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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. In particular, paragraph 00039 of the specification attempts to incorporate by reference an unpublished foreign patent application. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see paragraph 00010, ll. 17 and 19–20). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14 and 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: The first recited method step should end with a comma to be consistent with the other method steps, i.e., “…and a D90 ≤ 100 mm,”; and,
Claims 14 and 18: “comprising providing carbonated recycled concrete paste by a method according to claim 1” should read “comprising providing carbonated recycled concrete paste produced by a method according to claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 16 each recite multiple limitations separated by “and/or”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these claims is to treat the multiple limitations as alternatives. Accordingly, all recitations of “and/or” will herein be considered to recite “or”.
Claim 5 recites “the solution” in line 4. Claim 1, on which claim 5 ultimately depends, does not explicitly recite “a solution”, so there is no explicit antecedent basis for this term in claim 5. However, claim 1 recites a water-containing liquid with CO2 and feedstock, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret to be an aqueous solution. Therefore, although claim 5 lacks explicit antecedent basis, it does not lead to indefiniteness because claim 1 implicitly recites a solution.
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 2, 4, 5, and 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “too long storage” is unclear. The Examiner believes that it is meant to recite “stored for too long”, but this still leads to indefiniteness because “too long” is inherently relative.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “improves the final properties” has unclear metes and bounds. An improvement is inherently relative, i.e., improved properties relative to some baseline, but it is unclear what the baseline is; are the properties improved relative to the prior art, or an unclaimed control batch. Additionally, it is unclear at what point the properties are considered “final”. Most cements dry after 48 hours, but take about 28 days to fully cure, and some cements can take even longer; it isn’t clear whether the improved final properties are measured after drying, or after curing, or at some other stage in the process. Claim 5, being dependent on claim 4, inherits its deficiencies, and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 16, the term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the limitation wherein “the concentration of carbon dioxide and treatment time are adjusted to provide the carbonated recycled concrete paste with a carbonation degree of at least 50 wt.%” is considered functional language. When claims merely recite a result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the scope of the claim may be unclear. Further, without reciting the particular steps that achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. The specification does not provide sufficient guidance as to how these parameters should be adjusted to arrive at the claimed limitation (see paragraph 00062, which appears to contain the only mention of these parameters being adjusted, and which simply states “carbon dioxide concentration and treatment time for EPF are adjusted to ensure the desired carbonation degree”). A person having ordinary skill in the art wouldn’t know how the CO2 concentration and treatment time are being adjusted, and could only attempt to achieve the claimed result through speculative experimentation.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek et al. (EP 3,498,681 A1, hereinafter “Skocek”), Juilland et al. (WO 2014/154741 A1, hereinafter “Juilland”), and Bru et al. (International HISER Conference on Advances in Recycling and Management of Construction and Demolition Waste, 2017, hereinafter “Bru”).
Evidentiary support for the solubility of gaseous CO2 in liquid water is provided by Mulana et al. (Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022, 63, S46–S49, hereinafter “Mulana”), and is applied to claim 1 and all claims dependent thereon. Evidentiary support for the maximum degree of carbonation in cement is provided by Rathnakumar et al. (Cement and Concrete Research, 2026, 207, 108279, hereinafter “Rathnakumar”) and is applied only to claims 17 and 18.
Regarding claim 1, Skocek teaches a method for manufacturing carbonated recycled concrete paste (see generally abstract; also see paragraph 0034 teaching the product as a paste; “carbonated recycled concrete paste” will hereinafter be abbreviated “cRCP”), comprising the following steps:
providing a feedstock comprising waste concrete with a D10 ≥ 0.1 mm and a D90 ≤ 100 mm (see paragraph 0018 teaching a D90 below 0.5 mm, which is ≤ 100 mm as claimed; Skocek doesn’t explicitly teach a D10 value, but this value can be calculated using the D90 and the Rosin-Rammler slope given in paragraph 0018:
D
10
=
D
90
×
0.04576
1
RR Slope
; so for a D90 of 0.5 mm and a Rosin-Rammler slope ranging from 0.5 to 1.4, the D-10 ranges from 0.01–0.55 mm, which overlaps with the claimed D10),
passing a feedstock, a water containing liquid and carbon dioxide into a fragmentation vessel (see paragraph 0026 teaching a starting material [feedstock] as being placed in a carbonation device; see paragraph 0029 teaching the carbonation device as also serving as a fragmentation vessel [specifically a grinding-reacting chamber]; see paragraph 0027 teaching the feedstock as being mixed with an aqueous solution containing CO2 [wherein aqueous indicates a water-based solution]), and
withdrawing fragmented solid material from the fragmentation vessel and separating the fragmented solid material from admixed liquid phase (see paragraph 0027 teaching the material as being dried, which implies withdrawing the solid material and separating it from the water; this limitation will be discussed further below).
Skocek fails to explicitly teach the limitations wherein (1) the concentration of CO2 in the aqueous solution is at least 0.1 wt.% (see paragraph 0027 teaching a CO2 concentration of up to 10 mM, which is only about 0.04 wt.%); (2) the fragmented solid material is separated into a fine fraction with a maximum particle size of 250 µm and a coarse fraction; and (3) the coarse fraction is recycled into the fragmentation vessel and/or discharged as clean aggregate.
Juilland teaches a method for separating aggregate and binder from demolition waste (see generally abstract), wherein waste concrete is carbonated in an aqueous CO2 solution and fragmented, and wherein the fragmented material is separated into coarse and fine fractions (see pg. 18, section 1). From the above limitations which Skocek failed to explicitly teach: regarding (1), Juilland teaches CO2 gas of at least 99% purity being bubbled into liquid water (see pg. 12, ll. 3–5 and ll. 22–25), and Mulana teaches the typical dissolution of gaseous CO2 into liquid water as achieving a concentration of from 0.5–1.32 g/L (equivalent to 0.05–0.132 wt.%), depending on pressure and time (see Figure 3; also see MPEP 2124 regarding the applicability of evidentiary references that do not antedate the filing date; in this case, the solubility of CO2 in liquid water is considered a property of a material, and so the later publication date of Mulana does not render the reference inadmissible); it is also noted that, while a CO2 concentration range of 0.05–0.132 wt.% does render the claim obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges), Mulana specifically teaches these concentrations at room temperature, while Juilland teaches the reaction as taking place in temperatures as low as -10 °C (see pg. 13, ll. 19–21), so the solubility of CO2 can feasibly exceed the 0.132 wt.% achievable at room temperature. Regarding (2), Juilland teaches the fragmented solid material as being separated into a fine fraction with a maximum particle size of 250 µm and a coarse fraction (see pg. 14, ll. 3–8 teaching a cut-off size at 0.250 mm [250 µm], wherein the particles below the cut-off size are collected as powder and particles above the cut-off size are collected as aggregates). Juilland specifically teaches the withdrawal of fragmented material from the fragmentation vessel and the subsequent separation of material from water via filtration (see pg. 18, ll. 13–26). Regarding (3), Juilland teaches the coarse material as being discharged as clean aggregate (see pg. 18, ll. 20–29 teaching the aggregates as having no visible cement left on their surface [i.e., clean aggregate], and teaching the aggregate as being stored separate from the fine powder for later use).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the method taught by Skocek can be modified according to Juilland. The motivation to make these modifications most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In the instant case, Juilland teaches limitations (1), (2), and (3), which Skocek fails to explicitly teach. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the claimed elements in a single prior art reference, but a person having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that such combination was possible because each element is still performing the same function in the proposed modification as it would separately, e.g., the CO2 concentration is still being used to carbonate waste concrete in both references. Due to the significant overlap in the disclosed methods of Skocek and Juilland, such modifications would be very predictable.
Both Skocek and Juilland fail to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the wet feedstock is subjected to electric-pulse fragmentation. Bru teaches a method of electrodynamic fragmentation for the up-cycling of concrete waste (see generally abstract). Bru explicitly teaches electro-pulse fragmentation as achieving more selective fragmentation along grain boundaries, allowing for full liberation of individual components and producing fewer heterogeneous particles for higher purity (see pg. 55, Introduction). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the method of Skocek can be further modified according to Bru. The motivation to make this modification most closely aligns with KSR Rationale D, which states it is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique (Bru’s electropulse fragmentation) to a known method (Skocek’s waste-concrete fragmentation) ready for improvement (higher purity of resulting particles) to yield predictable results (both Skocek and Bru fragment waste concrete for valorization, so it is expected that Bru could predictably modify the method of Skocek).
The limitations of claim 1 are fully met by Skocek, as modified by Juilland and Bru. Claim 1 is therefore rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Skocek, as modified by Juilland and Bru, teaches the method according to claim 1. Skocek and Juilland both further teach the limitation wherein concrete demolition waste is used as the waste concrete (see Skocek, paragraph 0012; also see Juilland, pg. 18, ll. 3–5).
Regarding claim 3, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein the feedstock has a particle size distribution having a D90 of ≤ 50 mm, determined with sieving (see paragraph 0018 teaching sieving to a D-90 of 0.5 mm, which is below 50 mm).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein the feedstock includes additional material that accelerates the carbonation process or improves the final properties (see paragraph 0019 explicitly teaching the use of additional material for these purposes). Regarding claim 5, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein the additional material is selected from the group consisting of alkanolamines, halogenides, substances that improve CO2 dissolution, enzymes (see paragraph 0019), pH regulators (see paragraph 0020), magnesium salts, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylamide, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylsulfonic acids, styrenesulfonate, organic acids, polysaccharides, phosphonates, polycarboxylates (see paragraph 0021), water-reducing agents, plasticizers, air-entraining agents (see paragraph 0022), retarders, rheology modifiers (see paragraph 0023), fillers, pigments, reinforcing elements, and self-healing agents (see paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 6, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein the liquid phase is water (see paragraph 0027 teaching an aqueous CO2 solution; “aqueous” inherently means it is water-based).
Regarding claim 7, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein exhaust gas from cement plants or waste incinerators is used as the carbon dioxide (see paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 8, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein a carbon dioxide solution is used as the carbon dioxide (see paragraph 0027 teaching an aqueous CO2 solution).
Regarding claim 9, Juilland further teaches the limitation wherein a concentration of carbon dioxide in the liquid inside the vessel ranges from 0.1 to 20 wt.% (see pg. 12, ll. 3–5 teaching 99%+ CO2 being used, and ll. 22–25 teaching the CO2 as being bubbled through liquid water; Mulana teaches the solubility of CO2 in water at room temperature as being up to 0.132 wt.%, which falls within the claimed range; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Regarding claim 10, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein the temperature is set to a range from 30 to 95 °C (see paragraph 0026 teaching a temperature of 20–200 °C; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Regarding claim 11, Bru further teaches the limitation wherein electric pulses have a voltage of ≥ 90 kV (see pg. 56, “Equipment” section, final line teaching a voltage of 150 kV).
Regarding claim 12, Juilland further teaches the limitation wherein the fragmented solid material is separated from the liquid phase by filtration (see pg. 18, ll. 13–19 teaching the fragments as being filtered from water).
Regarding claim 13, Juilland further teaches the limitation wherein the withdrawn liquid phase from which the solid material has been separated is recycled into the reaction vessel (see pg. 15, ll. 13–15 teaching the liquid phase as being recycled for further treatments).
Regarding claim 14, Skocek, as modified by Juilland and Bru, further teaches a method for manufacturing a composite cement comprising providing cRCP by a method according to claim 1 and mixing the carbonated recycled concrete paste with a hydraulic cement (see the above rejection of claim 1 regarding the cRCP; also see paragraph 0035 teaching the paste as being mixed with a hydraulic cement).
Regarding claim 15, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein the composite cement comprises the cRCP as supplementary cementitious material (hereinafter “SCM”) and comprises from 95 to 5 wt.% cRCP (see paragraph 0035 teaching the use of the paste as SCM in an amount of from 1–80 wt.%; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Regarding claim 16, Skocek further teaches the limitation wherein the hydraulic cement is Portland cement, calcium sulfoaluminate cement, or calcium aluminate cement (see paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 17, Juilland further teaches the limitation wherein during subjecting the wet feedstock to electric pulse fragmentation the concentration of carbon dioxide and treatment time are adjusted to provide the cRCP with a carbonation degree of at least 50 wt.% (see pg. 3, ll. 3–6 teaching the feedstock as being “essentially completely” carbonated during the fragmentation step; “essentially completely” here is interpreted as “as much as physically possible”; the maximum degree of carbonation for a fully hydrated cement can reach up to 90 wt.% [see Rathnakumar, abstract], so a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that Juilland teaches a carbonation degree of at least 50 wt.% as claimed).
Regarding claim 18, Skocek, as modified by Juilland and Bru, further teaches a method for manufacturing a calcium carbonate cement comprising providing cRCP by a method according to claim 1, wherein during subjecting the wet feedstock to electric pulse fragmentation the concentration of carbon dioxide and treatment time are adjusted to provide the cRCP with a carbonation degree of at least 50 wt.% (see the above rejection of claim 1 regarding the cRCP; also see Juilland, pg. 3, ll. 3–6 teaching the feedstock as being “essentially completely” carbonated during the fragmentation step; “essentially completely” here is interpreted as “as much as physically possible”; the maximum degree of carbonation for a fully hydrated cement can reach up to 90 wt.% [see Rathnakumar, abstract], so a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that Juilland teaches a carbonation degree of at least 50 wt.% as claimed).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Skocek further teaches the limitation of claim 19 wherein the composite cement comprises the cRCP as SCM and comprises from 70 to 10 wt.% cRCP (see paragraph 0035 teaching the SCM in an amount of from 1–80 wt.%; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). This also meets the limitation of claim 20, wherein the composite cement comprises the cRCP as SCM and comprises from 50 to 20 wt.% cRCP (see paragraph 0035; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, W, F after 5:30 PM and Th from 8 AM to 6 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights