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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “metho” appeared to have a typographical error and should be “method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek et al. (US 2020/0290925 A1) (“Skocek” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Skocek teaches a method comprising preparing a… mortar (see Skocek at [0026] teaching the method according to the disclosure requires RCF (or recycled concrete fines), see Skocek at [0025] teaching the SCM (or supplemental cementitious material) according to the disclosure is suitable to make composite binders… if the fineness after carbonation is not as desired, i.e. comparable to that of the cement, see Skocek at [0051] teaching the composite binder according to the disclosure is useful to applications known per se for cements… and other common hydraulic binders). The method as taught by Skocek is taken to meet the claimed limitations,
using a fraction whose particle size d10 is greater than or equal to 150 µm (see Skocek at [0028] teaching the particle size distribution… usually conforms to a D90 < 1000 µm… if the particles are coarser, they can be sieved and/or ground before or during carbonation to improve carbonation, see Skocek at [0022] teaching the exact… particle size distribution of RCF depends on the… the demolishing and grinding procedures applied, see Skocek at [0025] teaching the SCM (or supplemental cementitious material) according to the disclosure is suitable to make composite binders… if the fineness after carbonation is not as desired, i.e. comparable to that of the cement). 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).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the particle size distribution is a result effective variable that could be optimized so as to provide the fineness (or particle size distribution) that is desired suitable for composite binders or cements.
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 fineness (or particle size distribution) so as to arrive at the as claimed “using a fraction whose particle size d10 is greater than or equal to 150 µm” and provide the fineness (or particle size distribution) that is desired suitable for composite binders or cements as taught by Skocek, and there is a reasonable expectation of success that fineness (or particle size distribution) as taught by Skocek would be suitable,
the fraction having a loss on ignition varying from 3% to 30% (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… LOI… 21.58%) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and comprising:
from 20% to 80% SiO2 (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… SiO2 43.63 wt.%);
from 5% to 40% CaO (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… CaO 21.51 wt.%);
from 1% to 15% Al2O3 (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… Al2O3 5.70 wt.%); and
from 0.5% to 4% of Fe2O3 (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… Fe2O3 2.74 wt.%).
Regarding claims 2-3, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the particle size d10 of the fraction is greater than or equal to 180 µm (claim 2), and wherein the particle size d10 of the fraction is greater than or equal to 200 µm (claim 3) (see Skocek at [0028] teaching the particle size distribution… usually conforms to a D90 < 1000 µm… if the particles are coarser, they can be sieved and/or ground before or during carbonation to improve carbonation, see Skocek at [0022] teaching the exact… particle size distribution of RCF depends on the… the demolishing and grinding procedures applied, see Skocek at [0025] teaching the SCM (or supplemental cementitious material) according to the disclosure is suitable to make composite binders… if the fineness after carbonation is not as desired, i.e. comparable to that of the cement). 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).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the particle size distribution is a result effective variable that could be optimized so as to provide the fineness (or particle size distribution) that is desired suitable for composite binders or cements.
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 fineness (or particle size distribution) so as to arrive at the as claimed “wherein the particle size d10 of the fraction is greater than or equal to 180 µm” (claim 2), and “wherein the particle size d10 of the fraction is greater than or equal to 200 µm” (claim 3) and provide the fineness (or particle size distribution) that is desired suitable for composite binders or cements as taught by Skocek, and there is a reasonable expectation of success that fineness (or particle size distribution) as taught by Skocek would be suitable.
Regarding claims 4-5, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the particle size d90 of the fraction is… less than… 4000 µm (claim 4), and wherein the particle size d90 of the fraction is… less than… 3000 µm (claim 5) (see Skocek at [0028] teaching the particle size distribution… usually conforms to a D90 < 1000 µm) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction has a loss on ignition varying from 4% to 25% (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… LOI… 21.58%).
Regarding claim 7, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction contains from 30% to 70% SiO2 (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… SiO2 43.63 wt.%).
Regarding claim 8, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction contains from 10% to 30% CaO (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… CaO 21.51 wt.%).
Regarding claim 9, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction contains from 2% to 10% Al2O3 (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… Al2O3 5.70 wt.%).
Regarding claim 10, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction contains from 1% to 3% of Fe2O3 (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… Fe2O3 2.74 wt.%).
Regarding claim 11, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction contains from 0.1% to 3% MgO (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… MgO 1.22 wt.%).
Regarding claim 13, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction contains from 0.1% to 3% K2O (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… K2O 0.76 wt.%).
Regarding claim 14, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction contains from 0.05% to 2% Na2O (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… Na2O 0.32 wt.%).
Regarding claim 17, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the fraction contains from 0.05% to 3% SO3 (see Skocek at [0027] teaching the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is as follows… Table 1… RCF 2… SO3 1.07 wt.%).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 15-16 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: the prior art reference of record fail to teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 12 and 15-16.
Specifically, it is noted that Skocek teaches all the limitations of independent claim 1 as outlined above. However, Skocek does not explicitly teach “wherein the fraction contains 0.05% to 2% TiO2” (claim 12), “wherein the fraction contains 0.01% to 1% P2O5” (claim 15), and “wherein the fraction contains 0.005% to 0.2% Mn2O3” (claim 16). 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 Skocek as claimed in the respective dependent claims 12, and 15-16.
As such, the prior art reference of record fail to teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 12 and 15-16, as claimed. Therefore, all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claims 12 and 15-16 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