discussed above in paragraph 52.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Parviz uses 1 hour exposure to the CO2, see examples 1 and 2, whereas according to the invention a reaction time from 15 seconds to 15 minutes is mentioned, see [0027]-[0030]. Therefore it can be ruled out that the treatment in Parviz achieves the claimed low carbonation degree, much higher ones are inherent” (see Remarks at pg. 16-17).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that much higher carbonation degrees are inherent in PARVIZ because PARVIZ includes an example of 1 hour of carbonation whereas the invention uses a reaction time of 15 seconds to 15 minutes, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as in paragraphs [0027]-[0032] of the present specification, it is explicitly stated that the invention can use a reaction time of up to 100 minutes to achieve the carbonation degree of 0.5% to 5%, which is a longer time than the 1 hour in the example of PARVIZ. Additionally, as set forth in the rejection above, PARVIZ explicitly teaches that the duration of pre-carbonation step and resulting carbonation degree is a result-effective variable which affects the required curing characteristics and the properties of the concrete product and which may be optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Steam and high pressure are not needed or used according to the invention so that the problems with steam curing solved by Parviz with precarbonation cannot occur and the motivation of Parviz for precarbonation is absent” (see Remarks at pg. 17).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as set forth in the rejection above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a precarbonation step in the method of TARLTON for the benefit of making the concrete product more capable of withstanding elevated temperatures and/or pressure of the accelerated curing process without microcracking and damage, resulting in improved stability, impermeability and strength as taught by PARVIZ (see PARVIZ at col. 2, lines 5-21 and 43-63). It is also noted that the use of steam and/or high pressure is not excluded from the present claim and the use of steam/pressure or lack thereof in the present invention is not relevant to the current rejection. TARLTON in view of PARVIZ renders obvious the claimed limitations.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“Examiner argues that completing hydration after carbonation is present in Tarlton, since Tarlton describes a test for water absorption… this submersion is part of the quality testing and not applied to the blocks sold” (see Remarks at pg. 13).
“the final product cannot contain hydrates formed by hydration after the second carbonation step” (see Remarks at pg. 15).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the concrete of TARLTON cannot undergo further hydration during storage because submersion in water is part of quality testing, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is clear from rejection above, this test was mentioned as evidence that the concrete part is stored for a given amount of time. As discussed in the rejection above, TARLTON clearly teaches that that the product continues to air cure over time and the structural characteristics continue to improve over time.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
“relying on the invention as the aim is unpermitted hindsight” (see Remarks at pg. 18).
However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive:
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
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 extension fee 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 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