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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Because this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission of an amendment to the claims and of an Information Disclosure Statement filed August 24, 2026, have been considered and entered.
Accordingly, prosecution has been reopened. Claims 1-18 have been canceled in the amendment whereas new claims 19-44 have been entered/examined in the instant action.
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.
New dependent claims 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as 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.
Claims 36-41 contain the test name/trade name: “ASTM C311/C311M-222.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material (or a test name), the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since test/trade name cannot be used properly for a person skilled in the art to perform the test .
In the present case, the trade/test name “ASTM C311/C311M-222” is used to ascertain a limitation of the rejected claims, namely the strength activity index (SAI). Because Applicant’s specification does not describe the particulars of this test and how to perform this, accordingly, this test name renders these claims indefinite.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s submission in a subsequent reply to this action, of an article/reference describing how to perform this particular test (ASTM C311/C311M-222), will suffice to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
New claims 19-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Matalkah ("CO2 treatment of ground granulated blast furnace slag for enhancing geopolymer properties," by Matalkah et al., Journal of Materials Research and Technology, Vol. 17, pp. 2457-2465 (March-April 2022), and Monkman (US 2016/0107939 A1 to Monkman et al., published April 21, 2016. These two references were cited by Applicant in the IDS filed with this RCE on August 24, 2026.
Matalkah discloses a novel and cost-effective method for incorporating carbon dioxide (CO₂) into ground granulated blast furnace slag to form carbonated slag, via ball milling in the presence of carbon dioxide, and the subsequent value-added use of the captured carbon dioxide towards enhancement of alkali-activated slag binding qualities, wherein the carbonated slag is a hybrid system of carbonates and alkali alumino-silicates that act synergistically to produce improved binding effects, which enhances concrete materials with the hybrid binder (abstract; Part 1. Introduction on pages 2457-2458; Part 2: Materials on pages 2458-2459). The carbon dioxide is mechano-absorbed into ground granulated blast furnace slag by milling the slag in a carbon dioxide environment (inherent step in the processing of cementitious materials) to generate metastable carbonates via mechano-absorption, and to make beneficial use of parallel carbonation reactions and transformation of siliceous and aluminous compounds into hydrates to produce high-performance binders (Section 1.2 on page 2458).
In Figure 2, Matalkah discloses particle size distributions of slag milled in air/CO₂, wherein the median (D50) values of particle size for the milled CO₂ slag were in the range of 8-9 µm (Part 3: Methods, particularly, pages 2459 to 2460). X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns for the milled CO₂-slag are shown in Fig. 6, wherein the patterns exhibit, inter alia, peaks associated with akermanite (2CaO.MgO₃-SiO₂) and merwinite (2CaO.Al₂O₃.SiO₂), therefore, containing SiO2 (amorphous compounds),and wherein the carbon dioxide is mechanochemically bound to the CO₂-milled slag is confirmed by spectrum (page 2460-61).
In Figure 8, Matalkah depicts compressive strength test results generated for concrete materials prepared with CO2-milled slag, wherein the milling of this slag is observed to raise the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete, and wherein milling of slag in CO₂ enhances the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete (page 2461-2462; Figure 8 on page 2463). Figure 8 depicts the compressive strength for milled CO2-slag as about 20 to 50 MPa. The carbon dioxide mechano-absorbed by slag particles during milling in CO₂ environment forms amorphous or nanocrystalline carbonate structures detected by spectra as carbonates, as evidenced by XRD spectra of the carbonated slag. These carbonates are detected via XRD spectroscopy that explains the role of carbonates in enhancing mechanical properties of the carbonated slag, such as compressive strength (Part 4: Conclusion, pages 2463-2464).
Even though Matalkah states that the milled CO2-slag enhances mechanical properties of the slag in geopolymer applications and further provides/discusses results of various mechanical properties of this slag enhancing mechanical properties, such as compressive strength, it does not disclose results for the surface area of the carbonated slag as recited in the present claims.
However, Monkman, drawn to methods/compositions for concrete production, provides a chart that depicts the relationship between surface area and comprehensive strength (Figure 52). It shows that as compressive strength of the slag/mortar gets higher (enhanced) its surface area becomes greater (abstract; [0061]; [0627]; Figure 52 of Monkman).
Therefore, it would have been within the purview of one skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the present application to optimize any mechanical property, such as compressive strength and surface area, to provide a sufficient strength for a concrete/cementitious application on view of the teachings in Matalkah and Monkman. Thus, the resultant enhanced properties of the carbonated slag, and materials comprising thereof, can be arrived by routine optimization of these variables (enhanced mechanical properties, such as compressive strength and surface area). See MPEP §2144.05 II A.
Thus, the present new claims are unpatentable over Matalkah and Monkman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8916. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am -6:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSEPH DEL SOLE, can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN J FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
September 26, 2026
