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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 01/26/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-19 and 21 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 “wherein the CO2 is injected directly into the mixture by pressure by at least one injector”. 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.
Claim 12 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 12 recites “said overpressure”. Claim 1 recites a reaction overpressure and a pressure chamber overpressure. It is not clear if the two instances of overpressure are the same or different overpressures. Furthermore, if the two instances of overpressures are the same or if the overpressure of claim 12 is specifically referencing the pressure chamber overpressure, then the claim would be further subject to a rejection under 112d for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. If the two instances of overpressure are different, then it is not clear which overpressure is being referenced in claim 12.
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, 19, and 21 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, 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]),
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 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches adding Portland cement to the material ([0060]).
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Shao, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao further teaches adding a filler material in the mixture for increasing density of the elevator element ([0060, 0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Shao and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao ‘270 further teaches wherein said overpressure is 1 bar - 2 bar (see art rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Shao, 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, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 2.
Shao further teaches wherein the second divalent metal is Ca, creating bonding structures based on CaCO3 ([0048-0049]).
Regarding claim 21, Wang in view of Shao, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Shao ‘270 further teaches adding a filler material in the mixture, wherein the filler material comprises metal-based granulates selected from iron sand or iron granulate ([0128]).
Wang in view of Shao, Shao ‘270, and Murray does not explicitly recite adding a filler material in the mixture for increasing density of the elevator element. However, since the prior art method teaches adding the same material as the claimed method, it would be reasonable for one oof ordinary skill in the art to expect the prior art method to produce the claimed result as well.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Shao, 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, Shao ‘270, and Murray teaches the method of claim 1.
Wang in view of Shao, 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, 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 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Murray does not teach injecting CO2 directly into the mixture while it is in the mould during the casting phase. First, the examiner notes that the claims to not contain any recitation of a casting phase. Furthermore, applicant written description contains no support for injecting CO2 directly into the mixture while it is in the mould during the casting phase. In fact, the written description contains no support for direct injection of any kind. 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. Finally, Murray explicitly teaches “delivering carbon dioxide through an inlet 25 thereof, through delivery lines such as 26, to various ports 27, 28, 30 and the like, that open into the mold cavity 14”, (col 10, ln 48-52) and “the gas having been injected into the mold cavity 14, and being dispersed with the ingredients therein” (col 11, ln 25-27).
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the newly amended subject matter of claim 1 or 21. However, these limitations are taught by the prior art. See art rejection of claim 1 and 21 above.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
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