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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/18/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but some of the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 10-21, in the reply filed on 09/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/22/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 10, 100, 200 and 210 (see Fig. 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
The abstract contains a grammatical error in lines 1-2, reading “It is specifically referred to the production of a cement”; it appears that this should read “It specifically refers to the production of a cement”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the tables on pages 10 and 11 of the specification and on pg. 9, line 9, commas used as decimal points should be replaced with periods to adhere to standard U.S. English number formatting conventions; e.g., “21,28” should read “21.28”, etc.
On pg. 8, lines 28-30, the use of periods instead of commas in the Blaine fineness values appears to be a typo; it appears that “2.500 to 12.000 cm2/g, preferably 3.600-5.500 cm2/g” should read “2,500 to 12,000 cm2/g, preferably 3,600-5,500 cm2/g”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 18-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, it is suggested to amend the typeface of “characterized in that” (see claim 1 at line 2) to match the typeface of every other word in the claims (i.e., it appears to be a mistake that these three words are in bold typeface).
In claims 1, 3-5, 7, 15 and 19-20, there should not be a space between numbers and percent signs; e.g., “5-95 %” should read “5-95%” (see claim1 at line 15), etc.
Claim 18 recites “step i. is performed…” (see claim 18 at line 2); claim 19 recites “step ii. is performed…” (see claim 19 at line 2); and claim 20 recites “in step iv., the…” (see claim 20 at line 2); each claim should end with a period, but periods should not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations (see MPEP 608.01(m)).
Claims 7 and 10 both appear to include a typo; it appears that “according to any of the claim 2” should read “according to claim 2” (see claims 7 and 10 each at line 1).
Claim 13 is grammatically incorrect, reading “the activator being added when of the agglomeration of cement” (see claim 13 at lines 2-3); the claim should be amended to be grammatically correct.
In claim 21, the use of periods instead of commas in the Blaine fineness values appears to be a typo; it appears that “2.500 to 12.000 cm2/g, preferably 3.600-5.500 cm2/g” should read “2,500 to 12,000 cm2/g, preferably 3,600-5,500 cm2/g”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of claim interpretation, “C3S” as recited in claim 19 (see claim 19 at line 2) is interpreted as meaning tricalcium silicate, as this is the typical definition as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-21 are 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.
The term “low-carbon” in claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “low-carbon” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what properties are required for a clinker or cement to be considered “low-carbon” as claimed, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
For purposes of examination, “low-carbon cement” is interpreted as meaning any cement produced by the claimed method, and “low-carbon clinker” is interpreted as meaning any clinker obtained by the claimed steps. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "ii. start of a clinkering process with a pre-calcined raw material, thereby obtaining an intermediate material" (see claim 1 at lines 7-8); from this language, it not clear what step ii actually is or how an intermediate material is obtained, as “start of a clinkering process” is vague and does not indicate what step ii actually entails, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. It is therefore also not clear in what way, if any, the intermediate material differs from the pre-calcined raw material.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated “start of a clinkering process” as recited in claim 1 as meaning that the pre-calcined raw material is heated to a temperature above room temperature (i.e., subjected to a calcination step). Clarification is requested.
Claims 2, 6, 12 and 16 each recite the limitation “wherein it further comprises” (see each claim at lines 1-2), rendering each claim indefinite as it is not clear to what “it” is meant to refer.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claims 2, 6, 12 and 16 as though they recite “the method” instead of “it”. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claims 3-4, 7, 11, 15-16 and 21, the phrases "preferably", “more preferably”, and/or “even more preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further, the recitation of “more preferably” in claims 3-4, 7 and 15 indicates that the first range recited in each claim is also merely a preference rather than a requirement, as the prior range would have to be “preferable” in order for the second range to be “more preferable”. I.e., it is not clear whether any range limitations at all are required by claims 3-4, 7 and 15.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated limitations following “preferably”, “more preferably” or “even more preferably” in claims 3-4, 7, 11, 15-16 and 21 as merely being preferences rather than actual required limitations. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation 0.1-10 %, and the claim also recites 0.1-5 %, 0.1-3 %, and 0.5-3 %, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 3 as though it recites a range of 0.1-10 %. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation 5-95%, and the claim also recites 5-20%, 20-50%, 50-70% and 70-95%, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 4 as though it recites a range of 5-95%. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation 0.1-30%, and the claim also recites 10-20% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Further, claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the carbonate component optionally consists of limestone… and is present in a concentration of 0.1-30 %...” (see claim 7 at lines 5-6); from this language, it is not clear whether the recited concentration ranges are also optional limitations or are meant to be required limitations.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 7 as though it recites a required range of 0.1-30%. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation 0.1-20%, and the claim also recites 0.1-15% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 15 as though it recites a range of 0.1-20%. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the additional component” (see claim 12 at line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that “at least one additional component” is positively recited in claim 2, but not in claim 1, from which claim 12 depends.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated limitations following “such as” as not being part of the claimed invention. Clarification is requested.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the agglomeration of cement" (see claim 13 at line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, claim 13 recites “the activator being added when of the agglomeration of cement” renders the claim indefinite as this wording does not make sense and as no agglomeration of cement is recited in claims 12 or 1, from which claim 13 depends, so it is not clear at what point the activator is meant to be added to the cement.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 13 as though it recites “A method according to claim 12 wherein the additional inorganic mineral comprises an activator.” Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further, claim 14 recites “wherein the additional inorganic mineral comprises an activator, the activator comprising strongly alkaline materials, such as sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide…” (see claim 14 at lines 1-3); however, sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide do not exist as minerals, so it is not clear whether the claim actually requires an inorganic mineral or if strongly alkaline materials such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide would be included as meeting the limitations of the claim, rendering the scope further indefinite. The meaning of “inorganic mineral” is further confused by the present specification, which states that the inorganic mineral comprises the activator (see pg. 5, line 26 - pg. 6, line 2), but then states that the activator may comprise gluconates, naphthalenes, polycarboxylates, amines or their combinations (see pg. 6, lines 21-24), which are neither inorganic nor minerals.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated limitations following “such as” as not being part of the claimed invention, and treated claim 14 as actually requiring an inorganic mineral. Clarification is requested.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein it is present in a concentration…” (see claim 15 at lines 1-2). This language renders the claim indefinite as there is no indication as to what “it” is meant to refer, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated “it” in claim 15 as referring to the activator of claim 14. Clarification is requested.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the additional component” (see claim 16 at line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that “at least one additional component” is positively recited in claim 2, but not in claim 1, from which claim 16 depends.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein it further comprises the addition of an additional organic mineral… the additional organic mineral comprising a grinding aid or an admixture, the grinding aid preferably comprising a tensioactive composition and/or the admixture preferably comprising a plasticizer, a superplasticizer or a retarder” (see claim 16 at lines 1-6). However, minerals are by definition inorganic, and tensioactive compositions (i.e., surfactants) are not minerals, so the meaning of “organic mineral” is not clear, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
For purposes of Examination, Examiner treated claim 16 as meaning that the method further comprises the addition of an organic material comprising a grinding aid or an admixture. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 17, the phrases "such as” and “for instance” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated limitations following “such as” and “for instance” as not being part of the claimed invention. Clarification is requested.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the pre-calcination of step i. is performed along a pre-calciner of a cyclone tower” (see claim 18 at lines 1-2). The use of the word “along” renders the claim indefinite, as it is not clear from this language whether the pre-calcination actually takes place in the pre-calciner. Further, claim 1, from which claim 18 depends, does not require the pre-calcination step i unless the raw material comprises limestone, and claim 18 does not clarify that the pre-calcination step is actually required, which further renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether claim 18 is meant to require a raw material comprising limestone and step i, or whether step i is still optional in claim 18 but, if the raw material comprises limestone, step i is performed as recited in claim 18.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 18 as though it recites a method according to claim 1 wherein the raw material comprises limestone, and wherein the pre-calcination of step i is performed in a pre-calciner of a cyclone tower. Clarification is requested.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein step ii. is performed… with a C3S content above 60 %” (see claim 19 at lines 1-3). It is not clear from this language to what is meant to have a C3S content above 60%, i.e., whether this is meant to refer to a C3S content in the pre-calcined raw material or in the intermediate material. Page 10 of the specification mentions a C3S content in the clinker above 60%, which does not help to clarify the meaning of claim 19 as the clinker does not exist yet in step ii, which only recites a pre-calcined raw material and an intermediate material which undergoes subsequent processing to form the clinker as claimed. The claim also does not specify whether “60 %” is a measurement based on weight or volume, further rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear; no clarity could be located in the specification regarding whether this is a percentage by weight or by volume.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 19 as meaning that the intermediate material has a C3S content above 60% by weight. Clarification is requested.
Claims 5, 10 and 20 are included herein as each depends from a claim which is indefinite for reasons set forth above.
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.
