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 06/07/2026.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 10-27 are presently pending; claims 2-3 and 8-9 are canceled; claim 22 is withdrawn; claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 10-21 are amended; claims 23-27 are new; claims 1, 4-7, 10-21 and 23-27 are under examination.
The objections to the drawings and abstract are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the drawings and abstract; some of the objections to the specification are withdrawn in light of amendments to the specification, and others are maintained as set forth below.
The objections to claims 4-5, 7, 15 and 19-20 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; some of the objections to claim 1 are withdrawn, and others are maintained as set forth below; the objection to claim 3 is moot as this claim has been canceled.
New objections to claims 1 and 26 are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejections of claims 4-5, 7, 10-15, 17-18 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are maintained; some of the 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 6, 16 and 19 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims, and others are maintained as set forth below; the 112(d) rejections of claims 4, 12 and 16 are maintained; the 112(d) rejection of claim 6 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; the rejections of claims 2-3 are moot as these claims have been canceled.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-7 and 10-21 over JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN are maintained; the rejection of claims 2-3 is moot as these claims have been canceled.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the table on page 12 of the specification, commas used as decimal points should be replaced with periods to adhere to standard U.S. English number formatting conventions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 26 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 claim 1, “further comprising” should read “and further comprises” (see claim 1 at line 19).
In claim 26, there should be a comma after “sodium silicate” (see claim 26 at line 3).
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, 4-7, 10-21 and 23-27 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, 4, 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 scopes 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 “the pre-calcined raw material” (see claim 1 at line 8). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that amended claim 1 positively recites “a pre-calcinated raw material” (see claim 1 at line 7), but not a “pre-calcined” raw material.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated the “pre-calcined” raw material as referring to the same material as the previously recited pre-calcinated raw material. Clarification is requested.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “characterized in that it comprises the following steps: … adding the obtained low-carbon clinker… to calcium sulphate, thereby obtaining the low-carbon cement; further comprising the addition of at least one additional component… and calcium sulphate in a proportion of 0.1-10% w/w” (see claim 1 at lines 2, 16-19 and 21-22); it is not clear from this language whether only the calcium sulphate is being added in a proportion of 0.1-10%, or whether both the additional component and the calcium sulphate are being added in a proportion of 0.1-10%. Further, the claim does not say to what material the additional component and calcium sulphate are being added. It is also not clear whether the concentration of the clinker is 5-95% before or after the following step of adding the additional component and the calcium sulphate. Further, as written, the claim requires one step of adding clinker to calcium sulphate, then a second step of adding calcium sulphate again in a specific concentration. It is not clear from this language whether the claim is actually supposed to require two steps of adding calcium sulphate, and if so, whether the “proportion of 0.1-10% w/w” actually limits the claim as any amount of calcium sulphate could be used in the first step where the clinker is added to calcium sulphate, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 1 as though it recites only a single step of adding the low-carbon clinker and at least one additional component to calcium sulphate, thereby obtaining the low-carbon cement, wherein the low-carbon clinker is present in a concentration of 5-95-% w/w and the calcium sulphate is present in a concentration of 0.1-10% w/w. Clarification is requested.
Claims 5-7 and 24-25 are dependent on canceled claim 2; therefore, the scopes of these claims cannot be ascertained and the claims are indefinite.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claims 5-7 and 24-25 as though they depend from claim 1 rather than claim 2. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “further comprising the addition of a Portland clinker” (see claim 6 at line 2), but does not say to what material the Portland clinker is being added, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, Examiner treated claim 6 as meaning that Portland clinker is added to the low-carbon cement. Clarification is requested.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “further comprising the addition of an additional organic mineral… the additional organic mineral comprising a grinding aid or an admixture, the grinding aid comprising a tensioactive composition and/or the admixture 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a C3S content above 60 %” (see claim 19 at lines 1-3), but does not specify whether “60 %” is a measurement based on weight or volume, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite; 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.
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 23 recites the broad recitation 0.1-5%, and the claim also recites 0.1-3% and 0.5-3%, which are 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 23 as though it recites a range of 0.1-5%. Clarification is requested.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the additional inorganic mineral comprises an activator, the activator comprising sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide…” (see claim 26 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 sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide would be included as meeting the limitations of the claim, rendering the scope 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 claim 26 as actually requiring an inorganic mineral. Clarification is requested.
Claim 27 recites the limitations “the Blaine fineness” and “the range” (see claim 27 at lines 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 10-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20-21 are included herein as each depends from a claim which is indefinite for the 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 4-7, 12, 16 and 24-25 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 5-20-% w/w, 20-50-% w/w, 50-70-% w/w or 70-95-% w/w” (see claim 4 at lines 1-3), which is exactly the same as reciting a concentration of 5-95%, and is already recited by claim 1; as set forth in the 112(b) rejection above. Therefore, claim 4 is of improper dependent form as it fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 upon which it depends.
Claims 5-7 and 24-25 are dependent on claim 2, which is canceled. They are therefore of improper dependent form as they cannot further limit the subject matter of or include all the limitations of a canceled claim.
Claim 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 “further comprising the addition of an additional inorganic mineral to the low-carbon clinker and to the additional component” (see claim 12 at lines 1-3), 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.
Claim 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 “further comprising the addition of an additional organic mineral to the low-carbon clinker and to the additional component” (see claim 16 at lines 1-3), 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
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, 4-7, 10-21 and 23-27 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, 4 and 23, 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:
pre-calcination of limestone of a raw material comprising limestone, thereby obtaining a pre-calcinated raw material (see JDSSN at Abstract);
clinkering of the pre-calcinated 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, obtained in step iii, 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]), thereby obtaining a low-carbon clinker (see JDSSN at Abstract), and
adding the obtained low-carbon clinker and at least one additional component comprising a pozzolanic material, a carbonate component, a blast furnace slag, silica fume, burnt shale and/or their combinations 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 and additional materials such as pozzolanas, limestone (a carbonate component), calcined clay, blast furnace slag, etc., 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), and the calcium sulphate is in a concentration of 0.1-10% w/w, as recited by claim 1, or 0.1-5% w/w, as recited by claim 23.
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 2 to 5% by weight (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0065]-[0066] and claim 20), 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]), and 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 low-carbon clinker in a concentration of 30-90% by and including the calcium sulphate in a concentration of 2-5% 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 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]). 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 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1.
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 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1.
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the method further comprises the addition of a Portland clinker.
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 claims 7 and 24, as applied to claim 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the additional component comprises a carbonate component consisting of a natural material, a waste product or a combination thereof, wherein the carbonate component consists of limestone, magnesium carbonate, calcium magnesium carbonate or combinations thereof (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, as recited by claim 7, or 10-20% w/w, as recited by claim 24.
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 10 to 20% 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 10-20% 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 1 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claim 1, 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 and 25-26, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN teaches a method according to claims 1 and 12, comprising the addition of an additional inorganic mineral.
However, JDSSN fails to explicitly teach that the additional inorganic mineral comprises an activator, as required by claims 13 and 25; the activator comprising strongly alkaline materials, as required by claim 14, and comprising sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, calcium oxide, calcium nitrate, potassium nitrate or sodium silicate, as recited by claim 26; and wherein the activator is present in a concentration within a range of 0.1-20% w/w, as required by claim 15, or 0.1-15%, as required by claim 26.
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 plasticizer/retarder (e.g., 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 claims 21 and 27, 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, as recited by claim 21, or 3,600-5,500 cm2/g as recited by claim 27.
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 4,000 to 7,000 cm2/g (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0058] and claim 12). BULLERJAHN teaches that it is especially suitable to grind the SCM together with the other cement and binder constituents to a fineness of 4,000 to 7,000 cm2/g, and that this results in the final binder being present in typical cement fineness (see BULLERJAHN at paragraphs [0058] and [0060] and claim 12).
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 4,000 to 7,000 cm2/g, as taught by BULLERJAHN (see BULLERJAHN at paragraph [0058]), which is within the range of claim 21 and overlaps with and thereby renders obvious the range of claim 27. 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]). 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/07/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims 1, 4-7, 10-21 and 23-27; under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for claims 5-7 and 24-25; and under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 23-27 over JDSSN in view of BULLERJAHN as set forth above.
Applicant argues:
“The distinguishing features of amended claim 1 over D1 therefore include at least the fact that the low-carbon clinker is added in a defined concentration range of 5-95% w/w to calcium sulphate, and that calcium sulphate is present in a proportion of 0.1-10% w/w as a functional component of the cement. These features are not disclosed in D1” (see Remarks at pg. 11).
“D1 does not recognize the specific setting instability problem associated with low-C3A low-carbon clinker and therefore provides no motivation to introduce calcium sulphate in a functionally defined proportion. D2… also does not address clinker minerology and does not suggest any relationship between sulphate dosage and altered clinker chemistry” (see Remarks at pg. 12).
“the skilled person starting from D1 and considering D2 would not be led to the claimed solution, and in fact would be taught away from it, as neither document identifies the underlying problem nor suggests that a specific sulphate-clinker interaction is necessary to stabilize low-carbon cement systems” (see Remarks at pg. 12).
However, for at least the following reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 involves an inventive step, i.e., is nonobvious, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First of all, it is noted that it is not clear whether Applicant’s arguments actually refer to the prior art used in the present rejection, as Applicant’s remarks do not mention the prior art references anywhere or the obviousness rejection, and only refer to “D1” and “D2”, which are not defined anywhere. It is not clear whether the arguments are meant to refer to “D1” and “D2” from the written opinion of the international searching authority for the PCT application, or to the references used in the current rejection.
Assuming that “D1” is JDSSN and “D2” is BULLERJAHN, in response to Applicant’s arguments against the references 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 rejections above, all of the claimed concentrations are explicitly disclosed by BULLERJAHN, and it is the combination of JDSSN and BULLERJAHN which renders the claimed invention obvious.
In response to Applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references because the reference does not explicitly mention relationship between the calcium sulfate concentration and the specific instability problem referenced by Applicant, 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). The prior art does not need describe the exact same reason for using a given concentration of a component as the reason described in the present application to render the invention obvious. In this case, as discussed in the rejection above, JDSSN explicitly states that calcium sulfate is used as a setting adjustor (see JDSSN at paragraph [0003]), BULLERJAHN explicitly discloses the range of the amount of calcium sulfate used which is the same as the claimed range, and 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]). One of ordinary skill would have bene motivated to use this amount of calcium sulfate for the benefit of being able to control the cement setting rate while forming an effective hydraulic binder. The claimed range of calcium sulfate is not novel or inventive; it is explicitly disclosed in the prior art. Further, as mentioned above, both JDSSN and BULLERJAHN explicitly teach that the amount of calcium sulfate used is a result-effective variable affecting the cement setting rate 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).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the present invention is nonobvious because BULLERJAHN teaches away from the claimed concentration of sulfate, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; it is not clear how BULLERJAHN could teach away from using this amount of calcium sulfate when it explicitly teaches using this amount of calcium sulfate. A reference not describing that a specific interaction between clinker and sulfate stabilizes low-carbon cement as is described in the present application in no way constitutes a teaching away from using the claimed amount of calcium sulfate, which is the amount that the prior art explicitly teaches should be used.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 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
Prosecution Insights