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 submits amended claims filed 12/11/2025 in response to the restriction requirement mailed 8/11/2025. Support for the amended and new claims contained therein is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 14, 16, 18, 20, 40, 86 and 95-102 are pending.
Claims 40 and 86 of the amended claims filed 12/11/2025 concurrently with the Remarks in response to the restriction requirement are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Applicant is advised to designate claims 40 and 86 as withdrawn.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2025, 9/11/2024, 9/4/2024, 6/5/2024, and 3/6/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 5-7, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 95-102 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.
The claim at (v) recites: the brine slurry is salt water comprising a salt concentration of between 101% to 1000 % the salt concentration of sea water. Because the salt concentration of sea water is not a “set” for fixed amount (it will vary depending on which sea, where in the sea, temperature, etc.) and the concentration of seawater is not set forth in the instant specification, the metes and bounds of the comparative range of salt of the claimed brine vs. that of seawater is indefinite.
Claim Interpretation/Introduction
As more fully below set forth the claims teach or render obvious the claimed ranges and ratios. In the case where the claimed ranges "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) Absent evidence of criticality, the ranges of the instant claims will not support patentability esp. where the prior art teaches the materials for the same function and product. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Where the claimed ranges recite “about” (for example including but not limited to claims 16, 18 and 95)
PNG
media_image1.png
172
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 recites alternative embodiments of EITHER (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) as well as combinations as they are claimed “and/or”. As such the teaching of any one embodiment by the cited prior art anticipates the claimed invention as more fully below set forth.
Claim 1 has been afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. Claim 1 is directed to a composition of an artificial stonelike material of a poured concrete mixture. The preamble language of “set by pouring a concrete mixture” does not further limit the claimed composition. Said language has been interpreted as a property of the claimed composition in that it can be set by pouring a concrete mixture.
Claim 5 is a product by process limitation of pouring and curing. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) The prior art having taught the claimed composition which has set and cured meets the product by process limitations.
The prior art having taught the claimed composition is capable of being poured and set as well as cured and will possess the claimed properties in ranges which meet and/or in the alternative overlap the claimed ranges of the recited properties including but not limited to absorbing and retaining CO.sub.2 of at least 5 weight percent of the material over a 15 year period, absorbing and retaining CO.sub.2 over a period of time as it is cured and hardened and curing at ambient temperature. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
The above claim interpretations and introductory matter are expressly incorporated into each and every rejection below as though fully set forth therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 14, 98 and 100-102 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Blast Furnace Slag Mg(OH).sub.2 cement activated by sodium carbonate by: Sam A Walling, Susan A Bernal, Laura J Bardner Hajime Kinoshita and John L Provis RSC Adv 2018, 8, 23101-23118
Regarding Claims 1-2, 5-7, 14, 98 and 100-102
Blast Furnace Slag Mg(OH).sub.2 cement activated by sodium carbonate by: Sam A Walling, Susan A Bernal, Laura J Bardner Hajime Kinoshita and John L Provis RSC Adv 2018, 8, 23101-23118 referred to as “Walling”
Walling et al teaches a slag cement hardened with varying quantity of MgOH2 (Abstract) the composition comprises ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) (meeting the limitation for slag of the claims) which is commercially available:
PNG
media_image2.png
242
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and commercial magnesium hydroxide commercially available at greater than 95 % purity blended into binder mix and an alkaline activator reagent of sodium carbonate (meeting claim 2 for sodium) p23102 Section 2.1
The sodium carbonate is 10 g per 90 g or the combined GGBS and MgOH2 with the proportion of MgOH2:GGBS varied.
Below teaches the Mg(OH).sub.2, GGBS and Water slurry of the instant claim 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
224
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where 10 % meets claim 16
Mg(OH)2 and GGBS and water i.e. meeting the limitation for a brine slurry of the claims.
Further Regarding the claimed Ratios and Ranges:
Section 2.2 P 23102
Total MgOH2 and GGBS MgOH2/GGBS for MgOH2 : slag ratio
Where Table 2: 10 % of Mg(OH).sub.2 of 10 % meeting the limitation for a range of 2 to 25 wt.% of claim 1 (ii) and claim 14
Where MgOH.sub.2 is in an amount of 10% meeting the limitation of claim 1(ii)
PNG
media_image3.png
224
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where the ratios of claim 1 (iii) are satisfied:
90 10/80= 0.125
90 30/60= 0.5 (30:60 within 75:25 to 25:75)
90 50/40= 1.25 (50:40 within 75:25 to 25:75)
(within the claimed ratio range of claims 1 and 7 and 100-102)
Further regarding poured concrete mixture where the paste is poured into a centrifuge tube and set:
The composition is a sodium carbonate activated slag binder blended with MgOH2 in various quantities and hardened (P23102 Col 1 )
PNG
media_image4.png
220
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
P23102 2.2
The material was mixed and hardened at 20 ºC (p23102 Section 2.2) (meeting claim 1 (iv) and 98 for curing at ambient temperature meeting the limitation for pouring and for applying a curing technique to the poured concrete of claim 1 and claim 5 and claim 98)
Na.sub.2CO.sub.3 meeting the limitation of claim 2 for sodium
PNG
media_image5.png
146
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(P23104 second col)(50:50 ratio meeting claims)
PNG
media_image6.png
48
446
media_image6.png
Greyscale
P23113
(further meeting the claimed ratios including but not limited to claims 1, 7, and 100-102)
The composition was cast in a centrifuge tube (P23102 section 2.2) (meeting the limitation of claim 5 for pouring and curing)
The MgOH2 is not calcined meeting claim 6.
The composition is a carbonate containing product. MgOH2 do not chemically react with the cement but rather acts as a filler accelerating the hardening of the sodium carbonate activated slag (Abstract) The slag magnesium hydroxide cement is a suitable matrix for high loadings of magnesium hydroxide bearing wastes such as Magnox sludge (Abstract)
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 96-97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blast Furnace Slag Mg(OH).sub.2 cement activated by sodium carbonate by: Sam A Walling, Susan A Bernal, Laura J Bardner Hajime Kinoshita and John L Provis RSC Adv 2018, 8, 23101-23118 as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 14, 98 and 100-102 above
Further regarding claims 20 and 96-97
Walling discloses the limitations above set forth.
The prior art having taught the claimed composition with the claimed ratios/ranges will necessarily possess the claimed properties and functionality including but not limited to carbon dioxide absorption and retention and producing carbon credits meeting and/or overlapping the claimed ranges thereof. The prior art having taught the claimed composition is capable of being poured and set as well as cured and will possess the claimed properties in ranges which meet and/or in the alternative overlap the claimed ranges of the recited properties including but not limited to absorbing and retaining CO.sub.2 of at least 5 weight percent of the material over a 15 year period, absorbing and retaining CO.sub.2 over a period of time as it is cured and hardened and curing at ambient temperature. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claim(s) 3, 16, 18, 95, and 99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and claims 20 and 97 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blast Furnace Slag Mg(OH).sub.2 cement activated by sodium carbonate by: Sam A Walling, Susan A Bernal, Laura J Bardner Hajime Kinoshita and John L Provis RSC Adv 2018, 8, 23101-23118 as applied to claims 1-2, 5-7, 14, 20, 96-98 and 100-102 above further in view of Constantz et al (US 2010/0083880)
Regarding Claims 3, 16, 18, 95, 99 and alternatively regarding claims 20 and 97
Walling discloses the limitations above set forth. As Walling teaches the claimed composition comprising carbonates it is capable of carbon dioxide absorption as well as carbon credit accrual etc. as set forth in the claims as further supported by the teachings of Constantz as below set forth.
Walling does not expressly disclose the nature of the water used as seawater or the chloride sulfate or potassium content therein.
Walling while teaching a binder composition does not expressly disclose the composition comprising aggregate.
Walling while teaching a high carbonate composition does not expressly teach carbon dioxide absorption and carbon credits though as above set forth having taught the claimed composition will be capable of said claimed properties.
Constantz et al (US 2010/0083880) teaches a reduced carbon foot concrete composition including a CO.sub.2 sequestering carbonate compound present in the hydraulic cement and/or aggregate components of the concrete (Abstract)
The composition is a hydraulic cement with a carbon dioxide sequestering component [0012] the hydraulic cement sets and hardens [0037]
The composition comprises a conventional hydraulic cement such as OPC conventional Supplemental cement including slag and aggregate and a carbon dioxide sequestering component of a carbonate [0040] the composition may comprise Conventional hydraulic cement and supplementary cement materials including slag [0045-0046]
The reduced carbon footprint concrete has less than 75 % of the carbon foot print as ordinary concrete [0007] and may have a negative foot print of less than 0 lbs CO2/yd3 or less than 1000 lbs CO2/yd 3 [0007]
The composition includes synthetic carbonate of a supplementary cement material, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, reactive pozzolanic material. [0007] (meeting claim 3)
The composition comprises 2.5-50 % calcium, between 2.5 and 50 % magnesium and at least 25% carbonates/bicarbonates. [0009]
The composition will have a reduced carbon foot print and afford a credit from CO2 avoided [0041] and provide additional revenue via carbon credits [0162]
The reduction in carbon foot print is archived with concrete mixes with less than 50 wt.% of conventional supplementary cement materials [0037] including carbon foot print of less than – 1000 lbs CO2/yd3 [0039]
The composition may comprise conventional hydraulic cement such as Portland cement of 10-90 wt.% and a carbon dioxide sequestering SCM comprising carbonate/bi carbonates [0045] [0044-0045]
The composition may comprise Convectional SCM’s include ground blast furnace slag, fly ash, natural or artificial pozzolans, silica fume limestone etc. in amounts of 1- 50 wt.% [0046]
The CO2 sequestering component includes carbonates/bicarbonates in combination with a divalent cation such as calcium and/or magnesium or with a monovalent cation such as sodium which may be solution in the form of a slurry. [0047] the amount of the CO2 sequestering component may vary such as from 5 to 100 % [0053]
The aqueous solution of divalent cations includes those derived from freshwater brackish water seawater or brines and other salines having a salinity that is greater than that of freshwater Seawater has salinity of about 35 to 50 ppt, Brine water is saturated or nearly saturated with salt with salinity greater than 50 ppt. [0102] For example, if the saltwater source is seawater, identifying compounds that may be present in precipitation material include, but are not limited to: chloride, sodium, sulfur, potassium, bromide, silicon, strontium, and the like. Any such source-identifying or “marker” elements are generally present in small amounts, e.g., in amounts of 20,000 ppm or less, such as amounts of 2000 ppm or less. [0059] (overlapping/meeting the limitations of claim 1, 99, 16, 18 and 95)
There are multiple sources of water for use including seawater and brine [0102](overlapping/meeting the limitations of claim 1, 99, 16, 18 and 95) and these sources of water may be used for forming the various carbonates which are the CO.sub.2 sequestering component such as seawater etc. The source of water may be identified by marker elements. [0059]
The composition is settable and may be combined with aggregate [0157](meeting claim 3)
(the above meeting/overlapping the instantly claimed ranges for carbon dioxide absorption carbon credits, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use the water/sea water having the salt content, chloride, sulfate and potassium content thereof as the water of Constantz in Walling as it is suitable for identifying and marking the solid precipitation of the composition that come from the salt water source and for reacting with the various compositional components to form carbonates such as those in Walling which will also serve as carbon dioxide absorbents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to add aggregate/cement as taught by Constantz to the binder composition of Walling as Walling is a hydraulic binder suitable for use with aggregate and as taught by Constantz, aggregate and MgOH2 and slag may readily be combined to form a CO2 absorbing concrete/cement.
As taught by Constantz, compositions having carbonates are suitable for use a CO2 absorber which benefit the environment and yield carbon credits. Walling as evidenced by and as modified by Constantz will absorb CO2 and yield carbon credits in ranges which overlap and/or meet the claimed ranges.
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 1-3, 5-7, 14, 16, 18, 20, 95-102 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-8, 12. 14-15, 31-32, 74, 83, 94-96 of copending Application No. 18393093 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the co-copending application also claims a composition of an artificial stone like material set by pouring a cementitious mixture comprising Mg(OH).sub.2 and ground granulated blast furnace slag in an aqueous solution (i.e. the instantly claimed slurry) as well as nitrate, sulfate, sodium chloride (see copending claim 2 vs instant claim 20 as well as aggregate such as gravel, etc. (see co pending claim 3 and instant claim 3) which may subjected to a curing technique (see co pending claim 7 and instant claim 5 and 98) where the amount and ratio of the manmade pozzolan/GGBS of the copending application overlaps that of the instant claims including the ratio of magnesium di hydroxide. (copending claim 8 vs instant claims directed to wt. % and ratios) possessing overlapping ranges of sulfate chloride etc. in the brine 9see copending claims 11-12 and 14-15) possessing the claimed carbon dioxide absorbance (see copending claim 83 and instant claim 20 and 97) the range of the Mg(OH).sub.2 will overlap the claimed ranges by virtue of the required amounts of natural pozzolan: manmade pozzolan (GGBS) etc.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action. For example:
SU 1071591A discloses a binder composition including granulated blast furnace slag, and sludge and 15-25 %NaOH to increase alkali resistance and reduce cost is contains a slurry of salt brine comprising calcium carbonate 50-54 % magnesium hydroxide 12-17 % polyacrylamide 0.1-0.3 salt sodium nitrile. The granulated blast furnace slat is 70-80 % and the brine is 20-30 (Abstract0 The invention relates to holdings, containing slags as the main silica component, and can be used in the manufacture of autoclaved hardening building materials, in particular, for the manufacture of high-strength, corrosion-resistant slag bricks.
The brine comprises:
PNG
media_image7.png
84
332
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This goal is achieved by the fact that, as a slurry, which includes granulated domain slag and sludge, contains as sludge from salt brine, including wt.%:
Calcium carbonate 50-54
Magnesium hydroxide 12-17
Polyacrylamide 0.1-0.3
with the next ratio of your components, %:
Granulated blast-furnace slag 70-80
Cleaning sludge salt brine 20-30
Constantz Youngs et al (US 2010/0144521) discloses composition comprising aggregate and industrial waste stream products and carbon dioxide in the form of divalent cation carbonates such as magnesium and calcium carbonate by contacting carbo dioxide gases streamed with water to dissolve the carbon dioxide and placing water under precipitation conditions to produce carbonate precipitate (Abstract)
The CO2 sequestering component comprises one or more carbonate compounds (See claim 2 reference) which are 50-90 wt.% of the aggregate (see claim 3 reference) and the carbonate includes magnesium and calcium carbonates (See claim r4 reference) and at least 0.1 wt.% sulfate (see claim 8 reference)
The composition may be formed for use in roadways comprising 1-100 % of a settable composition such as concrete cement and comprises the carbon dioxide sequestering aggregate which includes slag cement binder blast furnace slag etc. [0214]
A slurry comprising magnesium hydroxide is added and may be from waste seawater plant being 85 % MgHO2 [0274]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732