Claims 4, 6, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, which recites the limitation “adding the obtained low-carbon clinker in a concentration of 5-95 % weight/weight (w/w)” (see claim 1 at lines 15-16). Claim 4 recites the further limitation “wherein the low-carbon clinker is added in a concentration of 5-95%” (see claim 4 at lines 1-2), which is already recited by claim 1; as set forth in the 112(b) rejection above, limitations following the phrase “more preferably” are not treated as being part of the claimed invention. Therefore, claim 4 is of improper dependent form as it fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 2, which recites the limitation “the addition of at least one additional component to the low-carbon clinker and calcium sulphate” (see claim 2 at lines 2-3). Claim 6 recites the further limitation “wherein it further comprises the addition of Portland clinker to the low-carbon clinker and the at least one additional component” (see claim 6 at lines 1-3), which does not include the calcium sulphate recited by claims 1 and 2 which is also mixed with the low-carbon clinker and the at least one additional component. Therefore, claim 6 is of improper dependent form as it fails to include all limitations of claim 2 upon which it depends.
Claims 12 is dependent on claim 1, which recites the limitation “adding the obtained low-carbon clinker… to calcium sulphate” (see claim 1 at lines 15-16). Claims 12 recites the further limitation “wherein it further comprises the addition of an additional inorganic mineral to the low-carbon clinker and to the additional component” (see claim 12 at lines 1-3; it is noted that the “additional component” is not part of claim 1, but is combined with the low-carbon clinker and the calcium sulphate in claim 2), which does not include the calcium sulphate recited by claim 1 which is also mixed with the low-carbon clinker. Therefore, claim 12 is of improper dependent form as it fails to include all limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Claims 16 is dependent on claim 1, which recites the limitation “adding the obtained low-carbon clinker… to calcium sulphate” (see claim 1 at lines 15-16). Claims 16 recites the further limitation “wherein it further comprises the addition of an additional organic mineral to the low-carbon clinker and to the additional component” (see claim 16 at lines 1-3; it is noted that the “additional component” is not part of claim 1, but is combined with the low-carbon clinker and the calcium sulphate in claim 2), which does not include the calcium sulphate recited by claim 1 which is also mixed with the low-carbon clinker. Therefore, claim 16 is of improper dependent form as it fails to include all limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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 1-7 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesus De Sequeira Serra Nunes, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0272540-A1) (hereinafter, “JDSSN”) in view of Bullerjahn, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0144339-A1) (hereinafter, “BULLERJAHN”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, JDSSN teaches a method for producing a low-carbon cement (see JDSSN generally at Abstract and paragraphs [0001] and [0025]) characterized in that it comprises the following steps:
obtaining a low-carbon clinker (see JDSSN at Abstract), the low-carbon clinker being obtained by the following steps:
for a raw material comprising limestone, pre-calcination of such limestone in the raw material (see JDSSN at Abstract);
start of a clinkering process with a pre-calcined raw material, thereby obtaining an intermediate material (see JDSSN at Abstract);
cooling the intermediate material (see JDSSN at Abstract);
introduction of silico-aluminous materials and mixing with the intermediate material at a cooler head (see JDSSN at Abstract), such introduction being performed by a dosing conveyor and buffered by a double inlet valve (see JDSSN at paragraphs [0030] and [0039]), and thereby obtaining a low-carbon clinker (see JDSSN at Abstract),
adding the obtained low-carbon clinker to calcium sulphate, thereby obtaining the low-carbon cement (see JDSSN at paragraph [0003], teaching that after clinker is produced other materials, including calcium sulfate, are added to obtain cement).
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the low-carbon clinker is in a concentration of 5-95% weight/weight (w/w).
BULLERJAHN teaches a method of producing a low-carbon cementitious binder comprising cement and a calcined supplementary cementitious material (SCM; i.e., a low-carbon clinker) comprising silico-aluminous materials (see BULLERJAHN at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0031]-[0040]) and calcium sulfate (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), wherein the SCM (i.e., low-carbon clinker) is present in a concentration of 30 to 90% by weight (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0065]). BULLERJAHN teaches that this is an effective amount of SCM to form hydraulic cement binder resulting in savings in terms of raw materials and requiring less energy to produce than standard Portland cement (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0032]-[0035] and [0065]).
