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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments to the abstract, claim, and specifications filed 12/21/2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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.
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 1-2, and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okoshi (JP-2022124416) in view of Okoshi (JP-2022124416), using the applicant provided original documents and attached translations.
Regarding claim 1, Okoshi teaches:
A system for steam curing and carbonation curing precast concrete ([0005] – [0008]), the system comprising:
a steam curing tank forming a steam curing space ([0026] – [0029]; Fig. 4, #5);
a mold disposed within the carbonation curing space and forming a concrete shaping space by a plurality of segments ([0019 – [0028]; Fig. 4, #3); and
a demolding device configured to separate the plurality of segments from one another to open the concrete shaping space. While Okoshi does not explicitly describe the demolding device, Okoshi explicitly describes a demolding step in the system ([0018] – [0020]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art looking at Okoshi to include a demolding device configured to act as the one described and open the concrete shaping space, in order to fulfil the demolding step of Okoshi.
Okoshi does not teach:
a carbonation curing tank disposed within the steam curing space and forming a carbonation curing space, where the steam and CO2 are sprayed into.
However, Lee, in a similar field of endeavor, a system for steam curing and carbonation curing precast concrete, teaches:
a carbonation curing tank disposed within the steam curing space and forming a carbonation curing space, which is shown in Fig. 1 as the unlabeled smaller box within the curing space ([0030]; Fig. 1, #10) where the steam and CO2 are sprayed into ([0030] – [0044]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Okoshi to incorporate the teachings of Lee and include a carbonation curing tank disposed within the steam curing space. The purpose, as stated by Lee, being that it can shorten curing time and reduce carbon generation ([0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Okoshi further teaches:
wherein the plurality of segments form a gap through which carbon dioxide injected into the carbonation curing space flows into the concrete shaping space as each of the plurality of segments is pulled toward an inner surface of the carbonation curing tank by the demolding device ([0023] – [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Okoshi further teaches:
further comprising a boiler ([0020]; Fig. 4, #7); and
a steam injection unit configured to inject steam produced by the boiler into the steam curing space ([0029]; Fig. 4, #19).
Lee further teaches:
a carbon dioxide injection unit configured to inject carbon dioxide into the carbonation curing space ([0031]; Fig. 1, #21 and #23).
Regarding claim 8, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 8 depends on. Lee further teaches:
wherein the carbon dioxide injection unit comprises:
a carbon dioxide collector configured to separate carbon dioxide from the exhaust gas of the boiler ([0032] and [0048] – [0049]; Fig. 1, #32); and
a carbon dioxide storage tank configured to temporarily store carbon dioxide separated from the carbon dioxide collector ([0048]; Fig. 1, #31).
Regarding claim 9, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 8, which claim 9 depends on. Lee further teaches:
wherein carbon dioxide injection unit further comprises a carbon dioxide recovery line configured to recover carbon dioxide from the carbonation curing tank and store the recovered carbon dioxide in the carbon dioxide storage tank ([0033] and [0048] – [0049]; Fig. 1, #33).
Regarding claim 10, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 7, which claim 10 depends on. Lee further teaches:
further comprising a control unit configured to control the demolding device, the steam injection unit and the carbon dioxide injection unit ([0035] – [0036]),
wherein the control unit is configured to drive the steam injection unit to initiate steam curing and then drive the demolding device and the carbon dioxide injection unit to initiate carbonation curing ([0035] – [0036]). While Lee does not explicitly teach a control unit, it teaches sensors which are designed to control the processes of the system, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the control system described in Lee as it would be capable of performing the limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends on. Lee further teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to initiate carbonation curing after a predetermined time has elapsed after initiating steam curing, the predetermined time being a time sufficient to develop a minimum strength for retaining the shape in precast concrete. While Lee does not explicitly teach the control unit performing this process, the control system from Lee ([0035] – [0036]) is capable of performing the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 12, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 12 depends on. Okoshi further teaches:
wherein the plurality of segments comprises: a plurality of first segments coupled to the container and configured to partition lateral surfaces of the concrete shaping space; and a second segment coupled to the lid and configured to partition a top surface of the concrete shaping space ([0019 – [0028]; Fig. 4, #3).
Lee also teaches:
wherein the carbonation curing tank comprises a container and a lid configured to open and close an opened top surface of the container ([0030] – [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 12, which claim 13 depends on. Okoshi further teaches:
wherein the mold further comprises a platform disposed on a bottom surface of the container to partition a bottom surface of the concrete shaping space ([0019 – [0028]; Fig. 4, #3).
Regarding claim 14, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 13, which claim 14 depends on. Okoshi further teaches:
wherein the first segments is provided with first stopper projections at lower ends of the first segments, the first stopper projections being inserted into insertion grooves formed on a lateral surface of the platform ([0019 – [0028]; Fig. 4, #3).
Regarding claim 15, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 12, which claim 15 depends on. Okoshi further teaches:
wherein the second segment is provided with second stopper projections along edges of the second segment, the second stopper projections being configured to support outer surfaces of the first segments ([0019 – [0028]; Fig. 4, #3).
Regarding claim 16, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 16 depends on. Lee further teaches:
wherein the plurality of segments are each movably coupled to the carbonation curing tank via a buffer spring ([0030] – [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, Okoshi teaches:
A method of steam curing and carbonation curing precast concrete ([0005] – [0008]), the method comprising:
casting pre-prepared concrete into a mold ([0018] – [0020]);
initiating high-temperature curing by heating a carbonation curing tank enveloping the mold ([0018] – [0021]; Fig. 4, #5).
Okoshi does not teach:
initiating carbonation curing by removing the mold and injecting carbon dioxide into the carbonation curing tank.
However, Lee, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for steam curing and carbonation curing precast concrete, teaches:
initiating carbonation curing by removing the mold and injecting carbon dioxide into the carbonation curing tank ([0030] – [0044]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Okoshi to incorporate the teachings of Lee and include a step of initiating carbonation curing by injecting carbon dioxide into the carbonation curing tank. The purpose, as stated by Lee, being that it can shorten curing time and reduce carbon generation ([0001]).
Regarding claim 18, Okoshi in view of Lee teaches the limitations of claim 17, which claim 18 depends on. Lee further teaches:
wherein, in the step of initiating carbonation curing, carbonation curing is initiated when a predetermined time has elapsed after initiating the high-temperature curing, the predetermined time being a time sufficient to develop a minimum strength for retaining the shape in precast concrete ([0038] – [0044]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, there is no proper teaching in the art of the inventions of claims 2 and 18 with the added limitation of the demolding device comprising magnets coupled and generating a magnetic force of opposite polarities.
Claims 4-6 and 20 are dependent on claims 3 and 19, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748