DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed on 12/16/2025. Applicant filed a response on 02/12/2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 16-17 are rejected.
Claims 6, 8, 14-15 and 18-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (b) (claim 7, wherein the carbonatable substance is introduced into a mill fed by preheater exhaust gas, for drying, grinding and/or carbonating the carbonatable substance) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of species (d) (claims 13 and 17, wherein the carbonatable substance is a mineral component having a total metal oxide content of at least 10 wt%) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that each of species (d)-(f) include a total metal oxide content of at least 10 wt%. This is not found persuasive because species (e) and (f) of claims 14 and 15 respectively do not require a specific metal oxide content.
Applicant further argues that para [0041]-[0042] of the published application disclose that the carbonatable substance can be any material defined in the standard EN 197-1 published in April 2012, as long as the total metal oxide content in the carbonatable substance is at least 10 wt%. Thus, the species (d)-(f) set forth in the pending claims 13-19 all encompass a metal oxide content of at least 10 wt%, and therefore share a common property of metal oxide content.
Examiner notes that [0039] of the PGPub teaches that “the carbonatable substance may be any carbon dioxide reactive solid substance that can be carbonated when being contacted with CO2 enriched exhaust gas” (emphasis added). Although species (e) and (f) MAY have a metal oxide content as required by species (d), no metal oxide content is required for species (e) and (f) as presently claimed. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the species (e)-(f) have a metal oxide content of at least 10 wt%) are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is further noted in [0041] of PGPub, claims 13 & 17 (species d), claim 14 (species e), and claims 15 & 18-19 (species f) are their own species, given that PGPub [0041], as applicant also pointed to, discloses:
“[0041] Preferably, a waste material can be used as a source for the carbonatable material so that such waste material can be recycled. The carbonatable waste material can be selected from the fine fractions of recycled concrete, a concrete mud from a ready-mix plant, or any mineral component with a sufficient amount of metal oxide that is able to carbonate, or mixtures thereof. Preferably, the metal oxide is calcium oxide, or magnesium oxide, or mixtures thereof” (emphasis added).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-15 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 16-17 are 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, “wherein the cement manufacturing plant comprises a calcination device for producing Portland clinker by decarbonating cement raw meal while releasing a CO2 enriched exhaust gas and further comprising an exhaust gas installation for directing a flow of the CO2 enriched exhaust gas from the calcination device to an exhaust stack of the cement manufacturing plant…”
However, it is unclear how this “wherein” clause can be interpreted as imposing any limits on the scope of the claimed method comprising steps a)-d), given that the steps do not refer to or otherwise require the apparatus described by the wherein clause. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 2173.05(p), which states “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Considering the claims as a whole, in view of the Specification, it is unclear whether Applicants are seeking patent protection for a series of steps (i.e., a method) or for an apparatus (i.e., a machine having specific structural components). Since the independent and dependent claims recite language that is primarily directed to an apparatus, but also recites method steps, per MPEP 2173.05(p), claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 16-17 are rejected as vague and indefinite.
It is advised to amend the claims to positively recite method steps that recite the specialized equipment from Applicant’s disclosure. However, it must be clear that the claims are directed to the method steps.
Alternatively, it is advised to amend the claims to clearly define the disclosed apparatus without reciting method steps in the same claim.
To move prosecution forward, the examiner interprets Claim 1 as requiring method steps a) to d). The examiner is unable to be interpret the remaining claim limitations. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 1, step b), the term “the exhaust gas installation for contacting the carbonatable substance with the CO2 enriched exhaust gas” lack proper antecedent basis. Specifically, it is unclear if “the exhaust gas installation” refers to “an exhaust gas installation for directing a flow of the CO2 enriched exhaust gas from the calcination device to an exhaust stack of the cement manufacturing plant” (emphasis added). The examiner interprets “the exhaust gas installation” as “for contacting the carbonatable substance with the CO2 enriched exhaust gas.” Clarification is requested.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, claim 1 explicitly recites step b) of “introducing the carbonatable substance into the exhaust gas installation for contacting the carbonatable substance with the CO2 enriched exhaust gas”.
However, dependent claim 3 recites a “wherein” clause defining a different step of “introducing” than step b) of claim 1. In the context of the overall claim language, it is impossible to determine, without speculative assumption, whether claim 3:
1) defines an additional step of introducing; or
2) lacks proper antecedent basis but attempts to further limit the scope of step b) recited by claim 1; or
3) further limits the structural limitations, but not the method steps a)-d).
Due to the format of the claim language as described above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the method steps that are covered by the claim language of claim 3. However, the claim language clearly specifies the structural features of the “cement manufacturing plant” comprising various complex components.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-13 and 16-17, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
See MPEP 2173.05(p), which states “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
Per MPEP 2173.05(p), claims 1-5, 7, 9-13 and 16-17 are indefinite as described above.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-13, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scocek et al, EP 3,744,700 A1 (Scocek).
Regarding claim 1, Scocek teaches a method of producing carbonated concrete fines suitable as supplementary cementitious material, i.e., SCM (corresponding to “a method of producing a synthetic carbonated mineral component”), wherein combination with a cement plant is especially advantageous since both SCM and aggregate from the crusher can be used directly for new concrete (Scocek; [0001] and [0050]).
In light of the motivation provided by Scocek to combine the method of producing SCM with a cement plant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of forming the carbonated concrete fines SCM with a cement manufacturing plant in order to obtain a streamlined method wherein both the SCM and aggregate from the crusher can be used directly for new concrete, thereby resulting in a method of producing a synthetic carbonated mineral component in a cement manufacturing plant as claimed.
The concrete fines are subject to carbonation grinding to convert them to SCM. The concrete fines are transferred via feed (9) to a mill (8), wherein carbon dioxide gas containing 10 to 99 Vol% CO2 is introduced into the mill, wherein the grinding and carbonation occurs (corresponding to the step “c) carbonating the carbonatable substance by reacting the carbonatable substance with CO2 contained in the CO2 enriched exhaust gas, thereby obtaining the synthetic carbonated mineral component”) (Scocek; [0015], [0089] and Fig. 1).
Suitable sources for the carbon dioxide containing gas are exhaust gases directly received from a cement plant, wherein a typical exhaust gas is from a rotary kiln for clinker manufacturing (Scocek; [0016-0017]) (corresponding to “wherein the cement manufacturing plant comprises a calcination device for producing clinker by decarbonating cement raw meal while releasing a CO2 enriched exhaust gas”). The kiln exhaust gas 1 is fed into the mill 8, wherein the simultaneous milling and carbonation occurs (Scocek; [0055-0057], [0089] and Fig. 1). The fluidized bed reactor 18 serves to complete carbonation of the concrete fines and decarbonation of the gas to the desired degree (corresponding to step “b) introducing the carbonatable substance into the exhaust gas installation for contacting the carbonatable substance with the CO2 enriched exhaust gas”) (Scocek; [0031], [0089] and Fig. 1).
The fines are externally provided and fed to a crusher 10 and a separator 27, after which they are fed (9) to the mill (8) (Scocek; [0061], [0089] and Fig. 1) (corresponding to step “a) providing a carbonatable substance from an external source”).
The method of Scocek includes a feed 1 of gas containing carbon dioxide from the kiln to the mill, and a feed 14 of decarbonated gas to the stack (Scocek; [0089] and Fig 11).
The carbonated concrete fines are removed via feed 19 (corresponding to step “d) removing the synthetic carbonated mineral component from the exhaust gas installation”) (Scocek; [0089] and Fig. 1).
Scocek, therefore, teaches methods for producing a synthetic carbonated mineral component in a cement manufacturing plant comprising steps a)-d) as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Scocek is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Suitable sources for the carbon dioxide containing gas are exhaust gases directly received from a cement plant, such as from a rotary kiln for clinker manufacturing (i.e., a calcination device), wherein said exhaust gas is fed to the mill 8 via feed 1 (corresponding to “wherein the exhaust gas installation comprises a cement kiln bypass installation for extracting kiln bypass dust and exhaust gas from the calcination device”) (Scocek; [0016-0017], [0055-0057], [0089] and Fig. 1). Those skilled in art would recognize that the CO2 exhaust gas feed from the clinker rotary kiln would necessarily comprise at least some kiln dust as claimed.
