CTNF 18/183,813 CTNF 99588 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 04/20/2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending; claims 1-4 are withdrawn; claims 5 and 11 are amended; claims 5-20 are under examination. The rejections of claims 5-20 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) and claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 5-11, 13 and 15-20 over MORO in view of SELLA and WANG and of claims 12 and 14 further in view of GILES are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. 12-256 AIA New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the emplaced aquatic composite structure” (see claim 5 at lines 21-22). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that prior to amendment the claim positively recited “wherein the aquatic composite structure is emplaced”, but this has been deleted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moro, et al., “Modification of CO 2 capture and pore structure of hardened cement paste made with nano-TiO 2 addition: Influence of water-to-cement ratio and CO 2 exposure age”, Construction and Building Materials 275, published online 11 January 2021 (hereinafter, “MORO”) in view of Sella, et al. (WO-2021/171296-A1) (hereinafter, “SELLA”) and Khalifeh, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0041018-A1) (hereinafter, “KHALIFEH”) with evidence from Association of Zoos & Aquariums, “Endangered Species Profile: Coral and Coral Reefs” (hereinafter, “AZA”) as to the rejection of claim 20 . Regarding claim 5, MORO teaches a method of providing a carbon sequestration via a composite structure (see MORO generally at Abstract and §1 at pg. 2, right column, and §3.1, pg. 5, right column, teaching a method of sequestering carbon via hardened cementitious composites, and teaching that carbon sequestration reduces chloride penetration which would help to prevent issues in cementitious composites exposed to marine environments), the method comprising: mixing a cementitious composite and titanium dioxide nanoparticles to form a composite mixture (see MORO at Abstract and §2.1), shaping the composite mixture into a shaped composite mixture having a shape (see MORO at §2.1, teaching casting in molds); and solidifying the shaped composite mixture to form a composite structure containing internal pores that define a pore structure within the composite mixture (see MORO at §2.1 and §2.2.2, teaching curing the molded mixture to form a composite having internal pores that define a pore structure); wherein the composite structure is emplaced in an environment at a location (see MORO at §1 at pg. 2, right column, §2.2.1.1 and Fig. 1, teaching placing the composite in a chamber, and teaching that it is known in the art that such cement composites can be placed in marine environments), and thereafter the method comprises: accelerating carbon dioxide capture by the composite structure by reducing the size of calcium hydroxide crystals in the composite structure with the titanium dioxide nanoparticles (see MORO at Abstract and §3.2, teaching that including nano-TiO 2 can improve CO 2 sequestration by reducing the size of calcium hydroxide (CH) in the cement, making it more prone to be carbonated); and capturing carbon dioxide from the environment with the emplaced composite structure (see MORO at §2.2.1 and §2.2.1.1); wherein the nanoparticles interact with the cementitious composite to increase carbon dioxide sequestration properties of the composite mixture (see MORO at §3.2 and Fig. 3, teaching that using nano-TiO 2 with high w/c ratios (e.g., 0.55) increases CO 2 uptake), MORO fails to explicitly teach (i) that the composite structure is an aquatic composite structure in an aquatic environment at a location in a body of water (while MORO does teach that it is known in the art that these cementitious composites can be used as aquatic structures in marine environments and that carbon sequestering is beneficial for these structures at §1 at pg. 2, right column and §3.1, pg. 5, right column, MORO does not explicitly state that the composite structure is an aquatic structure emplaced in a body of water), or (ii) that the composite mixture includes an inorganic polymer binder comprising at least one of a biomass ash and slag cement, and the method comprises using the binder to adjust the pore structure to favor reaction with carbon dioxide over chlorides, immediately collect carbon dioxide from the body of water, and encourage growth of seaweed on exposed surfaces of the aquatic composite structure for later collection of carbon dioxide from the body of water, wherein the binder encourages natural ecological growth on the composite mixture by impacting the pore structure of the composite mixture. However, regarding (i) above, it is known in the art that carbon sequestering cementitious composite structures can be used in aquatic environments in bodies of water, i.e., as aquatic structures. SELLA teaches a method of providing carbon sequestration via an aquatic concrete composite structure comprising Portland cement, additives and SCMs (see SELLA at Abstract and paragraphs [0025] and [0044]) which is placed in a body of water (see SELLA at paragraph [007]). SELLA teaches that using such a concrete composite as interlocking marine infrastructure units in a body of water can provide many benefits such as shoreline stabilization, promotion of fauna and flora growth and facilitation of CO 2 assimilation in the aquatic environment (see SELLA at paragraphs [0004]-[0007] and [0044]). 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 MORO by using the cementitious composite as interlocking marine infrastructure units (i.e., an aquatic composite structure) in an aquatic environment in a body of water in the manner taught by SELLA (see SELLA at Abstract and paragraphs [007], [0025] and [0044]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using the carbon-sequestering cement composite to promote shoreline stabilization, growth of fauna and flora, and CO 2 assimilation in an aquatic environment as taught by SELLA (see SELLA at paragraphs [0004]-[0007] and [0044]). SELLA teaches aluminosilicate binders (see SELLA at paragraph [0025]) but fails to explicitly teach an inorganic polymeric binder comprising at least one of a biomass ash and slag cement. Regarding (ii) above, KHALIFEH teaches a method of sequestering carbon via a solidified cementitious material (see KHALIFEH at Abstract and paragraph [0001]) wherein the cementitious composite mixture comprises a slag-based geopolymer binder, i.e., an inorganic polymeric binder comprising aluminosilicate materials including slag cement (see KHALIFEH at paragraphs [0021]-[0026] and [0029]). KHALIFEH teaches that geopolymers have high mechanical strength, high thermal stability and other properties that are advantageous for a cementitious material (see KHALIFEH at paragraphs [0029]-[0030]). 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 further modified the method of MORO in view of SELLA by including a slag-based inorganic geopolymer binder in the composite mixture as taught by KHALIFEH (see KHALIFEH at paragraphs [0021]-[0026] and [0029]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing high mechanical strength, high thermal stability and other properties that are advantageous for a cementitious material as taught by KHALIFEH (see KHALIFEH at paragraphs [0029]-[0030]). A geopolymer is an inorganic polymer formed by a reaction of aluminosilicate materials in an alkaline medium (see KHALIFEH at paragraphs [0009], [0022]-[0026], [0029] and [0038]), which is an exemplary binder in the present invention that adjusts the pore structure to favor reaction with carbon dioxide over chlorides, immediately collects carbon dioxide from the body of water, encourages growth of seaweed on exposed surfaces of the aquatic composite structure for later collection of carbon dioxide from the body of water, and encourages natural ecological growth on the composite mixture by impacting at least one of the pore structure or pH of the composite mixture, as discussed in Applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0022], [0025] and [0028]-[0029]. Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the nanoparticles increase the carbon dioxide sequestration properties of the aquatic composite structure by reducing size of the internal pores of the pore structure (see MORO at §3.3). Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the cementitious composite comprises the calcium hydroxide crystals (see MORO at Abstract, §1, pg. 2, left column, and §3.2). Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the location and the shape of the aquatic composite structure mitigate erosion (see SELLA at paragraph [0004], teaching that the aquatic concrete structure provides shoreline stabilization (i.e., erosion mitigation)). Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the location and the shape of the aquatic composite structure encourages natural biological growth thereon (see SELLA at Abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0017] and [0022]). Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the shape of the aquatic composite structure imitates naturally-occurring organic shapes (see SELLA at paragraph [0004], teaching that the interlocking units mimic natural rock pools). Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the binder encourages natural ecological growth on the composite mixture by impacting the pH of the composite mixture (see KHALIFEH at paragraphs [0009], [0022]-[0026], [0029] and [0038], teaching an inorganic polymer formed by a reaction of aluminosilicate materials in an alkaline medium, which is an exemplary binder in the present invention that encourages natural ecological growth on the composite mixture by impacting the pH of the composite mixture, as discussed in Applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0022], [0025] and [0028]-[0029]. Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the shaping and solidifying occur before the aquatic composite structure is emplaced at the location in the body of water (see MORO at §2.1, teaching molding and curing the mixture before placing it in the location for CO 2 capture). Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the cementitious composite includes Portland cement (see MORO at §2.1). Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 11 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 11, further comprising encouraging ecological growth to provide carbon sequestration after the internal pores of the aquatic composite structure no longer sequester carbon (see KHALIFEH at paragraphs [0009], [0022]-[0026], [0029] and [0038], teaching an inorganic polymer formed by a reaction of aluminosilicate materials in an alkaline medium, which is an exemplary binder in the present invention that encourages ecological growth as discussed in Applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0022] and [0025]; see SELLA at paragraphs [0005], [0009], [0032], [0039] and [0044], teaching that providing the concrete composite as an aquatic structure encourages growth of flora and fauna, and that the organisms’ biological processes such as biocalcification and photosynthesis facilitate continuous CO 2 assimilation). Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the location is a location naturally unsuitable for naturally-occurring carbon-sequestering ecological growth (see SELLA at paragraph [0009], teaching the structure proliferating fauna and flora which is capable of growing but is not already growing in an environmental ecosystem (i.e., does not naturally grow there); see SELLA at paragraph [0007], including fresh water examples of aquatic environments, which Applicant’s specification uses as an example of a naturally unsuitable environment in paragraph [0030]; see SELLA at paragraph [0018], teaching using an aquarium as the aquatic environment, which is a manmade environment rather than a naturally-occurring environment, and would therefore not have naturally-occurring carbon-sequestering ecological growth). Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the shape and the location of the aquatic composite structure mitigate flooding (see SELLA at paragraphs [0041] and [0047], teaching that the interlocking units add valuable water retaining features to shorelines (i.e., enhanced water retention would mitigate flooding) and provide shoreline stabilization (which would include flood mitigation)). Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the aquatic composite structure is emplaced as a component of an acidified water treatment structure (see SELLA at paragraphs [0018] and [0044], teaching using the composite to stabilize water chemistry by maintaining constant pH by release of calcium carbonate (i.e., the structure treats acidified water), and teaching that the structure facilitates CO 2 assimilation; sequestering carbon dioxide from the water would increase the water pH, i.e., a carbon sequestering structure treats acidified water and is an acidified water treatment structure). Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein the aquatic composite structure encourages the growth of threatened native species thereon (see SELLA at paragraph [008]-[009], teaching that the flora and fauna grown include native species, e.g., corals; many species of coral are endangered or threatened, as evidenced by AZA (see AZA at pg. 1-2)) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Giles (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0071949-A1) (hereinafter, “GILES”) . Regarding claims 12 and 14, as applied to claim 5 above, MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH teaches a method according to claim 5. MORO , SELLA and KHALIFEH fail to explicitly teach that the shaping and solidifying occur in the body of water at the location where the aquatic composite structure is emplaced, as required by claim 12, or that the composite mixture is shaped using an additive manufacturing method, as required by claim 14. However, it is known in the art to shape aquatic cementitious composite structures in water and using an additive manufacturing method. GILES teaches a method of making a cementitious composite structure for under water construction (e.g., to prevent erosion) (see GILES at Abstract and paragraphs [0245], [0498], [0681], [1019] and [1551]) wherein the composite is shaped using 3D printing additive manufacturing (see GILES at Abstract and paragraphs [0013]-[0014] and [1020]) and wherein the onsite construction includes shaping and solidifying the composite in the water (see GILES at paragraphs [0001], [0226], [0741]-[0742] and [1438]). GILES teaches that using the 3D printing process onsite in the water allows for optimized casting times and characteristics and reduces material transport costs, CO 2 emissions, dust and noise levels, construction waste, manual labor requirements and physical effort (see GILES at paragraphs [0051], [0069], [0226], [0741]-[0746] and [1438]). 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 MORO in view of SELLA and KHALIFEH by simply substituting the shaping step (see MORO at §2.1) with a step of shaping the mixture via an additive manufacturing method and shaping and solidifying the mixture in the body of water as taught by GILES (see GILES at Abstract and paragraphs [0013]-[0014], [0026], [0741]-[0742], [1020] and [1438]). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the shaping method with onsite additive manufacturing with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of shaping the composite mixture (see MORO at §2.1; see GILES at Abstract and paragraphs [0013]-[0014] and [1020]), and would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of having the ability to rapidly construct versatile, highly customized concrete structures (see GILES at paragraphs [0182]-[0184]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to shape and solidify the mixture in place in the water using the onsite additive manufacturing method of GILES for the benefit of optimizing casting times and characteristics and reducing material transport costs, CO 2 emissions, dust and noise levels, construction waste, manual labor requirements and physical effort as taught by GILES (see GILES at paragraphs [0051], [0069], [0226], [0741]-[0746] and [1438]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 03/23/2026 with respect to claim(s) 5-20 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 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 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 2 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 3 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 4 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 5 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 6 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 7 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 8 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 9 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 10 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 11 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 12 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 13 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/183,813 Page 14 Art Unit: 1731
Prosecution Insights