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
Applicant’s amendments, filed October 22, 2025, have been fully considered.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8, 11-12, 14, 21, and 23 have been canceled by the Applicant.
The objection to the Specification, mailed July 23, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The objections to Claims 2, 4, 7, and 9, mailed July 23, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10, 13, 15-20, 22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), mailed July 23, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10, 13, 15-20, 22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), mailed July 23, 2025, has been overcome by the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10, 15-20, 22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keulen et al. (US 2022/0332655) in view of Sant et al. (US 2017/0226021).
Claim 1. A method of preparing a concrete product, comprising:
(a) forming a concrete mixture into a desired shape; and
(b) cementing and carbonating the concrete mixture through contact with a gaseous CO2 source,
wherein the concrete mixture comprises:
(i) 5-50% (w/w) of a cementitious precursor comprising:
(a) from about 20% to about 90% (w/w) of a binder comprising brucite and a cement replacement material, wherein the cement replacement material comprises fly ash, slag cement, recycled cement, ground steel slag, or any combination thereof; and
(b) from about 5% to about 80% (w/w) Ordinary Portland Cement; and
(ii) 50-95% (w/w) of a filler.
Keulen discloses producing a composite, such as a concrete, by mixing a particulate material (i.e. cementitious precursor) up to about 60 wt%, an aggregate (i.e. filler) up to about 99 wt%, and at least one additive together and carbonating the mixture in the presence of carbon dioxide; wherein the particulate material may comprise at least two or more materials, including: magnesium hydroxide (i.e. brucite), steel slag, blast furnace slag, Portland cement, Portland clinker, and/or bottom ash or fly ash ([0024]; [0040]; [0045]; [0132]; [0151]).
Sant teaches a manufacturing process of a cement product, comprising: (a) combining at least one cement component with aggregates; (b) shaping the at least one cement component and the aggregates to form a structural element; and (c) exposing the structural element to CO2 to form a cement product ([0017]). Sant teaches that the at least one cement component may include at least 80 wt% of components, such as ordinary portland cement and/or magnesium hydroxide (i.e. brucite) ([0019] – [0020]); and Sant teaches that a binder can be mixed or otherwise combined with aggregates and then cured to form the concrete product, wherein the binder can be mixed or otherwise combined with a cement clinker, such as OPC clinker, thereby serving as a cement replacement material, wherein suitable aggregates include slag and/or recycled concrete ([0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute at least a portion of the Portland cement / Portland clinker in Keulen with cement replacement material(s), as taught by Sant, with a reasonable expectation of success as an obvious substitution for a cementitious material.
Claim 2. Keulen in view of Sant teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the concrete mixture is cemented and carbonated at a curing temperature from about 20 to about 90 °C, Sant teaches the carbonation occurs at a temperature in a range of 0° C to about 60° C.
Claim 4. Keulen in view of Sant teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the concrete mixture is cemented and carbonated at a relative humidity of between about 10 and 100%, Keulen discloses wherein the relative humidity is between 20% to about 100% ([0137]); and Sant teaches conditioning the structural element in an atmosphere with a relative humidity greater than 8%, such as about 30% or greater, about 50% or greater, about 75% or greater, or about 90% or greater ([0016]; [0057]).
Claim 7. Keulen in view of Sant teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the concrete mixture is cemented and carbonated at a CO2 concentration from about 2 to about 30% (v/v), Keulen discloses wherein the concentration of carbon dioxide is 2 vol% to about 100 vol% ([0134]).
Claim 9. Keulen in view of Sant teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the concrete mixture is carbonated at a carbonation pressure from about 0.01 to about 1.0 MPa, Keulen discloses wherein the process is carried out at about 1 bar to about 2 bar ([0139]); Sant teaches the carbonation occurs at a pressure in a range of about 0.51 MPa to about 20 MPa ([0063]).
Claim 10. Keulen in view of Sant teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the filler comprises an aggregate material, wherein the aggregate material comprises gravel, sand, pebbles, crushed stones, crushed recycled concrete, rocks, slag, bottom ash, or any combination thereof, Keulen discloses mixing the particulate material with an aggregate; wherein the particulate material may comprise at least two or more materials, including: magnesium hydroxide (i.e. brucite), steel slag, blast furnace slag, Portland cement, Portland clinker, and/or bottom ash or fly ash ([0024]; [0040]; [0045]; [0151]), and the aggregate may comprise sand, rock, concrete fines, slag, ashes or recycled concrete, artificial aggregates or any combination of two or more thereof ([0065]). Sant teaches aggregates, such as sand, gravel, crushed stone, slag, recycled concrete, and so forth ([0065]).
Claims 15-17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the range(s) of the concrete materials in Keulen as modified by Sant to the range(s) as claimed, because it has been held that “where 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).
Claim 18. Keulen in view of Sant teach The method of claim 1. Regarding the limitation: wherein the brucite has a purity from about 30% to 100%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the purity of the magnesium hydroxide in Tas to the range as claimed, because it has been held that “where 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).
Claims 19-20 and 24-27. These claims are substantively similar to Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9-10, 12, and 15-18. Therefore, the Examiner applies the rejection(s) and rationale(s), above, to these claims.
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keulen et al. (US 2022/0332655) in view of Sant et al. (US 2017/0226021), further in view of Tas et al. (US 2022/0340491).
Claim 13. Keulen in view of Sant teach The method of claim 1. Keulen does not expressly disclose wherein the concrete mixture further comprises an admixture, wherein the admixture comprises a water reducing admixture, a retarding admixture, an accelerating admixture, an air entraining concrete admixture, a pozzolanic admixture, a damp-proofing admixture, a gas forming admixture, an air detraining admixture, an alkali aggregate expansion admixture, an inhibiting admixture, an anti-washout admixture, a grouting admixture, a corrosion inhibiting admixture, a bonding admixture, a fungicidal admixture, a germicidal admixture, an insecticidal admixture, a coloring admixture, or any combination thereof. However, Tas teaches carbonatable calcium silicate-based cements and concrete products, such as paving stones or construction blocks (Abstract; [0033]; [0113]), wherein the cement / concrete products are cured in a carbon dioxide curing chamber ([0114]); wherein magnesium hydroxide (brucite, Mg(OH)2) initially forms during the preparation of the concrete mix ([0043]) and that suspensions of magnesium hydroxide can be added to the carbonatable calcium silicate-based cement mixtures to modify the pore structure ([0063]). Tas further teaches that any suitable aggregates may be used to form composite materials from the carbonatable composition, including, but not limited to: sand, fly ash, and/or slag ([0105]); and that chemical admixtures may be used in the composite materials, such as plasticizers, retarders, accelerators, dispersants and other rheology-modifying agents ([0107]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a chemical admixture to the concrete in Keulen with commonly known additives, as taught by Tas, with a reasonable expectation of success to optimize the performance properties and/or rheology of the cement / concrete.
Claim 22. This claim is substantively similar to Claim 13. Therefore, the Examiner applies the rejection(s) and rationale(s), above, to these claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 22, 2025, have been fully considered but the arguments 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 Crystal J. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-6242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at (571) 272-4137. 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.
/CRYSTAL J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674