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 JDSSN by including the low-carbon clinker in a concentration of 30-90% by weight as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0065]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the low-carbon clinker in this amount with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of forming an effective hydraulic cement binder which will harden upon contact with water, and would have been motivated to make a low-carbon cement using this amount of the low-carbon clinker for the benefit of forming an effective hydraulic cement binder resulting in savings in terms of raw materials and requiring less energy to produce than standard Portland cement (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0032]-[0035] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the addition of at least one additional component to the low-carbon clinker and calcium sulphate, wherein: the at least one additional component comprises a pozzolanic material, a carbonate component, a blast furnace slag, silica fume, burnt shale and/or their combinations (see JDSSN at paragraph [0003], teaching that additional materials are added to clinker to obtain cement, including pozzolanas, limestone (a carbonate component), calcined clay, blast furnace slag, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1.
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the calcium sulphate is present in a proportion of 0.1-10% w/w.
BULLERJAHN teaches a method of producing a low-carbon cementitious binder comprising cement and a calcined supplementary cementitious material (SCM; i.e., a low-carbon clinker) comprising silico-aluminous materials (see BULLERJAHN at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0031]-[0040]) and calcium sulfate in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and claim 20). BULLERJAHN teaches that calcium sulphate acts as a sulphate carrier and can be used in this amount to form an effective hydraulic cement binder (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0032] and [0065]-[0066]).
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 JDSSN by including the calcium sulphate in a concentration of 0.1-10% by weight as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and claim 20). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the calcium sulphate in this amount with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a sulphate carrier which adjusts the cement setting rate (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066]; see JDSSN at paragraph [0003]) and forming an effective hydraulic cement binder which will harden upon contact with water (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0032] and [0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 2 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 2.
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the additional component is added in a concentration of 6-94% w/w.
BULLERJAHN teaches a method of producing a low-carbon cementitious binder comprising cement and a calcined supplementary cementitious material (SCM; i.e., a low-carbon clinker) comprising silico-aluminous materials (see BULLERJAHN at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0031]-[0040], calcium sulfate (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), and an additional component such as granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash, silica fume, etc., in an amount of up to 40% by weight, e.g., 10 to 20% by weight (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0070]). BULLERJAHN teaches that such SCMs reduce raw material input and lower the energy requirement of the cement, and that these components can be used in this amount to form an effective hydraulic cement binder (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0003], [0070]-[0072] and [0030]-[0033]).
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 JDSSN by including the additional SCM component, e.g. blast furnace slag, fly ash, etc., in a concentration of 10-20% by weight as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0070]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the additional component in this amount with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing an effective amount of SCM material and forming an effective hydraulic cement binder which will harden upon contact with water while reducing the raw material input and lowering the energy requirement of the cement (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0003], [0070]-[0072] and [0030]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 2 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 2.
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the method further comprises the addition of Portland clinker to the low-carbon clinker, the calcium sulphate and the at least one additional component.
BULLERJAHN teaches a method of producing a low-carbon cementitious binder comprising mixing Portland cement with a calcined supplementary cementitious material (SCM; i.e., a low-carbon clinker) comprising silico-aluminous materials (see BULLERJAHN at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0031]-[0040] and calcium sulfate (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066]). BULLERJAHN teaches that combining the SCM (i.e., low-carbon clinker) with Portland cement forms an effective hydraulic cement binder having reduced raw material input and energy requirement (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0032]).
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 JDSSN by combining the low-carbon clinker with Portland cement as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0001]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have mixed the clinker with Portland cement with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of forming a hydraulic cement binder, and would have been motivated to mix the low-carbon clinker with Portland cement for the benefit of forming an effective hydraulic cement binder having reduced raw material input and energy requirement (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 2 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 2, wherein the additional component comprises a carbonate component (see JDSSN at paragraph [0003], teaching that additional materials are added to clinker to obtain cement, including limestone, which is a carbonate component).
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the carbonate component is present in a concentration of 0.1-30% w/w.
BULLERJAHN teaches a method of producing a low-carbon cementitious binder comprising cement and a calcined supplementary cementitious material (SCM; i.e., a low-carbon clinker) comprising silico-aluminous materials (see BULLERJAHN at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0031]-[0040], calcium sulfate (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), and an additional component such as limestone in an amount of 5 to 30% by weight (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0070] and claim 24). BULLERJAHN teaches that rock flour materials such as limestone can be used in this amount to form an effective hydraulic cement binder (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0003], [0070] and [0030]-[0033]).
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 JDSSN by including the carbonate component (limestone) in a concentration of 5-30% by weight as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0070] and claim 24). One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the limestone in this amount with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing an appropriate amount of filler material and forming an effective hydraulic cement binder (see JDSSN at paragraph [0003]; see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0003], [0070] and [0030]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 2 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 2, wherein the additional component comprises a pozzolanic material, the pozzolanic material consisting of fly ash, calcined clay, bottom ash, another natural or artificial silica-aluminous material, or combinations thereof (see JDSSN at paragraph [0003], teaching that additional materials are added to clinker to obtain cement, including pozzolanic materials such as fly ash and calcined clays).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 10 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 10, wherein the pozzolanic material comprises calcined clay (see JDSSN at paragraph [0003], teaching that additional materials are added to clinker to obtain cement, including pozzolanic materials such calcined clays).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the addition of an additional inorganic mineral to the low-carbon clinker and the calcium sulphate, the additional inorganic mineral comprising an additive (see JDSSN at paragraphs [0003]-[0004], teaching that additional materials (additives) are added to clinker to obtain cement, including materials comprising inorganic minerals, e.g., blast furnace slag, calcined clay and diatomite).
Regarding claims 13-15, as applied to claim 12 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 12.
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the additional inorganic mineral comprises an activator, as required by claim 13; the activator comprising strongly alkaline materials, as required by claim 14; and wherein the activator is present in a concentration within a range of 0.1-20% w/w, as required by claim 15.
BULLERJAHN teaches a method of producing a low-carbon cementitious binder comprising cement and a calcined supplementary cementitious material (SCM; i.e., a low-carbon clinker) comprising silico-aluminous materials (see BULLERJAHN at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0031]-[0040], calcium sulfate (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), and a strongly alkaline activator, e.g., calcium hydroxide, in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0030], [0033] and [0074]). BULLERJAHN teaches that an activator such as calcium hydroxide used in this amount activates hardening of pozzolanic materials and accelerates the hardening of latent hydraulic materials, forming an effective hydraulic cement binder (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0030], [0032]-[0033] and [0074]).
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 JDSSN by including 0.1 to 5% by weight of calcium hydroxide as an activator as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [[0030], [0033] and [0074]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an activator in this amount for the benefit of activating hardening of pozzolanic materials and accelerating hardening of latent hydraulic materials and forming an effective hydraulic cement binder (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0030], [0032]-[0033] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the addition of an admixture to the low-carbon clinker and the calcium sulphate, e.g., setting adjusters (see JDSSN at paragraph [0003]).
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the admixture is organic.
BULLERJAHN teaches method of producing a low-carbon cementitious binder comprising cement and a calcined supplementary cementitious material (SCM; i.e., a low-carbon clinker) comprising silico-aluminous materials (see BULLERJAHN at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0031]-[0040], calcium sulfate (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), and organic plasticizers and/or retarders, e.g., those based on lignin sulphonates (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0069]). BULLERJAHN teaches organic plasticizers/retarders are concrete additives, and that concrete can be obtained from the cement binder (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0069] and [0077]).
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 JDSSN by using an organic retarder (e.g., a retarder based on lignin sulphonate) as a setting adjuster, as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0069]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an organic retarder for the benefit of being able to adjust the setting rate of the cement and forming a concrete from the cement (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0069] and [0077]).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the silico-aluminous materials are selected from: blast furnace slag, clay, marl clays, shale, schist and combinations thereof, natural pozzolanas, diatomite and processed materials (see JDSSN at paragraphs [0040] and [0042]).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the raw material comprises limestone, and wherein the pre-calcination of step i is performed in a pre-calciner of a cyclone tower (see JDSSN at Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein step ii is performed at a temperature higher than 1400 °C and with a C3S content above 60% (see JDSSN at Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein, in step iv, the silico-aluminous materials are introduced in 5 to 30% w/w relative to the intermediate material (see JDSSN at Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1,
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the Blaine fineness of the cement is within the range of 2,500 to 12,000 cm2/g.
BULLERJAHN teaches method of producing a low-carbon cementitious binder comprising cement and a calcined supplementary cementitious material (SCM; i.e., a low-carbon clinker) comprising silico-aluminous materials (see BULLERJAHN at Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0003] and [0031]-[0040], calcium sulfate (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066]), wherein the Blaine fineness is 3,500 to 8,000 cm2/g (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0058]). BULLERJAHN teaches that it is especially suitable to grind the SCM together with the other cement and binder constituents to a fineness of 3,500 to 8,000 cm2/g, and that this results in the final binder being present in typical cement fineness (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0058] and [0060]).
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 JDSSN by using a cement Blaine fineness of 3,500 to 8,000 cm2/g, as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0058]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a Blaine fineness within this range for the benefit of producing a cement having typical cement fineness as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0058] and [0060]).
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