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
The amendment filed on 01/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, 8-30 are pending in the application. Claims 2-5 and 7 cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the Thomas Declaration at par. 6 states that Romaniuk and Simonsen do not refer to mine waste gangues or to reprocessed waste material.
However, the Examiner did rely on Romaniuk to teach reprocessed waste material. Instead the Examiner relies on Romaniuk to disclose waste overburden and waste gangue. The applicant's specification discloses gangue as equivalent to mine tailings (see [0037, 0038]). Therefore, Romaniuk does disclose a blend of waste overburden and waste gangue. Romaniuk discloses mine wastes originating from overburden ([0116]) i.e. waste overburden, and dewatered tailings ([0118]) i.e. waste gangue. Romaniuk further discloses as shown in FIG . 3, the system 300 can include (i) a calciner 308 , ( ii ) a pre - calcining subsystem upstream of the calciner 308 and including a crusher 302 configured to receive tailings ( e.g. , dewatered tailings ) and / or mine waste 301 ([0151]). The crusher 302 can receive the dewatered tailings 301 ( and / or mine waste ) to provide a crushed dewatered tailings 303 ( and / or crushed mine waste ) , e.g. , to the dryer ([0154]). Therefore, the crusher is configured to receive both waste gangue and waste overburden, which is equivalent to a blend of waste gangue material and waste overburden material since Romaniuk discloses the crusher can receive dewatered tailings and mine waste ([0154]).
Applicant further argues in par. 6 that the amended claim 1 limitation "the supplementary cementitious material recovered in step (g) is blended or inter-ground with uncalcined waste overburden material, uncalcined waste gangue material, uncalcined reprocessed waste material, or an uncalcined combination thereof" is not obvious in the art.
However, Simonsen discloses several of the mine tailing samples (Code, Kill A, Kill C, Nalu, Nus) showed potentials as SCM in original state, i.e. uncalcined (Pg. 717 left col. par. 2). Binary and ternary blends are used for optimizing mixtures after the desired concrete properties (Pg. 717 right col. par. 2). Adding calcium enriched and silica enriched adjusting materials to industrial waste was previously suggested to increase the content of cementitious minerals and eventually result in improved hydraulic and pozzolanic activity, respectively (Pg. 717 right col. par. 2). Table 2 discloses mine tailing "Nus" has a CaO composition of 26.6% (Pg. 713). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add the mine tailing sample of uncalcined Nus, or uncalcined waste gangue material, as a source of calcium.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to blend the supplementary cementitious material recovered in step (g) with uncalcined waste gangue material in the method of Romaniuk in order to increase the content of cementitious minerals and eventually result in improved hydraulic and pozzolanic activity as taught by Simonsen.
Applicant argues in Thomas Declaration at par. 7 that none of the references discuss or refer to the new category of mined material referred to as reprocessed waste material. The examiner has no evidence this is not true, and therefore the rejection of claim 6 is withdrawn.
Applicant argues in Thomas Declaration at par. 8 that the claimed invention would not have been obvious at the time of filing without the benefit of hindsight in view of the instant disclosure.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues in Thomas Declaration par. 9 that the instant specification includes a high degree of specificity in terms of types of materials repurposed (gangues, overburden, reprocessed materials), processing temperatures, retentions times, product physical characteristics (nodules not required), particle size distribution, and blending or inter-grinding of the various types of mine waste.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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, 8-10, 13-15, 20-21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romaniuk et al (US 20220195306 A1) in view of Simonsen et al. (“Evaluation of mine tailings’ potential as supplementary cementitious materials based on chemical, mineralogical, and physical characteristics”).
Regarding claim 1, Romaniuk discloses calcining a dewatered tailings and/or mining waste stream to produce a product that can be utilized within industry (e.g., the cement industry) ([0005]). The method for providing cementitious product comprising ([0006]): processing dewatered tailings comprising … pozzolanic minerals ([0007]); calcining the processed tailings to produce calcined tailings ([0008] meeting limitation “A process for producing a supplementary cementitious material from a mine waste material, said process comprising: (a) obtaining a mine waste material containing a pozzolanic component, a pre-pozzolanic component, or a combination thereof”); and altering a composition and/or one or more characteristics of the calcined tailings to produce a product ([0009]).
Regarding the limitation “wherein said mine waste material is a blend of at least two of a waste overburden material, a waste gangue material, and a reprocessed waste material”, Romaniuk discloses mine wastes originating from overburden ([0116]) i.e. waste overburden, and dewatered tailings ([0118]) i.e. waste gangue. Romaniuk further discloses as shown in FIG . 3, the system 300 can include (i) a calciner 308, (ii) a pre-calcining subsystem upstream of the calciner 308 and including a crusher 302 configured to receive tailings (e.g., dewatered tailings) and/or mine waste 301 ([0151]). The crusher 302 can receive the dewatered tailings 301 (and/or mine waste ) to provide a crushed dewatered tailings 303 (and/or crushed mine waste), e.g., to the dryer ([0154]). The applicant's specification discloses gangue as equivalent to mine tailings (see [0037, 0038]) Therefore, the crusher is configured to receive both waste gangue and waste overburden, which is equivalent to a blend of waste gangue material and waste overburden material since Romaniuk discloses the crusher can receive dewatered tailings and mine waste ([0154]).
Romaniuk discloses the dewatered tailings and/or mine waste can be processed (e.g., milled or grinded and/or dried) prior to calcining ([0117] meeting limitation (b) crushing said mine waste material to reduce the particle size”). The crusher can be configured such that the produced crushed tailings (and/or crushed mine waste) have one or more desired characteristics ([0154]). For example, in some embodiments at least…99% of the crushed tailings (and/or) crushed mine waste) can have a particle size no more than 74 microns ([0154] meeting limitation “thereby generating a crushed mine waste material with an average particle size selected from about 0.1 millimeters to about 50 millimeters” since 74 microns is equivalent to 0.074 millimeters which is “about 0.1 millimeters”).
Romaniuk discloses in some embodiments, the calciner may be configured to heat the dried tailings no more than a predetermined temperature (e.g., 1000° C) ([0118]). 1000° C is within the claimed temperature range of from about 600 °C to about 1600 °C.
Regarding the limitation “a first calcining or sintering time selected from about 1 second to about 10 hours”, Romaniuk discloses the calciner 308 can comprise a flash calcination unit such that the temperature of the calciner 308 or portion thereof (e.g., the calcining chamber) is heated rapidly… and individual particles are calcined in a relatively short period of time (e.g., less than 5 seconds) ([0159]). Less than 5 seconds is within the claimed range of about 1 second to about 10 hours. Romaniuk further discloses breaking such particles into smaller particles can increase reactivity of the calcined product, and expose additional surface area to thereby aid in decreasing residence time in the calciner 308 ([0154]). In doing so, energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the calcining process can be decreased ([0154]). As the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the calcining time, the precise calcining time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed calcining time cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the calcining time in the method of Romaniuk to obtain the desired balance between the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Romaniuk discloses the calcined tailings and/or mine waste can be subsequently milled or grinded ([0117] meeting limitation “(d) milling said crushed mine waste material or a calcined or sintered form thereof, to further reduce particle size”).
Romaniuk discloses the method of any one of the clauses herein, wherein altering the composition comprises blending or combining one or more additives with the calcined tailings, the additives including at least one of … natural pozzolans, artificial pozzolans ([0023] meeting limitation “(f) optionally, introducing a separate pozzolan to said mine waste material, said crushed mine waste material or a calcined or sintered form thereof, said milled mine waste material or a calcined or sintered form thereof, or a combination thereof”). The ground calcined tailings 313 ( and/or ground calcined mine waste ) may be combined with one or more additives 315 ( “additives 315 ” ), e.g., in a blender (e.g., a mixer or blending unit) 316 to form a blended end product 317 (e.g., a cementitious blend ) ([0164] meeting limitation “(g) recovering said milled mine waste material or a calcined or sintered form thereof as a supplementary cementitious material, wherein said supplementary cementitious material contains said separate pozzolan if step (f) is conducted”).
Romaniuk is silent to “thereby generating a milled mine waste material with a median particle size (D50) selected from about 1 micron to about 50 microns” and “wherein said supplementary cementitious material is blended or inter-ground with uncalcined waste overburden material, uncalcined waste gangue material, uncalcined reprocessed waste material, or an uncalcined combination thereof”.
Simonsen discloses in order to reduce emissions of CO2 from cement production and avoid severe environmental pollution from the deposition of mine waste, this study investigated the possibility of utilizing mine tailings as supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) for partially replacement of cement in concrete (abstract). This study provides a characterization study of mine tailings to evaluate their potential for contributing chemically or physically as SCM (abstract). Table 3 discloses physical characteristics of analyzed mine tailings (Pg. 715). Kill A in Group I has a D50 particle size of 22.0 µm which is within the claimed range of about 1 micron to about 50 microns. Simonsen further discloses the characterization study provides an indication of five of 13 mine tailing samples (… Kill A…) to potentially possess chemical contribution as an SCM due to their chemical composition or amorphous content, while three mine tailing samples (…Kill A…) encountered grain sizes or morphological characteristics to possess physical contribution as SCM (Pg. 719 Conclusion).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the generated milled mine waste material to have a median particle size (D50) selected from about 1 micron to about 50 microns in the method of Romaniuk in order for the mine tailing to possess chemical and physical contribution as SCM as taught by Simonsen.
Simonsen discloses several of the mine tailing samples (Code, Kill A, Kill C, Nalu, Nus) showed potentials as SCM in original state, i.e. uncalcined (Pg. 717 left col. par. 2). Binary and ternary blends are used for optimizing mixtures after the desired concrete properties (Pg. 717 right col. par. 2). Adding calcium enriched and silica enriched adjusting materials to industrial waste was previously suggested to increase the content of cementitious minerals and eventually result in improved hydraulic and pozzolanic activity, respectively (Pg. 717 right col. par. 2). Table 2 discloses mine tailing "Nus" has a CaO composition of 26.6% (Pg. 713). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add the mine tailing sample of uncalcined Nus, or uncalcined waste gangue material, as a source of calcium.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to blend the supplementary cementitious material recovered in step (g) with uncalcined waste gangue material in the method of Romaniuk in order to increase the content of cementitious minerals and eventually result in improved hydraulic activity as taught by Simonsen.
While not indefinite, use of the word “optionally” does not constitute necessary aspects required by the claim and are not considered as required in the above rejection over Romaniuk in view of Simonsen.
Regarding claim 8, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but Romaniuk is silent to “wherein said mine waste material is obtained from mining of borax, lithium, gold, silver, platinum, palladium, rhodium, molybdenum, copper, nickel, aluminum, iron, zinc, phosphorous, silica, sand, clay, slate, shale, and combinations thereof”.
Simonsen discloses Table 1 showing information on mine tailing samples, including the target metal at the mine (Pg. 712). Mine tailing Nus, for example, originates from Raajarvi mine in Finland where the target metal includes Cu. Binary and ternary blends are used for optimizing mixtures after the desired concrete properties (Pg. 717 right col. par. 2). Adding calcium enriched and silica enriched adjusting materials to industrial waste was previously suggested to increase the content of cementitious minerals and eventually result in improved hydraulic and pozzolanic activity, respectively (Pg. 717 right col. par. 2). Table 2 discloses mine tailing "Nus" has a CaO composition of 26.6% (Pg. 713). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the mine tailing sample of Nus, or as a source of calcium.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for said mine waste material to be obtained from mining of copper in the method of Romaniuk since Nus has a high calcium composition as taught by Simonsen.
Regarding claim 9, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but Romaniuk is silent to “wherein in step (d), said milling mechanically activates said crushed mine waste material to increase pozzolanicity”.
Simonsen discloses activating the reactivity, i.e. pozzolanicity, of mine tailings and other SCMs by grinding is often applied (Pg. 717 right col. par. 4).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for in step (d), said milling mechanically activates said crushed mine waste material to increase pozzolanicity in the method of Romaniuk since activating the reactivity of mine tailings by grinding is often applied as taught by Simonsen.
Regarding claim 10, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but Romaniuk is silent to “wherein said calcining or sintering thermally activates said crushed mine waste material to increase pozzolanicity”.
Simonsen discloses calcination, which heats the material to high temperature and results in a dehydroxylated product, increase crystalline minerals’ reactivity, i.e. pozzolanicity, especially for pozzolan minerals such as kaolin (Pg. 717 right col. par. 3). A thermal treatment of this study’s mine tailings, would dehydroxylate phyllosilicates and could improve the reactivity of mine tailing samples (Pg. 717 right col. par. 3).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for said calcining or sintering thermally activates said crushed mine waste material to increase pozzolanicity in the method of Romaniuk since a thermal treatment could improve the reactivity of mine tailing samples as taught by Simonsen.
Regarding claim 13, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Romaniuk further discloses altering the composition comprises blending or combining one or more additives with the calcined mine waste, the additives including at least one of … natural pozzolans ([0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and while Romaniuk does not disclose the natural pozzolan meets a pozzolan specification under ASTM, ACI, and/or AASHTO, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the natural pozzolan to meet a pozzolan specification under ASTM, ACI, and/or AASHTO in order to make cement according to the ASTM, ACI, and/or AASHTO specification.
Regarding claim 15, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Romaniuk further discloses altering the composition comprises blending or combining one or more additives with the calcined mine waste, the additives including at least one of … natural pozzolans ([0046]). Romaniuk does not disclose the natural pozzolan meets a pozzolan specification under ASTM, ACI, or AASHTO.
Regarding claim 20, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Romaniuk discloses in some embodiments, the calciner may be configured to heat the dried tailings no more than a predetermined temperature (e.g., 1000° C) ([0118]). 1000° C is within the claimed temperature range of from about 700 °C to about 1200 °C.
Regarding claim 21, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Romaniuk discloses the calciner 308 can comprise a flash calcination unit such that the temperature of the calciner 308 or portion thereof (e.g., the calcining chamber) is heated rapidly… and individual particles are calcined in a relatively short period of time (e.g., less than 5 seconds) ([0159]). Less than 5 seconds is within the claimed range of about 2 second to about 5 hours. Romaniuk further discloses breaking such particles into smaller particles can increase reactivity of the calcined product, and expose additional surface area to thereby aid in decreasing residence time in the calciner 308 ([0154]). In doing so, energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the calcining process can be decreased ([0154]). As the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the calcining time, the precise calcining time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed calcining time cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the calcining time in the method of Romaniuk to obtain the desired balance between the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 30, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Romaniuk further discloses the composition of the tailings 103 can include water, sand, bicarbonates, sulfates, clay… ([0123]). Romaniuk also discloses the amount and type of the additives 315 combined with the blended product 317 may similarly be based on other compositions, such as…percent iron (e.g., via iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3))… ([0165]).
Claims 11, 22-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romaniuk et al (US 20220195306 A1) in view of Simonsen et al. (“Evaluation of mine tailings’ potential as supplementary cementitious materials based on chemical, mineralogical, and physical characteristics”) and in further view of O’Donnell et al (US 20230304420 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but are silent to “wherein step (e) is performed, and wherein said calcining or sintering thermally activates said milled mine waste material to increase pozzolanicity”.
Simonsen discloses pozzolans should contain minimum 70% summed primary oxides (SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3) by mass according to En 450-1 (Pg. 712 right col. par. 2), which is evidence that a significant portion of pozzolans is alumina.
O’Donnell discloses an alumina calcination system (abstract). With respect to the calciner stage, art approaches perform alumina calcination in two stages: a first stage at a lower temperature associated with a decomposer and steam separation to perform partial calcination, and a second stage at a higher temperature than the first stage, but at a lower temperature than would be required if calcination was performed in a single stage ([0040]). The second stage may be in the range of 750 °C to 950 °C ([0040]). The two-stage calcination process provides energy efficiency advantages over a single stage calcination process ([0040]).
While O’Donnell does not specifically disclose a calcining time, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform the second calcination step with a duration as disclosed by Romaniuk. Romaniuk discloses the calciner 308 can comprise a flash calcination unit such that the temperature of the calciner 308 or portion thereof (e.g., the calcining chamber) is heated rapidly… and individual particles are calcined in a relatively short period of time (e.g., less than 5 seconds) ([0159]). Less than 5 seconds is within the claimed range of about 1 second to about 10 hours. Romaniuk further discloses breaking such particles into smaller particles can increase reactivity of the calcined product, and expose additional surface area to thereby aid in decreasing residence time in the calciner 308 ([0154]). In doing so, energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the calcining process can be decreased ([0154]). As the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the calcining time, the precise calcining time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed calcining time cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the calcining time in the method of Romaniuk to obtain the desired balance between the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calcine said milled mine waste material at a second calcining temperature selected from about 600°C to about 1600°C and a second calcining or sintering time selected from about 1 second to about 10 hours in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order to provide energy efficiency advantages as taught by O’Donnell.
Simonsen discloses calcination, which heats the material to high temperature and results in a dehydroxylated product, increase crystalline minerals’ reactivity, i.e. pozzolanicity, especially for pozzolan minerals such as kaolin (Pg. 717 right col. par. 3). A thermal treatment of this study’s mine tailings, would dehydroxylate phyllosilicates and could improve the reactivity of mine tailing samples (Pg. 717 right col. par. 3).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for when step (e) is performed, wherein said calcining or sintering thermally activates said milled mine waste material to increase pozzolanicity in the method of Romaniuk since a thermal treatment could improve the reactivity of mine tailing samples as taught by Simonsen.
Regarding claim 22, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but are silent to “wherein step (e) is performed, and wherein said second calcining or sintering temperature is selected from about 700 °C to about 1200 °C”.
Simonsen discloses pozzolans should contain minimum 70% summed primary oxides (SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3) by mass according to En 450-1 (Pg. 712 right col. par. 2), which is evidence that a significant portion of pozzolans is alumina.
O’Donnell discloses an alumina calcination system (abstract). With respect to the calciner stage, art approaches perform alumina calcination in two stages: a first stage at a lower temperature associated with a decomposer and steam separation to perform partial calcination, and a second stage at a higher temperature than the first stage, but at a lower temperature than would be required if calcination was performed in a single stage ([0040]). The second stage may be in the range of 750 °C to 950 °C ([0040]). 750 °C to 950 °C is within the claimed range of about 700 °C to about 1200 °C. The two-stage calcination process provides energy efficiency advantages over a single stage calcination process ([0040]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for wherein step (e) is conducted, said second calcining or sintering temperature is selected from about 700 °C to about 1200 °C in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order to provide energy efficiency advantages as taught by O’Donnell.
Regarding claim 23, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but are silent to “wherein step (e) is performed, and wherein said calcining or sintering time is selected from about 2 seconds to about 5 hours”.
O’Donnell discloses an alumina calcination system (abstract). With respect to the calciner stage, art approaches perform alumina calcination in two stages: a first stage at a lower temperature associated with a decomposer and steam separation to perform partial calcination, and a second stage at a higher temperature than the first stage, but at a lower temperature than would be required if calcination was performed in a single stage ([0040]). The two-stage calcination process provides energy efficiency advantages over a single stage calcination process ([0040]).
While O’Donnell does not specifically disclose a calcining time, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform the second calcination step with a duration as disclosed by Romaniuk. Romaniuk discloses the calciner 308 can comprise a flash calcination unit such that the temperature of the calciner 308 or portion thereof (e.g., the calcining chamber) is heated rapidly… and individual particles are calcined in a relatively short period of time (e.g., less than 5 seconds) ([0159]). Less than 5 seconds is within the claimed range of about 2 seconds to about 5 hours. Romaniuk further discloses breaking such particles into smaller particles can increase reactivity of the calcined product, and expose additional surface area to thereby aid in decreasing residence time in the calciner 308 ([0154]). In doing so, energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the calcining process can be decreased ([0154]). As the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the calcining time, the precise calcining time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed calcining time cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the calcining time in the method of Romaniuk to obtain the desired balance between the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for wherein step € is conducted, a second calcining or sintering time selected from about 2 seconds to about 5 hours in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order to provide energy efficiency advantages as taught by O’Donnell.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romaniuk et al (US 20220195306 A1) in view of Simonsen et al. (“Evaluation of mine tailings’ potential as supplementary cementitious materials based on chemical, mineralogical, and physical characteristics”) and in further view of O’Donnell et al (US 20230304420 A1) and Vargas et al (“Development of a new supplementary cementitious material from the activation of copper tailings: Mechanical performance and analysis of factors”).
Regarding claim 12, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein step (e) is performed, and wherein said process further comprises milling a calcined or sintered form of said milled mine waste material, thereby generating a milled calcined/sintered mine waste material with a median particle size (D50) selected from about 1 micron to about 50 microns”.
Simonsen discloses pozzolans should contain minimum 70% summed primary oxides (SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3) by mass according to En 450-1 (Pg. 712 right col. par. 2), which is evidence that a significant portion of pozzolans is alumina.
O’Donnell discloses an alumina calcination system (abstract). With respect to the calciner stage, art approaches perform alumina calcination in two stages: a first stage at a lower temperature associated with a decomposer and steam separation to perform partial calcination, and a second stage at a higher temperature than the first stage, but at a lower temperature than would be required if calcination was performed in a single stage ([0040]). The second stage may be in the range of 750 °C to 950 °C ([0040]). The two-stage calcination process provides energy efficiency advantages over a single stage calcination process ([0040]).
While O’Donnell does not specifically disclose a calcining time, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform the second calcination step with a duration as disclosed by Romaniuk. Romaniuk discloses the calciner 308 can comprise a flash calcination unit such that the temperature of the calciner 308 or portion thereof (e.g., the calcining chamber) is heated rapidly… and individual particles are calcined in a relatively short period of time (e.g., less than 5 seconds) ([0159]). Less than 5 seconds is within the claimed range of about 1 second to about 10 hours. Romaniuk further discloses breaking such particles into smaller particles can increase reactivity of the calcined product, and expose additional surface area to thereby aid in decreasing residence time in the calciner 308 ([0154]). In doing so, energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the calcining process can be decreased ([0154]). As the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the calcining time, the precise calcining time would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed calcining time cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the calcining time in the method of Romaniuk to obtain the desired balance between the energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calcine said milled mine waste material at a second calcining temperature selected from about 600°C to about 1600°C and a second calcining or sintering time selected from about 1 second to about 10 hours in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order to provide energy efficiency advantages as taught by O’Donnell.
Vargas discloses the improvement of performance in supplementary cementitious materials has been researched since the mid-20th century, with the use of thermal treatments (Pg. 428 left column par. 3). Changes in particle size also have been researched for SCM as an effective method to improve performance, generally with high-energy methods (Pg. 428 left column par. 4) The combined effect of thermal and milling treatments has increased effectiveness, with particle size above 45 µm (Pg. 428 left column par. 4).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Vargas (above 45 µm) overlaps with the claimed range (about 1 micron to about 50 microns). Therefore, the range in Vargas renders obvious the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for wherein step (e) is performed, and wherein said process further comprises milling a calcined or sintered form of said milled mine waste material, thereby generating a milled calcined/sintered mine waste material with a median particle size (D50) selected from about 1 micron to about 50 microns in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen since the combined effect of thermal and milling treatments has increased effectiveness, with particle size above 45 µm as taught by Vargas.
Claims 16-19, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romaniuk et al (US 20220195306 A1) in view of Simonsen et al. (“Evaluation of mine tailings’ potential as supplementary cementitious materials based on chemical, mineralogical, and physical characteristics”) in further view of Dossing et al (WO 2023174526 A1).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein in step (b), said average particle size is selected from about 0.5 millimeters to about 25 millimeters” and “wherein said average particle size is selected from about 1 millimeter to about 10 millimeters”.
Dossing discloses a method for producing a supplementary cementitious material (abstract). Suitable supplementary cementitious materials may be in embodiments derived from raw materials that are selected from the group comprising… mine tailing (Pg. 5 last par.). The claimed method further may comprise the step of crushing and/or sieving the raw material of the supplementary cementitious material prior to the nodularizing step (Pg. 14 top paragraph). This particularly ensures that the subsequent nodularizing step can be conducted in an optimized manner, since the crushing ensures the provision of a raw material with an optimized particle size (Pg. 14 top paragraph). The average particle size of the crushed material is… more preferably 0.1 mm to 20 mm (Pg. 14 par. 2).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the range taught by Dossing (0.1 mm to 20 mm) overlaps with the claimed ranges (0.5 millimeters to about 25 millimeters of claim 16) and (about 1 millimeter to about 10 millimeters of claim 17). Therefore, the range in Dossing renders obvious the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for wherein in step (b), said average particle size is selected from about 0.5 millimeters to about 25 millimeters and wherein said average particle size is selected from about 1 millimeter to about 10 millimeters in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen since the crushing ensures the provision of a raw material with an optimized particle size as taught by Dossing.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein in step (d), said median particle size (D50) is selected from about 2 microns to about 25 microns” or “wherein the median particle size (D50) is selected from about 10 microns to about 20 microns”.
Dossing discloses it is preferred that the method comprises the step of milling the calcined nodules (Pg. 14 par. 3). In embodiments, the particle size of the final supplementary cementitious material is 1 to 100 μm (Pg. 14 par. 3). The subsequent milling of the calcined raw material of the supplementary cementitious material particularly ensures that the resulting supplementary cementitious material has an average particle size that allows an improved pozzolanic activity (Pg. 14 par. 3).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the range taught by Dossing (1 to 100 μm) overlaps with the claimed ranges (median particle size (D50) is selected from about 2 microns to about 25 microns of claim 18) and (median particle size (D50) is selected from about 10 microns to about 20 microns of claim 19). Therefore, the range in Dossing renders obvious the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for wherein in step (d), said median particle size (D50) is selected from about 2 microns to about 25 microns or wherein the median particle size (D50) is selected from about 10 microns to about 20 microns in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order for the resulting supplementary cementitious material to have an average particle size that allows an improved pozzolanic activity as taught by Dossing.
Regarding claim 24, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein said supplementary cementitious material has a 7-day strength activity index SAI of at least 75%”.
Dossing discloses the resulting high pozzolanic activity ensures that the cement shows favorable mechanical properties, such as compressive strength, that particularly are higher than that of conventional substituted (or blended) cements and that are in embodiments at least comparable to an unsubstituted Portland cement (Pg. 12 par. 2). For instance, the cement may have a compressive strength of … more preferably 20 to 50 MPa after 7 days (Pg. 12 par. 2). The cement shows … more preferably at least 80% of the compressive strength of a respective unsubstituted Portland cement (Pg. 12 par. 2). Given that a 7-day strength activity index SAI is the compressive strength of pozzolan-cement blended mortars as fractions of the strength of Portland cement mortars, Dossing discloses a 7-day strength activity index of at least 75%.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the supplementary cementitious material to have a 7-day strength activity index SAI of at least 75% in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen since compressive strength is a favorable mechanical property as taught by Dossing.
Regarding claim 25, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein said supplementary cementitious material has a 28-day strength activity index SAI of at least 75%”.
Dossing discloses the resulting high pozzolanic activity ensures that the cement shows favorable mechanical properties, such as compressive strength, that particularly are higher than that of conventional substituted (or blended) cements and that are in embodiments at least comparable to an unsubstituted Portland cement (Pg. 12 par. 2). In embodiments, the compressive strength of the final cement product is 50-150%, preferably 75-100%, of that of ordinary Portland cement after 28-days of curing (Pg. 12 par. 2). Given that a 28-day strength activity index SAI is the compressive strength of pozzolan-cement blended mortars as fractions of the strength of Portland cement mortars, Dossing discloses a 28-day strength activity index of at least 75%.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the supplementary cementitious material to have a 28-day strength activity index SAI of at least 75% in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen since compressive strength is a favorable mechanical property as taught by Dossing.
Regarding claim 26, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “said supplementary cementitious material is a pozzolan pursuant to ASTM, ACI and/or AASHTO”.
Dossing further discloses the average particle size is the arithmetic average particle size as measured according to ASTM C 430-96(2003) (Pg. 27 Measurement methods).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the supplementary cementitious material is a pozzolan pursuant to ASTM in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen since ASTM is a standard for measuring fineness of hydraulic cement.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romaniuk et al (US 20220195306 A1) in view of Simonsen et al. (“Evaluation of mine tailings’ potential as supplementary cementitious materials based on chemical, mineralogical, and physical characteristics”), and in further view of Constantz et al (WO 2011081681 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein said supplementary cementitious material contains borax”.
Constantz discloses compositions and methods including hydraulic cement, supplementary cementitious material, and/or self-cementing material (abstract). Set retarding, also known as delayed-setting or hydration control, admixtures are used to retard, delay, or slow the rate of setting of concrete ([0240]). Set retarders may be used to offset the accelerating effect of hot weather on the setting of concrete, or delay the initial set of concrete or grout when difficult conditions of placement occur, or problems of delivery to the job site, or to allow time for special finishing processes ([0240]). Retarders that can be used include, but are not limited to … borax… ([0240]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for said supplementary cementitious material to contain borax in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order for the borax to act as a set retarder to offset the accelerating effect of hot weather on the setting of concrete, or delay the initial set of concrete or grout when difficult conditions of placement occur, or problems of delivery to the job site, or to allow time for special finishing processes as taught by Constantz.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romaniuk et al (US 20220195306 A1) in view of Simonsen et al. (“Evaluation of mine tailings’ potential as supplementary cementitious materials based on chemical, mineralogical, and physical characteristics”), and in further view of Hargis et al (US 20230112173 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein said supplementary cementitious material contains lithium”.
Hargis discloses compositions, methods, and systems related to cement blend compositions comprising reactive vaterite cement and supplementary cementitious material (SCM) comprising aluminosilicate material (abstract). In some embodiments of the blended composition provided herein, the blend composition (e.g., the blend composition comprising the reactive vaterite cement and the SCM such as, the aluminosilicate material and/or the carbonate material and/or the Portland cement clinker; and/or the limestone calcined clay cement) further comprises an alkali metal accelerator and/or an alkaline earth metal accelerator ([0073]). In some embodiments, the alkali metal accelerator and/or the alkaline earth metal accelerator facilitates early development of strength in the cement ([0073]). The alkali metal accelerator and/or an alkaline earth metal accelerator in the blend composition increases the compressive strength of the blend cement composition ([0073]). The alkali metal accelerator and/or the alkaline earth metal accelerator includes, but not limited to any alkali metal salt…such as…lithium sulfate, lithium carbonate, lithium nitrate… ([0074]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for said supplementary cementitious material to contain lithium in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order act as an alkaline earth metal accelerator as taught by Hargis which increases the compressive strength of the blend cement composition.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romaniuk et al (US 20220195306 A1) in view of Simonsen et al. (“Evaluation of mine tailings’ potential as supplementary cementitious materials based on chemical, mineralogical, and physical characteristics”), and in further view of Constantz et al (WO 2011081681 A1) and Hargis et al (US 20230112173 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein said supplementary cementitious material contains lithium and borax”.
Hargis discloses compositions, methods, and systems related to cement blend compositions comprising reactive vaterite cement and supplementary cementitious material (SCM) comprising aluminosilicate material (abstract). In some embodiments of the blended composition provided herein, the blend composition (e.g., the blend composition comprising the reactive vaterite cement and the SCM such as, the aluminosilicate material and/or the carbonate material and/or the Portland cement clinker; and/or the limestone calcined clay cement) further comprises an alkali metal accelerator and/or an alkaline earth metal accelerator ([0073]). In some embodiments, the alkali metal accelerator and/or the alkaline earth metal accelerator facilitates early development of strength in the cement ([0073]). The alkali metal accelerator and/or an alkaline earth metal accelerator in the blend composition increases the compressive strength of the blend cement composition ([0073]). The alkali metal accelerator and/or the alkaline earth metal accelerator includes, but not limited to any alkali metal salt…such as…lithium sulfate, lithium carbonate, lithium nitrate… ([0074]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for said supplementary cementitious material to contain lithium in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order act as an alkaline earth metal accelerator as taught by Hargis which increases the compressive strength of the blend cement composition.
Constantz discloses compositions and methods including hydraulic cement, supplementary cementitious material, and/or self-cementing material (abstract). Set retarding, also known as delayed-setting or hydration control, admixtures are used to retard, delay, or slow the rate of setting of concrete ([0240]). Set retarders may be used to offset the accelerating effect of hot weather on the setting of concrete, or delay the initial set of concrete or grout when difficult conditions of placement occur, or problems of delivery to the job site, or to allow time for special finishing processes ([0240]). Retarders that can be used include, but are not limited to … borax… ([0240]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for said supplementary cementitious material to contain borax in the method of Romaniuk in view of Simonsen in order for the borax to act as a set retarder to offset the accelerating effect of hot weather on the setting of concrete, or delay the initial set of concrete or grout when difficult conditions of placement occur, or problems of delivery to the job site, or to allow time for special finishing processes as taught by Constantz.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 has allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, namely Romaniuk in view of Simonsen discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose wherein the mine waste material is a blend of a waste overburden material, a waste gangue material, and a reprocessed waste material.
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 NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738