Before the carbonated concrete fines are extracted via feed 19, but after they are carbonated in the mill 8 and/or the circulating fluidized bed reactor 18, the fines are fed through a system fabric filter 17, wherein the resulting SCM can be used directly in a cement plant to produce concrete (corresponding to “and a bypass filter connected to an exhaust end of the cement kiln bypass installation, wherein the step of introducing of the carbonatable substance into the exhaust gas installation comprises introducing the carbonatable substance into the cement kiln bypass installation upstream of the bypass filter”) (Scocek; [0050], [0089] and Fig 1). The exhaust gas containing the carbonated material is vented to the fabric filter 17 for dedusting and collection of the carbonated fines which are extracted via feed 19 (corresponding to “wherein the step of removing of the synthetic carbonated mineral component from the exhaust gas installation comprises separating the synthetic material carbonated mineral component from the exhaust gas by means of said bypass filter and removing the synthetic material carbonated mineral component from the bypass filter”) (Scocek; [0061-0063], [0079], [0089] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Scocek is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The concrete fines have to be brought into contact with the CO2-containing gas multiple times. It is possible to recycle the partially carbonated concrete fines via feed 15 back into the fluidized bed reaction 18, or into the mill 8 and the reactor 10 (corresponding to “wherein the synthetic carbonated mineral component, after step d) is re-introduced into the exhaust gas installation and steps c) and d) are repeated”) (Scocek; [0064], [0089] and Fig 1).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Scocek is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Scocek teaches that the fluidized bed reactor serves to complete carbonation to the desired degree (Scocek; [0031]). The recycling rate, fineness of the particles, and temperature of the carbon dioxide influence the carbonation rate and will be adapted to each other to achieve the desired degree of carbonation and sequestration (Scocek; [0032]). Scocek teaches that at least 12.5 wt% of the waste carbonatable material calculated as oxides is CaO and/or MgO, most preferred at least 50 wt%. Scocek teaches at least 80 wt% of the CaO and MgO is in carbonatable phases before carbonation, preferably at least 90 wt% (Scocek; [0011]). Therefore, at least 40%, preferably at least 45%, of the waste carbonatable material calculated as oxides is CaO and/or MgO (50%*0.8=40% and 50%*0.9-45%).
Further, at least 10 wt% of the material calculated as oxides is carbonatable, but not yet carbonated (Scocek; [0011]).
While Scocek does not explicitly disclose wherein carbonation is conducted until the a CaCO3 content of the carbonatable substance has increased by at least 5 wt% (claim 10) or by at least 10 wt% (claim 16) as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct carbonation until the CaCO3 content of the carbonatable substance has increased to weight percentages, including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired degree of carbonation and sequestration. Further, based on the teachings of the percentage of carbonatable metal oxides in the waste carbonatable material of Scocek, it is clear that CaCO3 wt% increases as claimed are achievable in the methods of Scocek.
Regarding claim 11, Scocek is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Scocek teaches that the reactivity of the obtained supplementary cementitious material (SCM) (i.e., synthetic carbonated mineral component) allows it to be used in composite binders in amounts of from 1 to 80 wt%, wherein suitable cements include Portland cement (Scocek; [0044]). Cement mostly denotes clinker ground with or without other components (Scocek; [0008]). Therefore, it is clear that the obtained supplementary cementitious material may be mixed with Portland clinker, i.e., to form Portland cement.
Scocek further teaches that combination with a cement plant is especially advantageous since both the SCM and aggregate from the crusher can be used directly for new concrete (Scocek; [0050]). The end result is providing more sustainable building materials by saving natural resources, and reducing energy consumption while reducing CO2 emissions (Scocek; [0003]).
Scocek does not explicitly teach wherein the synthetic carbonated mineral component is mixed with the Portland clinker coming from the calcination device as claimed.
In light of the motivation provided by Scocek to combine the CO2 sequestration facility with a cement plant in order to directly use the SCM with materials from the cement plant to produce cement, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Portland clinker obtained in the rotary kiln for clinker manufacturing for addition to the obtained SCM, in order to provide a method of producing Portland cement production using sustainable building materials, while reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Scocek is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above, wherein Portland cement is produced in a cement plant using Portland clinker from the rotary kiln and the produced SCM. Scocek teaches if the SCM does not have a suitable fineness for use in a composite binder, it can be ground with the other binder components, e.g., cement (Scocek; [0041]) (corresponding to “wherein the synthetic carbonated mineral component and the Portland clinker are co-ground in a cement mill of the cement manufacturing plant”).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Scocek is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Scocek teaches that at least 12.5 wt% of the waste carbonatable material calculated as oxides is CaO and/or MgO, most preferred at least 50 wt%. Scocek teaches at least 80 wt% of the CaO and MgO is in carbonatable phases before carbonation, preferably at least 90 wt% (Scocek; [0011]).
At least 12.5 wt%, preferably at least 50wt%, of the waste carbonatable material calculated as oxides being CaO and/or MgO falls within the claimed mineral component having a total metal oxide content of at least 10 wt% (claim 13), and at least 30 wt% (claim 17) respectively.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scocek as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Krishnamurthy et al, CA 2120858 A1 (Krishnamurthy).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Scocek is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above, wherein the carbon dioxide-containing gas used for carbonation is exhaust gas directly received from a rotary kiln for clinker manufacturing (i.e., a calcination device) (Scocek; [0016-0017] and [0055-0057]). The exhaust gas containing the carbonated material is vented to the fabric filter 17 for dedusting and collection of the carbonated fines (Scocek; [0061-0063], [0079], [0089] and Fig. 1).
In all embodiments, Scocek teaches it is preferable to adjust the temperature of the carbonating atmosphere inside the mill by heat exchange with available gas and material streams. For example, Scocek teaches that it is possible to cool the carbon dioxide-containing exhaust gas by pre-heating the concrete fines with it (Scocek; [0022]).
Scocek does not explicitly teach:
wherein the cement kiln bypass installation comprises a quenching chamber for cooling the kiln bypass dust and the exhaust gas, and wherein the carbonatable substance is introduced into the quenching chamber” (claim 3), or
wherein a quenching air duct is connected to the quenching chamber for introducing quenching air into the quenching chamber, and wherein the carbonatable substance is introduced into the quenching chamber via the quenching air duct (claim 4).
With respect to the difference, Krishnamurthy teaches that exhaust gases from kilns contains ash and other fine solids which must be removed from the gases prior to discharge from the plant. The fine solids are typically removed by filtration using fine filtering equipment. However, because the kiln exhaust gases are very hot, it is necessary they be cooled prior to introduction into the filtering equipment. The hot kiln gases are usually cooled by injecting cool air into them as soon as they exit the kiln (Krishnamurthy; page 2, para 2). Since injecting a cool gas into a hot gas is an economical procedure for rapidly cooling hot gas, it is desirable to use this method (Krishnamurthy; page 2, para 3).
Krishnamurthy is also trying to solve the problem of the “greenhouse effect,” i.e., by reducing the volume of carbon dioxide discharged to the atmosphere (Krishnamurthy; page 1, para 1).
Krishnamurthy is analogous art as it teaches a method for reducing carbon dioxide in exhaust gases from kilns, wherein the exhaust gases comprising CO2 and dust particles are quenched with cool air prior to filtering.
In light of the motivation provided Krishnamurthy to cool the hot exhaust gases from kilns prior to filtering, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the carbon dioxide- and dust-containing exhaust gas from the rotary kiln in the methods of Scocek using a cooling chamber which injects cool air into said exhaust gas (i.e., wherein the cement kiln bypass installation comprises a quenching chamber for cooling the kiln bypass dust and the exhaust gas, wherein a quenching air duct is connected to the quenching chamber for introducing quenching air into the quenching chamber), in order to sufficiently cool the exhaust gas before feeding to the system fabric filter for dedusting and collection of the carbonated concrete fines, while achieving cooling both efficiently and economically.
In light of the motivation provided by Scocek to use available gas and material streams, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the carbonated concrete fines via the cool air stream in order to simultaneously cool the carbonated fines prior to filtering while combining process gas and material streams, thereby resulting in the claimed invention (i.e., wherein the carbonatable substance is introduced into the quenching chamber via the quenching air duct).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scocek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Comrie, US 2010/0068109 (Comrie).
Regarding claim 5, Scocek is relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Before the carbonated concrete fines are extracted via feed 19, but after they are carbonated in the mill 8 and/or the circulating fluidized bed reactor 18, the carbonated fines, as well as the gas, are fed through a system fabric filter 17 for dedusting and collection of the carbonated fines (corresponding to “wherein the exhaust gas installation comprises an exhaust gas duct … for directing the exhaust gas to a main filter, and wherein the step of removing of the synthetic carbonated mineral component from the exhaust gas installation comprises separating the synthetic material carbonated mineral component from the exhaust gas by means of said main filter and removing the synthetic material carbonated mineral component from the main filter”) (Scocek; [0061], [0089] and Fig 1).
Scocek does not explicitly teach:
wherein the cement manufacturing plant comprises a preheater for preheating the cement raw meal in counter or cross current to the exhaust gas;
wherein the step of introducing of the carbonatable substance into the exhaust gas installation comprises introducing the carbonatable substance into the exhaust gas flow at a location between the preheater and the main filter, and
wherein the exhaust gas duct is arranged downstream of the preheater.
Examiner notes the “exhaust gas conditioning tower for conditioning the exhaust gas coming from the preheater” is an optional component, and is therefore not required by the claim 5.
With respect to the difference, Comrie teaches a method for sequestering and/or reducing carbon dioxide present in an industrial effluent stream containing carbon dioxide by containing the effluent stream with a first and second component (Comrie; Abstract). The effluent stream containing carbon dioxide may be from a kiln used to produce clinker (Comrie; [0014] and [0085]).
The first component of the scrubbing material may comprise calcium oxide (Comrie; [0024]).
In some embodiments, the first component comprises cement kiln duct, which generally refers to a byproduct generated within a cement kiln or related processing equipment during Portland cement manufacturing (Comrie; [0032]). The first stage of cement manufacturing is a preheating stage that drives off any moisture from the raw materials, removes water of hydration, and raise the material temperature to approximately 1500oF. The second stage is the calcination stage, ultimately forming Portland clinker which is mixed with other additives to form Portland cement (Comrie; [0033]).
A product is generated comprising calcium carbonate (i.e., a synthetic carbonated mineral component) that can be re-used as a raw material to produce clinker and/or lime (i.e., a supplementary cementitious material) (Comrie; [0085]).
Comrie is analogous art as it teaches a method of forming a carbonated mineral component using carbon dioxide exhaust gas from a kiln used to produce clinker, by contacting the carbon dioxide gas with a calcium oxide component, and wherein clinker production comprises a preheating step.
In light of the motivation provided by Comrie to preheat raw materials prior to calcination, 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 preheater prior to calcination in the processes of Scocek in order to drive off any moisture from the raw materials, remove water of hydration, and raise the material temperature of the to approximately 1500oF prior to calcination. Those skilled in the art would understand that such preheating of the raw material for Portland cement production would resulting a CO2 exhaust, i.e., “wherein the cement manufacturing plant comprises a preheater for preheating the cement raw meal in counter or cross current to the exhaust gas”, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Because the preheating step of Comrie occurs before calcination, and because filtering and removing of the carbonated material occurs after carbonation with the CO2 exhaust gas, it is clear that the methods of Scocek in view of Comrie introduce of the carbonatable substance into the exhaust gas flow at a location between the preheater and the main filter, and wherein the exhaust gas duct is arranged downstream of the preheater as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Scocek in view of Comrie are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above, wherein the raw materials are preheated prior to calcination. In all embodiments, Scocek teaches it is preferable to adjust the temperature of the carbonating atmosphere inside the mill by heat exchange with available gas and material streams. Scocek teaches that it is possible to cool the carbon dioxide-containing exhaust gas by pre-heating the concrete fines with it (Scocek; [0022]). The concrete fines are then subject to carbonation and grinding in a mill (8), wherein carbon dioxide gas containing CO2 is introduced into the mill (Scocek; [0015], [0089] and Fig. 1).
Scocek in view of Comrie do not explicitly teach wherein the carbonatable substance is introduced into a mill fed by preheater exhaust gas, for drying, grinding and/or carbonating the carbonatable substance.
In light of the motivation provided by Scocek to use available gas streams to adjust the temperature of the carbonating atmosphere inside the mill by heat exchange, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the fines feed to the mill, for subsequent grinding and carbonating, using the gas stream of the preheating step, in the methods of Scocek in view of Comrie, because Scocek teaches it is preferable to adjust to the temperature within the mill by adding fines to the inlet gas to reduce the temperature, preferably using available gas streams, e.g., preheating gas streams, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giovanni, DE 102013112695-A1, teaches a plant which allows for the production of cement clinker and high purity carbon dioxide.
Sceats, US 2017/0050883 A1, and Stallmann, US 2014/0161696 A1, teach methods for capturing carbon dioxide in cement manufacturing plants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights