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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10, 11, 16, 12-13, 15, 21 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/21/2026
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-9 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 4/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not teach a step of hydrothermal treatment to starting material, etc. and all of the limitations of the independent claim asserting additional carbonates obtained from activated aggregate from the activated aggregate forms different products from the supplementary cement of the prior art and that the search for all groups would not be unreasonable. This is not persuasive. This “restriction” is for lack of unity. The standard for lack of unity is a lack of shared technical feature not argued by applicant or not making a contribution over the prior art as to the special technical feature. The examiner has identified the special technical feature as supplementary cement material which is taught by the cited prior art which makes the product by a similar manner or a special technical feature that of the instant claims using hydrothermal treatment of recycled concrete fines in the instant claims from the starting material of the instant independent claim or the special technical feature of carbonation of hydrothermally treated cement does not make a contribution over the prior art as more fully set forth in the lack of unity mailed 3/26/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Skocek WO 2019/115722 published June 20, 2019 (more than one year prior to the instant application effective filing date)
Regarding Claims 1-2, 6 and 9
Skocek WO 2019/115722 published June 20, 2019 (more than one year prior to the instant application effective filing date) discloses a process comprising manufacturing supplementary cement material with recycled concrete fines and carbonation (Abstract)
CLAIM 1 i) and CLAIM 2
The product is made from recycled concrete fines (meeting the limitation for hydrated cement and aggregate and waste concrete of claim 2) and additional material which is ground (See claim 2-3 of reference) such as limestone [0062] (i.e. meeting the limitations of claim 1 for aggregate). The recycled fines and aggregate include C-S-H phase (i.e. hydrated cement and aggregate of claim 1 and waste concrete of claim 2) [0056]
CLAIM 1ii)
The cement is mixed with an aqueous liquid and the materials include dicalcium silicate obtained by hydrothermal treatment [0020] (meeting the limitation for hydrothermal treatment of claim 1 and meeting the limitation for silicate and/or alumino silicate of claim 1)
CLAIM 1 iii)
The material is subjected to carbonation [0037]
CLAIM 2:
Manufacturing supplementary cement from recycled concrete fines which have a D90 less than 1000 microns The supplementary cement material is ground to d90 less than 9 microns (See claim 3).
(meeting intended use of producing supplementary cement of claim 1 and aggregate of recycled waste concrete of claim 2 and overlapping range of claim 6)
CLAIM 6:
The starting materials have a particle size distribution determined by laser granulometry of D90 of less than or equal to 500 microns or 200 microns [0029] (meeting claims 6 and 19-20)
The SCM are adjusted to intended use such as D90 of less than or equal to 90 microns as determined by laser granulometry [0051] (overlapping claims 6, 19- 20)
CLAIM 9:
The material may also be used to clean sulfur from exhaust gases (SO x) [0040] the carbonation and/or sulfurization process rate increases with increasing temperature. Temperature may range from 10-150ºC or 20-100 ºC [0041] Reaction rate and gas cleaning rate can also be enhanced with increased pressure such as 0.1 to 4 bar [0042]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-8 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek WO 2019/115722 published June 20, 2019 (more than one year prior to the instant application effective filing date) as applied to claims 1-2, 6 and 9 above
Introduction:
Skocek discloses the limitations above set forth.
Where the prior art teaches overlapping ranges as more fully below set forth the examiner notes that said overlapping ranges renders the claimed ranges obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
As below set forth Skocek recognizes that adjusting pressure and temperature affects reaction rates and times of reactions allowing one of skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to alter same to optimize the time of the reaction / reaction rate. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding Claims 3:
Skocek discloses the limitations above set forth.
The starting materials have a particle size distribution determined by laser granulometry of D90 of less than or equal to 500 microns or 200 microns [0029] (rendering obvious claims 19-20)
The SCM are adjusted to intended use such as D90 of less than or equal to 90 microns as determined by laser granulometry [0051] (overlapping 19- 20)
The material is subjected to carbonation [0037] The starting material is carbonated and deagglomerated (See claim 1)
Skocek also discloses recycled concrete fines are used in cement and concrete manufacturing [0023]
The recycled concrete fines are mixed with additional material (see claim 2) (meeting claim 1 and 2 for aggregate waste concrete)
The carbonated material forms supplemental cement material. The past fraction of the SCM contains calcium carbonate and a mixture of amorphous phases transformed remnants of the original hydrates amorphous silicates and/or silica, which may be partly hydrated. [0048] (rendering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the of filing the invention the presence of amorphous silicate in the recycled concrete fines used in step i) of the instant claimed invention)
Recycled concrete aggregate and fines are used for COsub.2 re-absorption [0012] (rendering obvious the limitations of claim) The exact composition and particle size distribution of recycled concrete fines depends on the original binder and composition used in the concrete and may comprise hardened binder paste with fine sand/aggregates [0022]
Cement includes dicalcium silicate obtained by hydrothermal treatment [0020] (thereby meeting the limitation of claim 3 for a silicate and where silicates have only two main forms of either crystalline or amorphous thereby rendering same obvious and readily envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.)
Recycled concrete fines include silica, aluminates, quartz etc. [0028]Table 1] (meeting claim 4)
Regarding Claim 4
Skocek discloses the limitations above set forth. The recycled fines and aggregate include quartz [0027] (meeting claim 4)
Regarding Claims 8:
The material may also be used to clean sulfur from exhaust gases (SO x) [0040] the carbonation and/or sulfurization process rate increases with increasing temperature. Temperature may range from 10-150ºC or 20-100 ºC [0041] Reaction rate and gas cleaning rate can also be enhanced with increased pressure such as 0.1 to 4 bar [0042]
Carbonating of materials with a particle diameter of 1-1000 microns (Fig 1) may occur at 2 bar above ambient pressure at ambient temperature for 2 hours [0058] (meeting claim 8)
Regarding claims 17-18:
The product is made from recycled concrete fines (meeting the limitation for hydrated cement and aggregate and waste concrete of claim 2) and additional material which is ground (See claim 2-3 of reference) such as limestone [0062] (i.e. meeting the limitations of claim 1 for aggregate). The recycled fines and aggregate include C-S-H phase (i.e. hydrated cement and aggregate of claim 1 and waste concrete of claim 2) [0056]
Regarding claims 19-20:
Skocek discloses the limitations above set forth.
The starting materials have a particle size distribution determined by laser granulometry of D90 of less than or equal to 500 microns or 200 microns [0029] (rendering obvious claims 19-20)
The SCM are adjusted to intended use such as D90 of less than or equal to 90 microns as determined by laser granulometry [0051] (overlapping 19- 20)
Regarding Claims 5 and 7:
Skocek discloses the limitations above set forth. Recycled concrete aggregate and fines are used for COsub.2 re-absorption [0012] (rendering obvious the limitations of claim) The exact composition and particle size distribution of recycled concrete fines depends on the original binder and composition used in the concrete and may comprise hardened binder paste with fine sand/aggregates [0022]
Cement is mixed aqueous liquid forming a paste undergoing a hydraulic reaction such as clinker and other mixtures land Cement includes dicalcium silicate obtained by hydrothermal treatment [0020] the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention could ascertain the proper amount of water to solid ratio as well as temperature pressure and time for hydrothermal treatment with a reasonable expectation of success to form the recycled fines and aggregate for forming the supplementary cement material.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "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)"
Recycled concrete fines include silica, aluminates, quartz etc. [0028]Table 1]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/115722 published June 20, 2019 (more than one year prior to the instant application effective filing date) as applied to claims 1-9 and 17-20 above further in view of Itul et al (US 2018/0186695)
Regarding Claim 7:
Skocek discloses the limitations above set forth. While Skocek discloses hydrothermally treating the waste fines/feedstock to be carbonated and while the examiner maintains one of skill in the art can determine the proper conditions for same rending the limitations of claim 7 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention with a reasonable expectation of success; assuming same is not obvious:
Itul et al (US 2018/0186695) like SKocek is directed to use of recycled used concrete and cement fines for carbon dioxide capture/carbonation treatment to form building materials. (Abstract) Itul discloses material for capturing carbon dioxide made from a starting material which is hydrothermally rated at 50-300 ºC (Abstract)
The material is ground then hydrothermally treated [0026] and comprises calcium silicate amorphous phase as well as calcium aluminum silicate [0028] –[0035]
The raw materials are subjected to hydrothermal treatment in an autoclave at 100 – 300 ºC at water solid ratio of 0.1 to 100 with a residence time of 0.1 to 24 hours and the pressure corresponds to the steam pressure of the water at 150ºC approx. 4.75 bar at 200 ºC 15 bar at 2250ºC 40 bar [0016] The maximum particle size is at most 0.1 mm and finer grain fractions from reprocessing of cement containing binding agents such as old concrete and cement are sued and a finer starting material is advantageous with regard to reaction rate and expenditure and for reaction with carbon dioxide [0013][0008]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize the water ratio temperature pressure and reaction time as taught by Itul to hydrothermally treat the waste concrete cement fines of Skocek as Skocek expressly contemplates hydrothermal treatment and these conditions are suitable for advantage reaction rates for carbon dioxide reactions / capture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skocek (US 2020/0339476) (published 10/29/2020) (also published as (WO2018/072497) )
Skocek discloses a method of manufacturing building cement comprising forming calcium silicate hydrate, (i.e. hydrated cement) calcium aluminum silicate hydrate, (i.e. alumino silicate) portlandite, brucite stratingite etc. followed by carbonation (Abstract)
A binder comprising at least 8 wt. % ternesite and at least 15 % dicalcium silicate and at least 5 wt.% ye’ elimite in reactive phases is mixed to form hydrated phases followed by carbonation (See claim 1 reference)
The hydrated reactive materials include one or more of calcium silicate hydrate (i.e. hydrated cement), calcium aluminum silicate hydrate, aluminum silicate hydrate, portlandite brucite stratingite hydrotalcite like and ettringite (See claim 4 reference)
Cement denotes clinker ground and mixtures like super sulfated cement di calcium silicate cement obtained by hydrothermal treatment [0011] including amorphous phases [0014][0020-0023][0039](further meeting claim 3)
The composition includes ternesite, dicalcium silicate Ye elimite, C4AF, C2F, amorphous hydraulic phase, and minor phases including quartz [00039][0020] (meeting claim 4)
The binder is mixed with aggregate and additives [0031] followed by carbonation [0032]
The composition can be made from waste materials [0012] including demolished construction waste gypsum etc. [0021] [0012]
Curing time depend on process conditions and material. Typical carbonation times for CO2 pressure in the range of 0.005 to 2 MPa (overlapping the claimed range 0.05 to 10 MPa of claim 8) and temperatures from ambient to 100C (within the claimed range of claim 8) for 10 minutes to 48 hours.
Regarding Claim 7
The materials are mixed with water and hydrated for 18h in sealed containers at 50C[0041] (overlapping claim 7)
The binder materials are mixed and water is added followed by carbonation. Water to binder material is added at 0.2 to 1.2 ratio (See reference claims 1 and 4)(overlapping claim 5)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights