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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claim 1, 4, 14, 15, and 18 and cancelled Claims 6 and 16 in the response filed on 5/22/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the specific pyrolyzed food waste in the claimed method provides biochar in which free calcium ions are abundant, which unexpectedly increases the absorption of CO2 and the compressive strength of the resulting sustainable construction material. According to Example 3 and paragraph [75], the strength of the construction waste with food waste-derived biochar increases with an increasing amount of biochar added. Compared with Example 2 in which raw food waste was included, the compressive strength of the resulting sustainable construction material with the biochar of the pyrolyzed food waste increased about 6-11 times (Figs. 2 and 3). Such unexpected results further evidence the non-obviousness of the pyrolyzed food waste in preparing the sustainable construction materials as recited in amended claim 1.
However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The evidence pointed to in the specification is not commensurate in scope with the claims. As disclosed in Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs [031], [032], and [72]-[73], the argued evidence disclose specific method for preparing a sustainable construction material, such as but not limited to, number of days of CO2 curing, density, type and concentration of biochar, etc.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: To promote clarity, please amend “the total weight” to “a total weight”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, it is noted that the recited types of construction waste materials overlap in scope with each other. For example, Claims 2 and 14 recites the broad recitation of construction debris, and the claims also recites concrete, bitumen, crushed stone, concrete rubble, soil, and aggregate which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The instant claims recite the broad recitation of concrete and the narrower limitation of concrete rubble. The instant claims recite the broad recitation of aggregate and the narrower recitation of crushed stone.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112939538 (“Wang”) in view of KR 20040000572 A (“Song et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1, 3, and 19, Wang teaches a method for preparing a sustainable construction material, and product thereof, the method comprising combining construction waste and water thereby forming a waste mixture, and contacting the waste mixture with CO2 under conditions in which at least a portion of the calcium present in the waste mixture is converted to calcium carbonate thereby forming a treated waste mixture thereby forming the sustainable construction material (Abstract, Fig. 1, Page 2: Line 39 bridging to Page 3: Line 13 in the provided English language translated document).
Wang does not teach its waste mixture further comprising pyrolyzed food waste comprising calcium.
However, Song et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a construction material by using wastes to solve the problem of environmental pollution caused by said waste materials. Therefore, an object of Song et al.’s invention is to prepare a sustainable construction material by incorporating pyrolyzed food waste comprising calcium, such as shellfish, and pyrolyzed at 700 to 1000°C (Abstract and Pages 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate pyrolyzed shellfish, as demonstrated by Song et al., in order to help the environment and improve the strength of the construction material (Page 2).
With regards to Claim 2, Wang teaches the claimed construction waste (Abstract).
With regards to Claims 4 and 5, Wang teaches a sustainable construction material comprising 1700-1910 parts of waste material (sum of the mineralized reinforced coarse aggregate, mineralized reinforced fine aggregate, and mineralized reinforced regenerated micro-powder), 400 to 450 parts of cement, 130 to 180 parts of mineral admixture, 15 to 25 parts of additive, 60 to 100 parts of fibre, and 130 to 160 parts of water (Page 3: Lines 46-50). Song et al. teaches 5-30% pyrolyzed food waste is mixed with slag (corresponds to Wang’s mineral admixture) (Page 2: Lines 28-32). Therefore, Wang in view of Song et al. teaches 6.5 - 54 parts of pyrolyzed food waste, and thus the construction waste and the pyrolyzed food waste is in a mass ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 1:1 to 97:3. Further, the prior art of record teaches the waste mixture comprises water at a concentration that overlaps with the claimed 5-80% m/m relative to the total weight of the construction waste, the food waste, and water. Examiner notes that claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to Claim 21, Wang teaches contacting its waste material with CO2 before and after adding cement. As disclosed in Fig. 1 and Page 3: Lines 39-44, Wang teaches a mixture of recycled aggregates/building waste and water undergoing a CO2 curing in step ②. Therefore, Wang does not add cement to the waste mixture before contacting the waste mixture with CO2. Cement and water is then added to form a concrete mix, and said concrete mix is contacted with CO2 in step ⑤.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112939538 (“Wang”) in view of KR 20040000572 A (“Song et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20220258378 (“Horiuchi et al.”).
Wang does not teach applying a surface treatment to at least one surface of the sustainable construction material.
However, Horiuchi et al. teaches applying a surface treatment to at least one surface of a construction material, wherein the surface treatment comprises a water repellent coating. The water repellent coating comprises 60 parts by mass of silicone and 25 parts by mass of titanium oxide, which overlaps the claimed mass ratio (Abstract, [0053], [0054], and [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a surface treatment on Wang’s sustainable construction material in order to protect the construction material by providing waterproofness, resistance to salt permeation, inhibition of neutralization, and water vapor transmittance [0054].
Claims 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112939538 (“Wang”) in view of KR 20040000572 A (“Song et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tam et al., “Utilising CO2 Technologies for Recycled Aggregate Concrete: A Critical Review.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 250, July 2020, p. 118903 (“Tam et al.”).
With regards to Claims 12 and 13, Wang teaches contacting the waste mixture with CO2 for 2 to 4 days (Page 3: Lines 52-54).
Wang does not teach contacting the waste mixture with CO2 at a pressure of 200-700 kPa.
However, Tam et al. recognizes that contacting waste with CO2 at a pressure of 400 kPa is known to improve the overall quality of the waste material (Abstract and Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and use suitable CO2 pressure, such as 400 kPa, to effectively strengthen the waste material as desired (Abstract, Table 1, and Page 4).
With regards to Claims 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, the prior art of record teaches contacting a waste mixture of construction waste comprising the claimed material(s), food waste of pyrolyzed shellfish, and water with CO2 under conditions in which at least a portion of the calcium present in the waste mixture is converted to calcium carbonate (Abstract, Fig. 1, Page 2: Line 39 bridging to Page 3: Line 13 in Wang; Abstract, Table 4.1, and Pages 1-2 of Song et al.). Wang further teaches the waste mixture is moulded (Fig. 1).
The prior art of record teaches 1700-1910 parts of construction waste (sum of the mineralized reinforced coarse aggregate, mineralized reinforced fine aggregate, and mineralized reinforced regenerated micro-powder), 6.5 - 54 parts of pyrolyzed food waste (please see Claim 4 above), and 130 to 160 parts of water (Page 3: Lines 46-50 in Wang; Abstract, Table 3.2, and Materials and Methods on Pages 1-2 in Song et al.). Therefore, the construction waste: the food waste: and the water are present in the waste mixture that overlaps with the claimed mass ratio of 85:15:5 to 95:5:10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Wang does not teach contacting the waste mixture with CO2 at a pressure of 400-600 kPa for 21-30 days.
However, Tam et al. recognizes that contacting waste with CO2 at a pressure of 10kPa to 500kPa, 30 mins to 3 weeks is known to improve the overall quality of the waste material (Abstract, Table 1, and Page 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and use suitable CO2 pressure, such as 400 kPa, for 21-30 days in order to effectively strengthen the waste material as desired (Abstract, Table 1, and Page 4).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112939538 (“Wang”) in view of KR 20040000572 A (“Song et al.”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20160280598 (“Wang2”).
Wang teaches contacting its waste material with CO2 before and after adding cement. As shown in Fig. 1 of Wang, the recycled aggregates undergoes CO2 curing in ②. Cement and water is added to form a concrete mix, and said concrete mix is contacted with CO2 in ⑤.
While the Examiner deems that Wang’s teachings are within the scope of the limitation recited in Claim 21, Wang does not explicitly teach its method does not comprise adding cement to the waste mixture before contacting the waste mixture with CO2.
However, Wang2 teaches pre-carbonating a waste mixture comprising a slurry of waste and water before adding cement (OPC) (Fig. 1, [0005], [0010], and [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not add cement to the waste mixture before contacting the waste mixture with CO2 in order to produce concrete with a lower net CO2 release without sacrificing strength or thickness [0012].
Claims 1-5, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160280598 (“Wang2”), in view of KR 20040000572 A (“Song et al.”), and in view of CN 112939538 (“Wang”).
With regards to Claims 1-3, and 19, Wang2 teaches a method for preparing a construction material, and product thereof, the method comprising combining calcium-rich cementitious material, aggregates, and water, thereby forming a mixture. The calcium-rich cementitious material includes slaked lime, fly ash, metakaolin, cement kiln dust, blended ordinary Portland cement-based cements, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, limestone fines, or any combination thereof, some of which are considered wastes ([0005], [0041]-[0045], [0077], and Tables 1-2).
Wang2 further teaches contacting the mixture with CO2 under conditions in which at least a portion of the calcium present in the mixture is converted to calcium carbonate thereby forming a treated mixture thereby forming the construction material (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0005], [0007], [0010], [0012], [0036], and [0042]-[0046]).
Wang2 does not teach its mixture comprising pyrolyzed food waste comprising calcium, wherein the pyrolyzed food waste is pyrolyzed at 200-700°C. Wang2 does not necessarily teach its mixture comprising construction waste.
Song et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a construction material by using wastes to solve the problem of environmental pollution caused by said waste materials. Therefore, an object of Song et al.’s invention is to prepare a sustainable construction material by incorporating pyrolyzed food waste comprising calcium, such as shellfish, and pyrolyzed at 700 to 1000°C to obtain calcium hydroxide (slaked lime, Ca(OH)2) (Abstract and Pages 1-2). 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 Wang2’s calcium-rich cementitious materials comprise of pyrolyzed shellfish (slaked lime) in order to be environmentally friendly and produce a construction material with desirable strength ([0005], [0012], [0059], Example 1, and Tables 1-2 in Wang2 and Page 1 in Song et al.).
Wang teaches a method for preparing a sustainable construction material, and product thereof, the method comprising combining construction waste and water thereby forming a waste mixture, and contacting the waste mixture with CO2 under conditions in which at least a portion of the calcium present in the waste mixture is converted to calcium carbonate thereby forming a treated waste mixture thereby forming the sustainable construction material. Wang further teaches the claimed construction waste material (Abstract, Fig. 1, Page 2: Line 39 bridging to Page 3: Line 13 in the provided English language translated document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use carbonated construction waste in Wang2’s mixture in order to recycle and conserve resources, save energy, etc.
With regards to Claims 4 and 5, Wang2’s Table 1 teaches a mixture comprising 23% of OPC, 13% of water, and 64% of sand (corresponds to construction waste), wherein up to 70% of OPC is replaced with a calcium-rich cementitious material ([0012], Example 1, and Tables 1-2). Therefore, Wang2 teaches construction waste and the food waste is in a mass ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 1:1 to 97:3. Further, the prior art of record teaches the waste mixture comprises water at a concentration that overlaps with the claimed 5-80% m/m relative to the total weight of the construction waste, the food waste, and water. Examiner notes that claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to Claim 21, Wang2 teaches pre-carbonating a waste mixture comprising a slurry of waste and water before adding cement (OPC) (Fig. 1, [0005], [0010], and [0011]).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160280598 (“Wang2”), in view of KR 20040000572 A (“Song et al.”), and in view of CN 112939538 (“Wang”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20220258378 (“Horiuchi et al.”).
Wang2 does not teach applying a surface treatment to at least one surface of the sustainable construction material.
However, Horiuchi et al. teaches applying a surface treatment to at least one surface of a construction material, wherein the surface treatment comprises a water repellent coating. The water repellent coating comprises 60 parts by mass of silicone and 25 parts by mass of titanium oxide, which overlaps the claimed mass ratio (Abstract, [0053], [0054], and [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a surface treatment on Wang2’s construction material in order to protect the construction material by providing waterproofness, resistance to salt permeation, inhibition of neutralization, and water vapor transmittance [0054].
Claims 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20160280598 (“Wang2”), in view of KR 20040000572 A (“Song et al.”), and in view of CN 112939538 (“Wang”) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tam et al., “Utilising CO2 Technologies for Recycled Aggregate Concrete: A Critical Review.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 250, July 2020, p. 118903 (“Tam et al.”).
With regards to Claims 12 and 13, Wang2 teaches contacting the mixture with CO2 as set forth above.
Wang2 does not teach contacting the waste mixture with CO2 for 3-30 days at a pressure of 200-700 kPa.
However, Tam et al. recognizes that contacting waste with CO2 at a pressure of 10kPa to 500kPa, 30 mins to 3 weeks is known to improve the overall quality of the waste material (Abstract, Table 1, and Page 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and use suitable CO2 pressure, such as 400-600 kPa for 21-30 days, in order to effectively strengthen the waste material as desired (Abstract, Table 1, and Page 4).
With regards to Claims 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20, the prior art of record teaches contacting a mixture of construction waste comprising the claimed material(s), food waste of pyrolyzed shellfish, and water with CO2 under conditions in which at least a portion of the calcium present in the waste mixture is converted to calcium carbonate ((Abstract, Fig. 1, [0005], [0007], [0010], [0012], [0036], and [0042]-[0046] in Wang2, Pages 1-2 of Song et al., and Abstract, Fig. 1, Page 2: Line 39 bridging to Page 3: Line 13 in Wang). Wang2 further teaches the waste mixture is moulded (Fig. 1 and [0058]).
Wang2’s Table 1 teaches a mixture comprising 23% of OPC, 13% of water, and 64% of sand (corresponds to construction waste), wherein up to 70% of OPC is replaced with a calcium-rich cementitious material ([0012], Example 1, and Tables 1-2). Therefore, the construction waste: the food waste: and the water are present in the waste mixture that overlaps with the claimed mass ratio of 85:15:5 to 95:5:10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Wang2 does not teach contacting the waste mixture with CO2 at a pressure of 400-600 kPa for 21-30 days.
However, Tam et al. recognizes that contacting waste with CO2 at a pressure of 10kPa to 500kPa, 30 mins to 3 weeks is known to improve the overall quality of the waste material (Abstract, Table 1, and Page 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize and use suitable CO2 pressure, such as 400 kPa, for 21-30 days in order to effectively strengthen the waste material as desired (Abstract, Table 1, and Page 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Restuccia et al. “Nanoparticles from food waste: A ‘green’ future for traditional building materials.” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures, 29 May 2016.
Restuccia et al. disclosed pyrolyzed food waste comprising calcium are useful in a cementitious matrix (Abstract, 1st ¶ under 1 INTRODUCTION, 4th ¶ under 2.2 Methods, and Table 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights