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 .
Applicant has amended the claims to include limitations not previously submitted for examination. The amendment to the claims finds support in the original filing; no new matter is presented.
The amendment to the claims is material and over comes the previous rejection under section 103. New and amended grounds of rejection are below set forth addressing the amended claims submitted on 11/7/2025 citing to the closest relevant prior art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/26/24 and 8/24/23 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-12, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Constantz et al US 2017/0274318
Regarding Claims 1-6, 10-12 and 20
The applicant claims “curing liquid” but there is no definition of same – limitations will not be read into the claims from the specification. Giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification as filed as well as considering the originally filed claims, for purposes of examination any carbonate such as sodium ammonium potassium or bicarbonate will be deemed to meet the limitation for a curing liquid and render same obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention. The applicant claims a CO2 sequestering solid composition is prepared; however, this composition is not defined by it process of making or chemical components. As such any composition capable of being used in a CO2 sequestering process will be deemed to meet this limitation and/or render same obvious. The prior art as below cited discloses more than one solid composition/compound which is prepared and is capable of carbon dioxide sequestration and as below set forth this compound/composition is in contact with the “curing liquid” For purposes of examination, “sufficient” any amount of quantity/ time in contact with same will result in some curing thereby meeting/overlapping sufficient.
The prior art as more fully below set forth teaches the claimed substrate of an aggregate having been contacted with the claimed liquid as such it will necessarily be cured. The prior art having disclosed the claimed aggregate coated with the claimed solution comprising carbonates, phosphate anion, etc. as more fully below set forth will necessarily be capable of providing carbon dioxide sequestration and curing. 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 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “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) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” 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. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding Claims 1-6 and 10-12:
Constantz et al US 2017/0274318 teaches carbon dioxide sequestration methods and systems producing a solid carbon dioxide sequestering carbonate (Abstract) (meeting claim 1 for CO2 sequestering solid)
The process and products include aggregates [0049] which are coated in carbonates [0053] See Figures 10-11 where the aggregates are coated with aqueous ammonium carbonate and calcium chloride (meeting the limitation of claim 1 for an initial aggregate and contacting with a curing liquid sufficient to produce a cured CO2 sequestering solid) (meeting claims 2-3 for a carbonate curing liquid of ammonium carbonate Fig 11 and a bicarbonate such as ammonium bicarbonate of figure 10 meeting claims 4-6)
Calcium chloride as shown in Fig 10 meeting the limitations of claims 10-12 and 14)
The aqueous ammonia may include any convenient water including but not limited to fresh water, sea water, brine water, produced waters. (as such one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention could readily envisage the use of tap water or assuming arguendo the use of tap water is not readily envisaged, the use of any convenient water renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try to use tap water) The pH of the aqueous ammonia may vary from 10-13 [0030]
PNG
media_image1.png
628
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figures 11 a-c
PNG
media_image2.png
686
964
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0122] In some instances, the methods may include recirculating one or more of the reaction components from one stage of the process to another stage of the process. For example, as described above regenerated aqueous ammonia may be recycled to the CO.sub.2 capture stage. Cation salts and/or aggregates produced during ammonia regeneration may be recycled to the carbonate production stage. Waste heat produced at one stage, e.g., CO.sub.2 capture, may be employed at another stage, e.g., ammonia regeneration, e.g., as described above.
Further Regarding Claim 14:
[0036] an aqueous solution of both ammonium carbonate and ammonium bicarbonate are used [0036]dual manner with calcium chloride sodium bicarbonate etc. [0155] (meeting claim 14)
Further Regarding Claim 20:
The capture liquid is contacted with CO2 gas under condition so a substantial portion of the CO2 gas goes into solution to produce bicarbonate ions and the capture liquid temperature of 20°-80° C [0034] at a pressure suitable for production of the desired CO2 charged liquid and produces aqueous ammonium carbonate and bicarbonate [0034-0036] (meeting claim 20)
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantz et al US 2017/0274318 as applied to claims 1-6, 10-12, 14 and 20 above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Constantz et al teaches the limitations above set forth. Constantz et al teaches the aqueous ammonium bicarbonate may be viewed as a DIC dissolved inorganic carbon containing liquid [0036] having 5000 ppm or greater (given the molar mass of carbon the M is approx. 0.46 M or greater). The amount of CO2 dissolve liquid may vary such as from 0.05 to 40 mM [0037] Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Regarding Claims 13:
Constantz et al US 2017/0274318 discloses the limitations above set forth.
Constantz discloses the aqueous ammonia may include any convenient water including but not limited to fresh water, sea water, brine water, produced waters. (as such one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention could readily envisage the use of tap water or assuming arguendo the use of tap water is not readily envisaged, the use of any convenient water renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try to use tap water) A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Regarding Claim 15:
Constantz et al teaches the limitations above set forth. Constantz et al teaches the pH of the aqueous ammonia may vary from 10-13 [0030] (overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 14) See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Regarding Claim 16:
Constantz et al teaches the limitations above set forth. Constantz et al teaches the capture liquid is contacted with CO2 gas under conditions so a substantial portion of the CO2 gas goes into solution to produce bicarbonate ions and the capture liquid temperature of 20°-80° C [0034] (overlapping the range of claim 16 of 20°-50°C)
Regarding Claim 17:
Constantz et al teaches the limitations above set forth. Constantz et al teaches [0064] the aggregate compositions of the invention include particles having a core region and a CO.sub.2 sequestering carbonate coating on at least a portion of a surface of the core. The coating may cover 10% or more, 20% or more, 30% or more, 40% or more, 50% or more, 60% or more, 70% or more, 80% or more, 90% or more, including 95% or more of the surface of the core. The thickness of the carbonate layer may vary, as desired. In some instances, the thickness may range from 0.1 μm to 10 mm, such as 1 μm to 1000 μm, including 10 μm to 500 μm.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention could ascertain the amount of time to contact the aggregate for coating to achieve the desired cover and thickness thereby overlapping the claimed range of 1 minute to 30 days.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Regarding Claims 18-19:
Constantz discloses the limitations above set forth. The reference teaches the carbonate products include a number of different cations including calcium, carbonates and includes calcite, vaterite, aragonite [0044] see also [0445] showing different carbonate production methods etc. [0046] [0055] In some instances, the carbonate material is a highly reflective microcrystalline/amorphous carbonate material. The microcrystalline/amorphous materials present in coatings of the invention may be highly reflective [0055,0059] The prior art having taught the claimed process with the claimed materials and teaching a variety of products which include those of instant claim 19 renders obvious claim 19. Said prior art having taught the claimed process with the claimed materials will necessarily result in at least a portion of the materials changing crystal structure such as vaterite or amorphous calcium carbonate and aragonite or calcite.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13 and 17 are also alternatively is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantz et al US 2017/0274318 as applied to claims 1-6, 7, 10-12, 13, 14, 15-19 and 20 above further in view of Constantz et al (US 2014/0234946)
Regarding claims 8-9 and 13 and 17:
Constantz 2017 discloses the limitations above set forth.
Constantz 2017 discloses a catalyst may be used to control the rate of production of bicarbonate ions [0039] Constantz discloses the composition uses a liquid condensed phase including bicarbonate ions [0040]
Constantz et al (US 2014/0234946) discloses forming an aggregate from sequestering CO.sub.2 etc. [0008] teaches a process of forming aggregate [0031][0182-0184]
Constantz 2014 like Constantz 2017 teaches A liquid CO2 sequestering bicarbonate additive is combined with cement prepared from the CO2 sequestering process [0314-0316] (contacting the initial CO2 sequestering solid composition with a curing liquid sufficient)
Constantz et al (US 2014/0234946) discloses a method of removing carbon dioxide from carbon dioxide containing gas using an aqueous medium of a bicarbonate buffered solution with a pH from 8 to 10 (See reference claim 17-19) and produces a solid carbonate composition (See claim 26 reference) (meeting the limitation for preparing an initial CO2 sequestering solid composition and for a curing liquid sufficient to produce a cured CO2 sequestering solid)
The gas is contacted with the aqueous medium in the presence of a liquid condensed promoter (See claim 25 reference) [0007] the liquid condensed promoters include divalent alkaline earth metal cations such as Ca2+ and other cations such as Na+ K+ NH4+ [0069]and a convenient anion such as Cl- silicate and phosphate anions* [0070 - 0080](meeting claims 9- 9) and the like [0070] used in ranges of 1 to 80 % or 5- 10 % dry wt. [0071]meeting the limitation of claim 8-9 for liquids including a phosphate liquid)
*Phosphate anions
Depending on the number of protons removed, different phosphate anions exist:
Orthophosphate (PO43-): Formed by the removal of three protons.
Dihydrogen phosphate (H2PO4-): Formed by the removal of one proton.
Hydrogen phosphate (HPO42-): Formed by the removal of two protons.
The liquid is used with a catalyst (See claim 23 of reference) Catalyst pH ranges from 8 to 10 and increase the rate of production of bicarbonate is from dissolved carbon dioxide [0073]
The CO2 gas is contacted with an aqueous medium in the presence of a source of silica and optionally a silica specific catalyst. The silica source includes rock, sand, as well as manmade sources [0085-0088] (i.e. a solid composition)
Where the CO2 containing gas is contacted with the bicarbonate buffered aqueous medium in a reactor, the volume percent of the reactor occupied by the silica source may range, in some instances, from 1 to 99%, such as 5 to 95% and including 10 to 90%. [0088]
The LCP promoter includes Mg cations and silicate anions [0070] (i.e. a CO2 sequestering solid) [0070] and is in contact the with aqueous medium/ammonium carbonate [0068]
The bicarbonate additive/admixture is a liquid that include bicarbonate ions the pH is 4-12 and the bicarbonate is 0.1 wt.% to 30 wt. % [0096]
The composition is prepared with tap water [0271] (meeting claim 13)
The temperature of the aqueous medium is 20-80°C or 20-50°C [0066-0067] The temperature may be maintained at 35-40°C for a first period of time and then reduced for a second period of time to 25-30 while monitoring salt concentration changes [0266] Production of the flowable composition may be 1 minute to 25 hours [0138]Curing times range from 2 to 12 minutes [0152] (within the range of claim 17)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
[0194] The aqueous phase may be combined in a continuous bicarbonate product reactor [0204] [0205][0229]
The process produces rich product with various crystalline solid polymorphs of calcium carbonate [0160] (meeting claim 1 for producing a cured CO2 sequestering solid and meeting claims 18-20) The product includes droplets of a liquid condensed phase in a bulk liquid (See claim 21 of reference) (meeting claim 20)
Aqueous media includes bicarbonate aqueous buffer medium [0038]having alkaline water [0039] and a buffering system including divalent cation sources of Ca2+ as well as other cations such as Na + and K+ [0041] A bicarbonate rich product is formed [0068] and LCP promoter is added including divalent alkaline earth metal cations Ca+ and other cations such as Na K and NH4+ [0069] the anions of Cl+ and phosphate and the like [0070] (i.e. CaCl and phosphate ion)
A catalyst is added with the bicarbonate buffer aqueous medium [0073]
The reference teaches the claimed composition a which is prepared and a curing liquid of the claimed compositional components contacted with initial CO2 of claim 1b as well as formation of dissolved inorganic carbon. As such the process of the method will necessarily result in a range of dissolved inorganic carbon which meets and/or overlaps the instantly claimed range.
The process produced dissolved inorganic carbon (Fig 12) [0019]and the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon increased upon treatment with CO2 containing gas by 650 % [0277]
resultant carbonate precipitate may in turn be further used in a variety of products, e.g., as a cement, to produce aggregate, purified CO2 etc. [0031]
In one embodiment, some portion of the bicarbonate not separated in the LCP may be consumed to regenerate carbonate to begin the absorption process again. For example, the aqueous medium may include an alkali metal cation, such as sodium cation. Where sodium cation is present, the aqueous medium may be a sodium carbonate solution. In such instances, for each CO2 absorbed, there is one carbonate making two bicarbonates. One of the two bicarbonates is used to go on to separate out as a condensed liquid phase, and the other is used to regenerate sodium carbonate by forming CO2 and sodium carbonate with carbonic anhydrase, synthetic catalyst or colloidal metal particles.[0077]
Assuming arguendo tap water is not obvious to one of ordinary skill the art: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use tap water as the water or Constantz 2017 as taught by Constantz 2014 as it is a suitable water for formation of coatings for CO2 sequestering solids and Constantz 2017 contemplates any convenient water; and assuming the amount of time to contact the solid with the carbonate is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to contact the solid for the time set forth in Constantz 2014 in the process of Constantz 2017 as it is a suitable time for contacting the solid for formation of CO2 sequestering solids.
Constantz 2017 does not teach a phosphate anion of instant claims 8-9 in the composition/method. However, Constantz 2014 teaches the use of sodium bicarbonate and calcium chloride bicarbonate medium and ammonium carbonates as an LCP promoter where phosphate anions and chloride anions may be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use phosphate anions in addition to or in lieu of some of the chloride anions of Constantz 2017 as taught by Constantz 2014 as they are both suitable for forming a bicarbonate rich product LCP promoter. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action for curing and aggregates and carbon dioxide technologies. For example: Utilizing CO2 technologies for recycled aggregate concrete A critical Review Vivian Tam Anthony Butera Khoa Le Wngui Li Construction and Building Materials 250 (2020) 118903 (published 4/3/2020)
PNG
media_image3.png
582
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
600
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
490
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
638
690
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights