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 amendment filed 06/04/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-10 and 13-19 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13, 19, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “injecting the CO2 by pressure by the at least one injector directly in the mixture”. The only mention of an injection step in applicant written description recites “CO2 is injected by pressure by at least one injector in the mixture”. While this recitation supports injection of CO2 by an injector in the mixture, there is no support for direct injection.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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 1-10, 13, and 19 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 1 recites “adding a filler material in the mixture for increasing density of the elevator element, wherein the filler material is a separate component from the material in the mixture and comprises metal-based granulates selected from iron sand or iron granulate”. The claim further recites “wherein the mixture is devoid of iron”. Under the scope of broadest reasonable interpretation, a mixture comprises any ingredient that is added to it, e.g., the added CO2 and filler material. It is not clear how the mixture can both be devoid of iron while comprising an added filler material that is explicitly required to contain iron. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean that the process requires providing a base mixture comprising said material and water, wherein the base mixture is devoid of iron to achieve a compression strength of 80 MPa.
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 1 recites the broad recitation of compression strength of 40-80 MPa, and the claim also recites compression strength of 80 M which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4-10 recite “the material”. The claims are rendered indefinite because claim upon which the claims depend recite two different claim elements of “a material” and “a filler material” and it is not clear which material is being referenced by the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to mean the material of the mixture.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN205088138 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Wang in view of Shao et al. (US2020/0087207 of record) hereinafter Shao, Saiki et al. (JPH09110506 with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Saiki, Shao et al. (US2017/0073270 of record) hereinafter Shao '270, and Murray (US4117060 of record).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches:
An elevator element manufacturing method (ln 14), comprising the steps of:
mixing and casting steel slag with cement and water (ln 60-67, 134-138).
Wang does not teach providing in powder and/or granulate form a material comprising compound comprising silicon and a second divalent metal;
filling a mould with a mixture comprising said material and water;
adding CO2 in said mixture in the mould; and
allowing water and CO2 to react with said material under overpressure, thereby creating bonding structures based on metal carbonates (MCO3).
wherein the method further comprises the step of arranging the mould and the mixture therein in a pressure chamber under 1-2 bar overpressure, and injecting the CO2 by pressure by the at least one injector directly in the mixture at a room temperature and achieving a compression strength of 40-80 MPa within 24 hours.
In art attempting to solve a similar problem of using steel slag as a synthetic material, Shao teaches a manufacturing method ([0010-0014]), comprising the steps of:
providing in powder and/or granulate form ([0053-0054]) a material comprising compound comprising silicon ([0048]) and a second divalent metal ([0048]);
filling a mould with a mixture comprising said material and water ([0068]);
adding CO2 in said mixture in the mould ([0072-0073]); and
allowing water and CO2 to react with said material under overpressure, thereby creating bonding structures based on metal carbonates (MCO3) ([0049, 0072-0073, 0127]); and
adding a filler material ([0064-0066]), and
wherein the method further comprises the step of arranging the mould and the mixture therein in a pressure chamber under overpressure ([0057, 0127]), and injecting the CO2 by pressure by the at least one injector directly in the mixture at a room temperature ([0074]) and achieving a compression strength of 40-80 MPa ([0038]) within 24 hours ([0073, 0127]) for the motivation of reducing the energy consumption, the natural resource consumption, and the total carbon emission ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Wang with the steel slag carbonation as taught by Shao in order to reduce the energy consumption, the natural resource consumption, and the total carbon emission.
Wang in view of Shao does not teach adding a filler material in the mixture, wherein the filler material is a separate component from the material in the mixture. Shao teaches adding the dry ingredients, i.e., the steel slag and aggregate material, before mixing with the wet ingredients including water. Shao also teaches a final product having the claimed properties (see discussion of compression strength).
Therefore, the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art above is merely a difference in the order of adding ingredients as there is no evidence of new or unexpected results.
It has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the sequence of adding ingredients of the prior art to that of the claimed invention.
Wang in view of Shao does not explicitly recite wherein the base mixture is devoid of iron to achieve a compression strength of 80 MPa.
However, Shao seeks to limit the iron in the steel slag for the motivation of improving carbonation activation ([0048]).
Shao also teaches a range of values for the compression strength that overlaps with the claimed range ([0038]).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the compression strength as taught by Shao that overlaps with the claimed range.
Applicant discloses that using a material devoid of iron allows for compression strength of up to 80 MPa. Shao makes obvious the compression strength while limiting the amount of iron in the steel slag. While Shao does not recite an explicit amount of iron present, the amount of iron in the steel slag of Shao is limited to an amount that does not deter the prior art from achieving the claimed properties. Applicant disclosure does not provide any persuasive evidence or new or unexpected results to the contrary. Therefore, the difference in the amount of iron in Shao and the claimed invention cannot be considered to be patentably significant and Shao makes obvious wherein the mixture is devoid of iron to achieve a compression strength of 80 MPa.
Wang in view of Shao does not teach adding a filler material in the mixture for increasing density of the elevator element comprising metal-based granulates selected from iron sand or iron granulate.
In the same field of endeavor regarding cement, Saiki teaches a heavy weight concrete using iron sand as an aggregate for the motivation of increasing the specific gravity of concrete blocks (ln 35-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aggregate as taught by Wang in view of Shao with the iron sand aggregate as taught by Saiki in order to increase the specific gravity of concrete blocks.
Wang in view of Shao and Saiki does not teach a pressure chamber under 1-2 bar overpressure.
In the same field of endeavor regarding cement, Shao ‘270 teaches curing cement in a chamber with carbon dioxide at a curing pressure that overlaps with the claimed range ([0105, 0139]; 0.1MPa-0.5MPa).
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). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the curing pressure as taught by Wang in view of Shao and Saiki with the curing pressure as taught by Shao ‘270 and the results of the substitution would have been predictable since Shao and Shao ‘270 teach curing cement with carbon dioxide.
Furthermore, since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the overpressure as taught by Shao ‘270 that overlaps with the claimed range.
Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, and Shao ‘270 does not teach wherein the CO2 is injected directly into the mixture by pressure by at least one injector.
Shao and Shao ‘270 teaches allowing the CO2 injected into a chamber to diffuse into the mixture.
In the same field of endeavor regarding cement, Murray teaches CO2 is injected directly into the mixture by pressure by at least one injector for the motivation of allowing deeper curing of the cement by allowing passage of carbon dioxide to a deeper location of the ingredients (Fig 1: ports 27, 28, 30; col 2, 56-68; col 10, ln 48-col 11, ln 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, and Shao ‘270 with the direct injection as taught by Murray in order to allow deeper curing of the cement by allowing passage of carbon dioxide to a deeper location of the ingredients.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches wherein the second divalent metal is selected from Ca, Cu, Fe, Ni, Co, Mn, Mg, Si, Zn, Pd, Cd, Sn, Pt, Pb ([0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches wherein the second divalent metal is Ca, creating bonding structures based on CaCO3 ([0048-0049]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches wherein the material comprises at least two second divalent metals ([0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches wherein the material comprises slag comprising blast furnace slag (BF slag) ([0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches wherein the material comprises slag comprising basic-oxygen furnace slag (BOF slag) ([0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches wherein the material comprises slag comprising electric-arc furnace slag (EAF slag) ([0046]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao ‘270 teaches KBM is a subset of BOF slag, and using KOBM slag as a binder.
Shao further teaches using BOF slag as a binder ([0046]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the prior art teaches wherein the material comprises slag comprising klockner oxygen blown maxhutte slag (KOBM slag).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches adding Portland cement to the material ([0060]).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches wherein said reaction of water, CO2 and said material powder/granulate takes place at room temperature ([0074]).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches wherein the second divalent metal is Ca, creating bonding structures based on CaCO3 ([0048-0049]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davene et al. (FR2807030 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Davene.
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray does not teach wherein the material comprises slag comprising casting slag.
In the same field of endeavor regarding slag building products, Davene teaches using the all of the residual slag from the entire steel billeting process, including casting, for the motivation of reducing slag waste (ln 32-34, 54-57, 67-69, 95-97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Wang in view of Shao, Saiki, Shao ‘270, and Murray to use casting slag as taught by Davene in order to reduce slag waste.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 was amended to remove the claim term “directly”. However, the claim still contains another recitation of direct injection and is still subject to the new matter rejection. All recitations of direct injection must be removed from the claims to overcome this rejection.
Applicant argues against the combination of Shao and Murray, specifically that Shao teaches a specialized pressure chamber relying on stable uniform overpressure to drive carbon dioxide into the surface of the slag panels through surface exposure and that localized high pressure jet of Murray would not produce the desired results. However, the reaction and exposure induced by the direct injection of Murray is not localized as characterized by applicant, but evenly dispersed with the ingredients in the mold cavity so as to create an essentially complete carbon dioxide environment. Murray recites “the environment about the ingredients within the mold cavity 14 is substantially an essentially complete carbon dioxide environment (with perhaps very small amounts of air)” (col 11, ln 4-8), and “the gas having been injected into the mold cavity 14, and being dispersed with the ingredients therein, such dispersion preferably being an even natural dispersion, the ingredients may perhaps commence an exothermic reaction with the carbon dioxide gas” (col 11, ln 25-30). Therefore both Shao and Murray seek to expose the ingredients to a carbon monoxide environment, with Murray having the added benefit of allowing passage of carbon dioxide to a deeper location of the ingredients (col 2, 56-68) as cited in the art rejection. Therefore there is motivation to modify the injection of carbon dioxide of Shao with Murray.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the mixture is devoid of iron. However, applicant relies on [0124] of Shao which recites “XRD patterns of carbonated EBH slag panels are shown in FIG. 2. The basic mineral components that appear in the diffractograms are calcium silicates, calcium magnesium silicate (merwanite), gehlenite and iron compounds.” The passage is directed to the end product, not the initial mixture. Iron containing ingredients not considered part of the claimed mixture, e.g., expanded iron slag aggregate ([0064]), are used in the formation of the final product, which is within the scope of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the examiner notes claim allows for a filler material containing iron sand/granulate as part of the final product, if not in the mixture material. Regarding iron in the prior art mixture, see the art rejection above at items 35-40 for new reasoning in light of the amendment to the claims for a showing of how the prior art makes obvious a mixture devoid of iron to achieve the claimed properties.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights