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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 7, 14, and 15 and new Claim 21 in the response filed on 10/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that even though Owolabi et al. discloses using cow bone ash (CBA) as a partial replacement for cement in self-consolidating concrete (SCC), Owolabi et al. does not relate to the field of recycling construction waste materials. Instead, virgin aggregate obtained from a quarry in Ibadan was used as the coarse aggregate in Owolabi et al. (see page 5, left column 1st paragraph). Wang and Owolabi et al. pertain to distinctly different technical fields, and there is no reason or motivation for a person ordinary skill in the art to combine their teachings.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang discloses repurposing waste, specifically, building/construction solid waste in preparing concrete (Page 2: Lines 25-37). Owolabi et al. recognizes that one of the most important components of concrete production is cement. However, cement manufacturing is at a great environmental costs. Industrial and agricultural waste are becoming a health and environmental problem especially in developing nations where technology for efficient waste disposal is lacking. These wastes can be processed later and used as a partial replacement of cement in the production of concrete helps cleanse the environment. Owolabi et al. recognizes that conventional waste like silica fume, granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash, rice husk ash, palm oil fuel ash, etc. are suitable for the production of concrete. The use of agricultural or environmental waste product in cement production is an environmental friendly method of disposal of large quantities of materials that would otherwise pollute land, water and air (Page 2: Col. 2: Lines 5 bridging over to Page 3: Col. 1: Line 7). Owolabi et al. further teaches that cow bone ash that has a high calcium content provides strength potentials to concrete (Page 3: Col. 1: Line 37 bridging over to Page 3: Col. 2: Line 5). Considering that Wang repurpose waste and is open to additives (Page 3: Lines 7-9), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings relating to one construction material using wastes with another construction material using wastes. Thus, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include cow bone ash in order to help the environment and to improve the strength of the construction material (Abstract, Table 4.1, and Conclusions on Page 9).
Note that while Owolabi et al. do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Owolabi et al. was used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a waste mixture comprising food waste comprising calcium, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argued that the combination of Wang and Owolabi et al, would render the method for preparing a sustainable construction material inoperable.
However, Applicants arguments are unpersuasive. In response to Applicant's argument that the method of curing in Owolabi et al is different from Wang, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Owolabi et al.’s method of curing was not relied upon, but the teaching of using food waste, such as cow bone ash, in concrete. Further, Applicant did not provide evidence that incorporating cow bone ash into Wang’s construction material will produce an inoperable device.
Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a construction material derived from a mixtures of construction waste, food waste comprising calcium, and water without the addition of cement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Applicants are also reminded that a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting a position of unexpected results and are commensurate in scope with the claims must be provided by applicant(s). A mere pointing to data requiring the examiner to ferret out evidence of unexpected results is not sufficient to prove that the results would be truly unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re D'Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971) and In re Merck & Co, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 1-6, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112939538 (“Wang”) in view of Owolabi et al., “The Experimental Study of the Effects of Using Pulverised Cow Bone as a Partial Replacement of Cement on the Compressive Strength of Self-Consolidating Concrete”, The Polytechnic, May 2018 (“Owolabi et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1, 3, 6, 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 food waste comprising calcium.
However, Owolabi et al. teaches that compressive strength is improved in concrete by using cow bone ash (pyrolyzed bones) comprising calcium as a partial replacement of cement, wherein the pulverized cow bone ash was varied at 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% (Abstract, Table 3.2, and Materials and Methods on Page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute up to 40% of Wang’s cement with cow bone ash in order to help the environment and to improve the strength of the construction material (Abstract, Table 4.1, and Conclusions on Page 9).
With regards to Claim 2, Wang teaches the claimed construction waste (Abstract).
With regards to Claim 4, 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) and 400 to 450 parts of cement (Page 3: Lines 46-50). In view of Owolabi et al. teaching of up to 40% of cement is replaced with cow bone ash, as set forth above, Wang in view of Owolabi et al. teaches of up to 180 parts of food waste. Therefore, the construction waste and the food waste in a mass ratio overlaps with the claimed range of 1:1 to 97:3. 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.
With regards to Claim 5, Wang in view of Owolabi et al. 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), up to 180 parts of food waste (please see Claim 4 above), and 130 to 160 parts of water (Page 3: Lines 46-50 in Wang). Therefore, 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 Wang in view of Owolabi 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 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Owolabi 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 14-18 and 20, the prior art of record teaches contacting a waste mixture of construction waste comprising the claimed material(s), food waste of pyrolyzed bones, 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 Conclusions on Page 9 in Owolabi 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), up to 180 parts of 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 Page 4 in Owolabi 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 Wang in view of Owolabi 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].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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