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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II-III, Claims 15-17, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 reciting “at least 80 wt.” appears to have a typographical error and should be “at least 80 wt. %.”. 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 10-11 and 13-14 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner is treating claim 10 as requiring “wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is selected from illite, muscovite, or the chlorite group”.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either: i) remove the additional preferential limitation; ii) amend the claim so as to incorporate the narrower preferential as desired; or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 11 reciting “the total combined amount… the amorphous content” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “the total combined amount” and “the amorphous content” is not recited in claim 1.
Claim 13 reciting “the dehydration onset temperature” in lines 1 and 3 are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “the dehydration onset temperature” are not recited in claim 1.
Claim 14 reciting “the amorphous content” in lines 4-5, “the D50” in lines 6-7, and “the dehydration onset temperature” are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because limitations are not recited in claim 1.
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, 4-6, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turianicová et al. (Interaction of natural and thermally processed vermiculites with gaseous carbon dioxide during mechanical activation, Applied Clay science) (“Turianicova” hereinafter); as evidenced by Malla (Chapter 16, Vermiculites) (“Malla” hereinafter) with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Turianicova teaches a method for the mechanochemical activation of phyllosilicate minerals (see Turianicova at page 87, section 2.2.3 teaching interaction with CO2 during mechanical activation… the vermiculite samples were also mechanically activated). Vermiculite is taken to meet the claimed phyllosilicate minerals, as evidenced by Malla (see Malla page 1 paragraph 1 evidencing vermiculite is a hydrous 2:1 phyllosilicate), said method comprising the following steps:
a) providing a feedstock comprising a phyllosilicate mineral (see Turianicova at page 87, section 2.2.3 teaching vermiculite samples, see Turianicova at page 86 section 2.1 teaching natural, commercial micron grade vermiculite). Vermiculite is taken to meet the claimed “feedstock comprising a phyllosilicate mineral”;
b) providing a gas comprising at least 0.5 vol% CO2 (see Turianicova at page 87, section 2.2.3 teaching under a CO2 atmosphere, see Turianicova at Abstract teaching action under a CO2 atmosphere… from this type of interaction, a maximum CO2 content of 2.74% was determined… that was mechanically activated… under a CO2 atmosphere) (see MPEP 2144.05(I));
c) introducing said feedstock and said gas into a mechanical agitation unit; and d) subjecting the material of said feedstock to a mechanical agitation operation in the presence of said gas in said mechanical agitation unit (see Turianicova at page 87, sections 2.2.2 teaching a grinding chamber… were used… the vermiculite samples were also mechanically activated under CO2 atmosphere and the same milling conditions).
Regarding claims 4-5, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Turianicova further teaches wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is present in an amount of at least 5 wt. % by total weight of the feedstock (claim 4), and wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is present in an amount of at least 15 wt. % by total weight of the feedstock (claim 5) (see Turianicova at pages 86-87, section 2.1 teaching the sample contains 85-95% vermiculite (see MPEP 2144.05(I))), wherein vermiculite is the claimed “phyllosilicate mineral” (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 6, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Turianicova further teaches wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is not kaolinite and the feedstock of step (a) comprises less than 10 wt. % kaolinite (see Turianicova at pages 86-87, section 2.1 teaching the sample contains 85-95% vermiculite). Vermiculite is “not kaolinite” and 0 wt. % kaolinite meets the claimed “less than 10 wt. % kaolinite” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Turianicova further teaches wherein a total combined amount of the phyllosilicate mineral and an amorphous content in the feedstock provided in step (a) is at least 80 wt. % (see Turianicova at pages 86-87, section 2.1 teaching the sample contains 85-95% vermiculite), wherein vermiculite is the claimed “phyllosilicate mineral” (see claim 1 rejection). 85-95% vermiculite and 0 % amorphous content are taken to meet the claimed “at least 80 wt. %” (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 13, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Turianicova further teaches wherein step (d) is performed such that a dehydration onset temperature of the mechanochemically activated material obtained in step (d) is at least 100 oC lower than a dehydration onset temperature of the feedstock provided in step (a) (see Turianicova at page 87, section 2.2.3 teaching the temperature was maintained at 25 + 1 oC, see Turianicova at page 87, section 2.2.1 teaching the natural vermiculate sample (V) was shock heated in a muffle furnace at 900 oC… to obtain thermally exfoliated vermiculate (VT), and heated at 900 oC… to obtain heated vermiculite (VH)). 25 + 1 oC is “at least 100 oC lower” than 900 oC (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 14, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Turianicova further teaches the limitations/characteristics as claimed in claim 14 (the recitation is not a step in the claimed method, which is being treated as being taught by Turianicova because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed “characteristics” in claim 14 lines 4-11 are critical, absent new and unexpected results).
Claims 2-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turianicova as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoffmann et al. (EP 3909682 A1, with reference to the machine translation) (“Hoffmann” hereinafter); as evidenced by Malla.
Regarding claim 2, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned, Turianicova teaches mechanical activation of vermiculite (see Turianicova at Abstract), wherein vermiculite is a phyllosilicate, as evidenced by Malla (see claim 1 rejection).
Like Turianicova, Hoffmann teaches mechanochemical activation of phyllosilicate (see Hoffmann at [0001] teaching a method for the mechanochemical activation of a clay mixture, see Hoffmann at [0015] teaching the clay mixture consists of at least 25% by mass… of thermally activatable layered silicates, see Hoffman at [0016] teaching the phyllosilicates).
Turianicova in view of Hoffmann further teach the claimed “wherein the feedstock has an amorphous content of at least 10% as determined by XRD”, as outlined below.
Turianicova teaches natural vermiculite sample (V)… thermally exfoliated vermiculite (VT)… heated vermiculite (VH) (see Turianicova at page 87, section 2.2.1)… the XRD pattern of the V sample (Fig. 1A) shows peaks at 2θ = 6.22° (14.21 Å), 7.19° (12.29 Å) and 7.49° (11.8 Å), related to the different water layer hydration states and the presence of interstratified phases… the peak at 2θ = 8.84° (10.00 Å) may be attributed to mica… while the thermal exfoliation process (shock heating at 900 °C for 20 s) removes some of the water from the interlayers of vermiculite and causes only changes in the intensities of the basal reflections (Fig. 1A, VT), heating of the vermiculite at 900 °C for 3600 s produces a single basal reflection at 2θ = 8.9° (9.94 Å) (Fig. 1A, VH)… in contrast, complete destruction of the clay mineral structure can be achieved by heating at 1200 °C for 3600 s (not shown in Fig. 1A), confirmed by the disappearance of the peak at 2θ = 8.93° (9.90 Å), yielding mainly forsterite and some spinel phases (see Turianicova at page 87, section 3.1 and Fig. 1, shown with Examiner’s annotation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Turianicova further teaches the XRD patterns in Fig. 5 show that the application of high-energy milling in the presence of a CO2 atmosphere either by wet or dry modes results in the nearly complete disappearance of the basal reflections of the natural and thermally processed samples and an increase in the background of the patterns, indicating the amorphisation of the clay mineral structure… indicating that CO2 had a direct influence on the destruction and resulting amorphisation process… by the amorphisation of the main clay mineral structure, the impurity peaks (and the possible formation of new phases) such as diopside… apatite… and carbonates… were more visible in the XRD patterns, especially of the wet mechanically activated samples under a CO2 atmosphere… although the mechanically activated samples contain up to 2.74% CO2, no peaks of crystalline carbonates such as calcite were observed in their XRD patterns (see Turianicova at page 89 right column paragraph 2 to page 90 left column paragraph 1m, and Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
939
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hoffman further teaches the activation of the clays depends on the mineral phase composition, i.e., on the type of phyllosilicate, the structure of the phyllosilicates, the structure of the phyllosilicates, as well as lattice defects and disorders in the crystal lattice… for advantageous pozzolanic properties, i.e., strength-forming properties upon addition of water, the clays should be transformed into a largely amorphous state through the activation process (see Hoffmann at [0098])… the activated clay material can be used as a cement additive or Portland clinker substitute (see Hoffmann at [0100]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amorphous content of the phyllosilicate before and after the mechanical activation is a result effective variable that could be optimized through the mechanical activation process so as to provide the desired activated clay material that can be used as a cement additive or Portland clinker substitute as taught by Turianicova in view of Hoffman.
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 amorphous content of the phyllosilicate before and after the mechanical activation process and provide the desired activated clay material that can be used as a cement additive or Portland clinker substitute as taught by Turianicova in view of Hoffman, so as to arrive at the claimed “wherein the feedstock has an amorphous content of at least 10% as determined by XRD”.
Regarding claims 3 and 9-10, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 4-5 above, and as mentioned, Turianicova teaches mechanical activation of vermiculite (see Turianicova at Abstract)… vermiculite is a naturally occurring hydrated aluminium-iron magnesium silicate mineral with a 2:1 layer structure (see Turianicova at page 8, section 1), wherein vermiculite is a phyllosilicate, as evidenced by Malla (see claim 1 rejection). Turianicova further teaches that mechanical activation either under an air or a CO2 atmosphere, in dry and wet modes, increased the surface area and the pore volume of the vermiculites… according to the analysis of the basal reflections in the XRD patterns, the presence of a CO2 atmosphere caused stronger amorphization in comparison to an air atmosphere (see Turianicova at page 90, section conclusions).
But, Turianicova does not explicitly teach wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is selected from the kaolinite group, serpentinite group, mica group, chlorite group, and combinations thereof (claim 3), and wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is selected from the mica group, the chlorite group, and combinations thereof (claim 9), and wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is selected from illite, muscovite, or the chlorite group (claim 10).
Like Turianicova, Hoffmann teaches mechanochemical activation of phyllosilicate (see Hoffmann at [0001] teaching a method for the mechanochemical activation of a clay mixture, see Hoffmann at [0015] teaching the clay mixture consists of at least 25% by mass… of thermally activatable layered silicates, see Hoffman at [0016] teaching the phyllosilicates are… three-layer silicates, such as… mica… illite). Mica and illite is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is selected from… mica group (claim 3), and wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is selected from… the mica group (claim 9), and wherein the phyllosilicate mineral is selected from… illite (claim 10).
Hoffman further teaches the activation of the clays depends on the mineral phase composition, i.e., on the type of phyllosilicate, the structure of the phyllosilicates, the structure of the phyllosilicates, as well as lattice defects and disorders in the crystal lattice… for advantageous pozzolanic properties, i.e., strength-forming properties upon addition of water, the clays should be transformed into a largely amorphous state through the activation process (see Hoffmann at [0098])… the activated clay material can be used as a cement additive or Portland clinker substitute (see Hoffmann at [0100]).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that mica and illite are suitable phyllosilicate for its intended use.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Hoffman teaches that mica and illite are suitable phyllosilicate for mechanical activation with CO2 that could be transformed into a largely amorphous state that can be used as a cement additive or Portland clinker substitute, and seek those advantages by using mica and illite as substitute for vermiculite in the method as taught by Turianicova.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use mica and illite as taught by Hoffmann as substitute for vermiculite in the method as taught by Turianicova because mica and illite are suitable phyllosilicate for mechanical activation with CO2 that could be transformed into a largely amorphous state that can be used as a cement additive or Portland clinker substitute.
Regarding claims 7-8, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned, Turianicova teaches mechanical activation of vermiculite (see Turianicova at Abstract)… vermiculite is a naturally occurring hydrated aluminium-iron magnesium silicate mineral with a 2:1 layer structure (see Turianicova at page 8, section 1), wherein vermiculite is a phyllosilicate, as evidenced by Malla (see claim 1 rejection).
Turianicova further teaches that mechanical activation either under an air or a CO2 atmosphere, in dry and wet modes, increased the surface area and the pore volume of the vermiculites… according to the analysis of the basal reflections in the XRD patterns, the presence of a CO2 atmosphere caused stronger amorphization in comparison to an air atmosphere (see Turianicova at page 90, section conclusions).
However, Turianicova does not explicitly teach wherein the feedstock of step (a) comprises more than 15 wt.% kaolinite (claim 7), and wherein the feedstock of step (a) comprises more than 35 wt.% kaolinite (claim 8).
Like Turianicova, Hoffmann teaches mechanochemical activation of phyllosilicate (see Hoffmann at [0001] teaching a method for the mechanochemical activation of a clay mixture, see Hoffmann at [0015] teaching it is advantageous that the clay mixture consists of at least 70 percent by mass of thermally activatable layered silicates, see Hoffman at [0016] teaching the phyllosilicates are… two-layer silicates, such as… kaolinite). At least 70 percent by mass kaolinite is taken to meet the claimed wherein the feedstock of step (a) comprises more than 15 wt.% kaolinite (claim 7), and wherein the feedstock of step (a) comprises more than 35 wt.% kaolinite (claim 8).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that kaolinite is suitable phyllosilicate for its intended use.
And, 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 Hoffman teaches that at least 70 percent by mass kaolinite is suitable phyllosilicate for mechanical activation with CO2 that could be transformed into a largely amorphous state that can be used as a cement additive or Portland clinker substitute, and seek those advantages by using mica and illite as substitute for vermiculite in the method as taught by Turianicova.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use at least 70 percent by mass kaolinite as taught by Hoffmann as substitute for vermiculite in the method as taught by Turianicova because kaolinite is a suitable phyllosilicate for mechanical activation with CO2 that could be transformed into a largely amorphous state that can be used as a cement additive or Portland clinker substitute, and there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amount would be suitable
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turianicova as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al. (CA 2255287 A1) (“Ahmed” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Turianicova teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned, Turianicova teaches carbon dioxide atmosphere (see Turianicova at Abstract). But, Turianicova does not explicitly teach wherein the gas provided in step (b) is a combustion flue gas.
Like Turianicova, Ahmed teaches carbon dioxide atmosphere (see Ahmed at page 3 paragraph 1 teaching the disclosure… relates to a… method of capturing carbon dioxide at source from flue gas streams and of utilizing the captured carbon dioxide by transforming it into economically viable and environmentally friendly commodity), which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the gas provided in step (b) is a combustion flue gas”.
Ahmed further teaches that the possibility of reduction of CO2 emission by capture and storage of CO2 from flue gases is also receiving considerable attention… according to this process, after the combustion of fossil fuels (for power generation, etc.), CO2 is to be separated and recovered (see Ahmed at page 4 paragraph 3)… the most preferred route to mitigate CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is to utilize the captured CO2 to make chemical products in which there is a net reduction of CO2 during the product formation and utilization (see Ahmed at page 5 paragraph 5).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that capture and utilization of CO2 from flue gases is a suitable CO2 source.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Ahmed teaches that capture and utilization of CO2 from flue gases is a suitable CO2 source and the most preferred route to mitigate CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is to utilize the captured CO2 to make chemical products in which there is a net reduction of CO2 during the product formation and utilization, and seek those advantages by using CO2 from flue gases in the method as taught by Turianicova
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use CO2 from flue gases as taught Ahmed in the
method as taught by Turianicova because capture and utilization of CO2 from flue gases is a suitable CO2 source, and the most preferred route to mitigate CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is to utilize the captured CO2 to make chemical products in which there is a net reduction of CO2 during the product formation and utilization.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10 and 12-13 of copending Application No. 18/411,133 (“’133” hereinafter) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications recite a method for the mechanochemical activation of phyllosilicate minerals with overlapping ranges, said method comprising the following steps: a) providing a feedstock comprising a phyllosilicate mineral; b) providing a gas comprising CO2; c) introducing said feedstock and said gas into a mechanical agitation unit; and d) subjecting the material of said feedstock to a mechanical agitation operation in the presence of said gas in said mechanical agitation unit.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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