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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-15 in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/12/2026.
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, 4-5, 7-10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (TW I271492 B, with reference to the machine translation when referring to the text, and the original when referring to the tables) (“Wang” hereinafter) in view of Ackermann et al. (DE 37 18336 A1, with reference to the machine translation) (“Ackermann” hereinafter).
Referring to claim 1, Wang teaches an aggregate (see Wang at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching the modified incinerator bottom ash material to be used as a multi-purpose filling material and applied in various construction applications such as… engineering fill materials, see Wang at page 6 paragraph 3 teaching the improved incinerator bottom ash fill material is quite similar to general riverbed aggregate gradation). The modified bottom ash material is taken to meet the claimed “aggregate” based on the structure as outlined below, comprising:
a cement (see Wang at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching a treatment method… incinerator bottom ash… first a small amount of cement and water glass… forming a cement paste),
a ground granulated blast-furnace slag (see Wang at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching materials were coated onto outside of the cement paste binder… using… namely (1) water quenched furnace stone powder wet coating method, see Wang at page 4 paragraphs 7-8 teaching water-quenched furnace slag powder… is a by-product of the steelmaking process and is commonly known as furnace slag… granular water-quenched blast furnace slag… when ground into powder, it is called water-quenched blast furnace slag powder); and
bottom ash (see Wang at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching a treatment method… incinerator bottom ash, see Wang at page 5 paragraph 5 teaching bottom ash is the coal ash residue from the bottom molten ash of a coal-fired boiler that has been water-quenched, cooled, and crushed),
wherein the cement is hydrated in the presence of the ground granulated blast-furnace slag to have… a calcium silicate hydrate… formed which encapsulates the bottom ash (see Wang at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching bottom ash… first a small amount of cement… with water… form a viscous consistency… this mixture is then applied to the surface of the coarse incinerator bottom ash, forming a cement paste film… layer… then, (1) water-quenched furnace stone powder… coated onto the outside of the cement paste binder… to form a second stable layer, see Wang at page 5 paragraph 1 teaching water-quenched furnace stone powder… similar to that of Portland cement clinker… when mixed with cement, it can form low-density calcium silicate (C-S-H)… hydrates through a hydration reaction during the hydration reaction with cement). The first cement paste layer and granular water-quenched blast furnace slag second layer is taken to meet the claimed “encapsulates the bottom ash”, the calcium silicate (C-S-H) hydrate through a hydration reaction between slag and cement is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the cement is hydrated in the presence of the ground granulated blast-furnace slag to have… a calcium silicate hydrate”.
Wang does not explicitly teach that the claimed cement comprises ordinary Portland cement.
Like Wang, Ackermann teaches boiler encapsulated with cement or blast furnace slag (see Ackermann at [0006]-[0007] teaching warm fluidized bed ash is mixed with the cement… depending on the desired strength of the mixture product or the lightweight aggregate… Portland or blast furnace… is added to the fluidized bed ash, see Ackermann at [0013] teaching boiler ash and also crushed bed ash are used as core material).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Portland cement is suitable as the cement to encapsulate the bottom ash.
Therefore, 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 cement as taught by Ackermann in the first layer in the modified incinerator bottom ash material as taught by Wang because it is suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claims 4-5, Wang in view of Ackermann teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Wang further teaches wherein the ground granulated blast-furnace slag comprises… CaO (claim 4), and wherein the ground granulated blast-furnace slag comprises: CaO present in an amount ranging from 30 to 50 wt%; SiO2 present in an amount ranging from 28 to 38 wt%; and MgO present in an amount from 1 to 18 wt% (claim 5) (see Wang at page 5 paragraph 1 teaching water-quenched furnace stone powder contains oxides such as… calcium… its composition is shown in Table 6, see Wang (original) at page 13, Table 6, shown with Examiner annotation below, teaching 41.57 wt% CaO… 34.47 wt% SiO2… 7.22 wt% MgO), meeting the claimed wherein the ground granulated blast-furnace slag comprises… CaO (claim 4), and wherein the ground granulated blast-furnace slag comprises: CaO present in an amount ranging from 30 to 50 wt%; SiO2 present in an amount ranging from 28 to 38 wt%; and MgO present in an amount from 1 to 18 wt% (claim 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
243
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Ackermann teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Wang further teaches wherein the bottom ash comprises… a heavy metal (see Wang at page 6 paragraph 4 teaching all incinerator bottom ash samples were analyzed for heavy metal toxicity… the results showed that the concentration of hexavalent chromium (Cr) in the leachate from the incinerator bottom ash was ND (below the minimum allowable limit)). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the bottom ash contains a heavy metal.
Regarding claims 8-10, Wang in view of Ackermann teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Wang teaches wherein the ordinary Portland cement comprises microfine ordinary Portland cement; or the ground granulated blast-furnace slag comprises microfine ground granulated blast- furnace slag; or the ordinary Portland cement comprises microfine ordinary Portland cement and the ground granulated blast-furnace slag comprises microfine ground granulated blast-furnace slag (claim 8), wherein the microfine ordinary Portland cement has a specific surface area of 750 m2/kg or higher (claim 9), and wherein the microfine ground granulated blast-furnace slag has a specific surface area of 750 m2/kg or higher (claim 10), as outlined below.
Wang teaches a treatment method… incinerator bottom ash… first a small amount of cement and water glass are mixed with water… this mixture is then applied to the surface of the coarse incinerator bottom ash, forming a cement paste film… this creates a denser film on the surface of the porous incinerator bottom as particles… then, (1) water-quenched furnace stone powder… used… to form a second stable layer… the main purpose of this method is to dilute, solidify, and chelate the incinerator bottom ash to make it more stable, and to increase its compressive strength, shear strength, and load bearing capacity, reduce the leaching of heavy metals, and reduce odor… this allows the modified incinerator bottom ash material to be used as a multi-purpose filling material and applied in various construction applications (see Wang at page 1 paragraph 3)… water-quenched furnace slag powder… is a by-product of the steelmaking process and is commonly known as furnace slag… granular water-quenched blast furnace slag… when ground into powder, it is called water-quenched blast furnace slag powder (see Wang at page 4 paragraphs 7-8).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the size (or fineness) of both the Portland cement and ground granulated blast-furnace slag is a result effective variable that could be optimized to provide the desired coating layer over the bottom ash.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the size (or fineness) of both the Portland cement and ground granulated blast-furnace slag as taught by Wang in order to provide a modified incinerator bottom ash material that is stable, and to increase its compressive strength, shear strength, and load bearing capacity, reduce the leaching of heavy metals, and reduce odor that will allow the modified incinerator bottom ash material to be used as a multi-purpose filling material and applied in various construction applications, so as to arrive at the claimed wherein the ordinary Portland cement comprises microfine ordinary Portland cement; or the ground granulated blast-furnace slag comprises microfine ground granulated blast- furnace slag; or the ordinary Portland cement comprises microfine ordinary Portland cement and the ground granulated blast-furnace slag comprises microfine ground granulated blast-furnace slag (claim 8), wherein the microfine ordinary Portland cement has a specific surface area of 750 m2/kg or higher (claim 9), and wherein the microfine ground granulated blast-furnace slag has a specific surface area of 750 m2/kg or higher (claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Ackermann teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the aggregate comprises at least about 10 wt% of the ground granulated blast-furnace slag. However, Ackermann teaches depending on the desired strength of the mixture product or the lightweight aggregate… 3 to 15%... blast furnace… is added to the fluidized bed ash (see Ackermann at [0007]), which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the aggregate comprises at least about 10 wt% of the ground granulated blast-furnace slag”.
Additionally, MPEP states that "[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", and “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” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected at least about 10 wt% of the ground granulated blast-furnace slag as taught by Ackermann in the modified incinerator bottom ash material as taught by Wang because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amount would be suitable.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Ackermann teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the aggregate has an average diameter of 0.8 mm or more. However, Ackermann teaches the moist, porous core material preferably consists of boiler ash from fluidized bed plants with a grain size of 1-4 mm (see Ackermann at [0008]), which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the aggregate has an average diameter of 0.8 mm or more” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[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", and “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” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a grain size of 1-4 mm as taught by Ackermann in the modified incinerator bottom ash material as taught by Wang because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amount would be suitable.
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Ackermann teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Wang teaches wherein the aggregate further comprises an additive, wherein the additive comprises… fly ash (see Wang at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching (2) fly ash… to form a second stable layer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one or ordinary skill in the art all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11 and 13.
With respect to claim 11, it is noted that Wang in view of Ackermann teach the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Wang in view of Ackermann do not explicitly teach wherein the aggregate comprises at least about 40 wt% of the ordinary Portland cement. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Wang in view of Ackermann as claimed.
With respect to claim 13, it is noted that Wang in view of Ackermann teach the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Wang in view of Ackermann do not explicitly teach wherein the calcium silicate hydrate or derivative thereof encapsulating the bottom ash has an average thickness ranging from 200 µm to 700 µm. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Wang in view of Ackermann as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11 and 13, as claimed. Therefore, all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11 and 13 are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights