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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau (US Patent Application Publication no. 2012/0183462) in view of D’Avela (US Patent no. 10,662,121).
Regarding claim 1, Rau teaches a method comprising:
producing an acid (paragraphs 14; 47 – an acid is produced at the anode 104);
dissolving a material comprising calcium and silicon (CaSiO3 - 108) with the acid to produce calcium ions (111, figure 2; paragraphs 30, 43, 49);
treating the calcium ions (111) to produce solid calcium hydroxide (118; paragraphs 40, 49-50 - the hydroxide produced may be removed from the cell in solid form (paragraphs 40, 49, 50); and
producing a cement (the calcium hydroxide can be used for other purposes, i.e. the production of cement; paragraphs 5, 54).
Rau fails to teach that the cement is produced by heating the solid calcium hydroxide in a kiln.
D’Avela discloses a method for producing concrete products comprising heating sources of lime, i.e. calcium hydroxides, in a kiln. The heating that occurs in the kiln can transform the raw materials into new chemicals, pozzolanic compounds (col. 12, lines 28-41 – the cement is produced by heating sources of lime).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further heat the calcium hydroxide produced in the method of Rau in a kiln, as taught by D’Avela, in order to obtain a cement.
Regarding claim 2, the material of Rau comprises a metal oxide comprising calcium and silicon (paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 3, Rau discloses wherein producing the solid calcium hydroxide oxide comprises producing a byproduct different from the calcium hydroxide (paragraphs 32, 49-50).
Regarding claim 4, the material of Rau further comprises at least one of the following elements: magnesium, or iron (paragraph 72, claims 7, 11).
Regarding claim 5, the byproduct of Rau comprises magnesium (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 6, Rau further teaches wherein the byproduct comprises magnesium carbonate formed through a reaction with carbon dioxide (paragraph 16; claim 18).
Regarding claim 7, D’Avela discloses a method for producing concrete products comprising heating sources of lime, i.e. calcium hydroxides, in a kiln. The heating that occurs in the kiln can transform the raw materials into new chemicals, pozzolanic compounds (col. 12, lines 28-41 – the cement is produced by heating sources of lime).
Rau also discloses that the calcium hydroxide can be used for other purposes, i.e. the production of cement (paragraphs 5, 54). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to subject the calcium hydroxide to heat in a kiln, as taught by D’Avela in order to obtain a cement, with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 8, the method of D’Avela comprises heating the solid calcium hydroxide with silicate in the kiln to produce the cement (col. 12, lines 28-41).
Regarding claim 9, the cement of D’Avela is Portland cement (col. 1, lines 14-16; col. 10, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 10, Rau discloses wherein dissolving the material in the acid occurs in a region of a reactor with a pH of 9 or less (paragraph 35 – the pH of acid solutions is below 7).
Regarding claim 11, D’Avela teaches heating the calcium hydroxide in a heater to convert the calcium hydroxide (col. 12, lines 28-41).
Regarding claim 14, the metal oxide of Rau comprises SiO2 (figure 2; paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 15, Rau teaches a method comprising:
producing an acid (paragraphs 14; 47 – an acid is produced at the anode 104); dissolving a material comprising calcium oxide and silicon oxide with the acid to produce calcium ions (111, figure 2; paragraphs 30, 43, 49);
treating the calcium ions to produce solid calcium hydroxide and a byproduct different from the calcium hydroxide (paragraphs 49-50); and
producing a cement (the calcium hydroxide can be used for other purposes, i.e. the production of cement; paragraphs 5, 54).
Rau fails to teach that the cement is produced by heating the solid calcium hydroxide in a kiln.
D’Avela discloses a method for producing concrete products comprising heating sources of lime, i.e. calcium hydroxides, in a kiln. The heating that occurs in the kiln can transform the raw materials into new chemicals, pozzolanic compounds (col. 12, lines 28-41 – the cement is produced by heating sources of lime).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further heat the calcium hydroxide produced in the method of Rau in a kiln, as taught by D’Avela, in order to obtain a cement.
Regarding claim 16, the material of Rau further comprises at least one of the following elements: magnesium, or iron (paragraph 72, claims 7, 11).
Regarding claim 17, the byproduct of Rau comprises magnesium (paragraph 72).
Regarding claim 18, Rau further teaches wherein the byproduct comprises magnesium carbonate formed through a reaction with carbon dioxide (paragraph 16; claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, the cement of D’Avela is Portland cement (col. 1, lines 14-16; col. 10, lines 41-46).
Claims 12, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rau and D’Avela, as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2017/0240432).
Regarding claims 12, 13, 20, Rau in view of D’Avela teaches all the features discussed above but fails to disclose wherein the acid comprises a hydrogen halide, such as HCl, HBr, and/or HI.
Jung discloses that hydrochloric acid (HCl) is used to extract an alkali ion, i.e. calcium ions, from inorganic material. Calcium, which is highly soluble in the HCl, is extracted with the use of a dissolving solution (paragraph 97).
Rau also discloses dissolving a material comprising calcium and silicon (CaSiO3 - 108) with an acid to produce calcium ions (111, figure 2; paragraphs 30, 43, 49).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to use hydrochloric acid, as the acid in the dissolving step of Rau because as taught by Jung, calcium is highly soluble in HCl and can be extracted with the use of a dissolving solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Rau fails to teach treating the calcium ions to produce solid calcium hydroxide. According to the applicant, Rau simply states that calcium hydroxide is produced, and does not indicate that solid calcium hydroxide is produced.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rau discloses treating the calcium ions (111) to produce solid calcium hydroxide (118). Rau further teaches that the calcium hydroxide produced may be removed from the cell in solid or dissolved form (paragraphs 40, 49, 50). Therefore, the previous rejections in view of Rau are still deemed proper and are maintained.
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 ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights