DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-4, 7, 10, 13, 16 , 18, 21 and 23-24) in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 4, line 1, “in claim1” should read “in claim 1”;
in claim 21, line 2, “about 1 hours” should read “about 1 hour”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 16, 18, 21 and 23-24 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 term “about” in claims 13, 16, 18, 21 and 23-24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitations "the pressure" in line 2 and “the pH” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Millini et al. (WO 2021074886 A1), hereinafter referred to as MILLINI.
Regarding claim 1, MILLINI teaches a process for producing a pozzolan from a starting material (lines 14-16, p. 1: the carbonated material has pozzolanic properties and can be used as a supplementary cement material), comprising the steps of:
size-reducing the starting material;
forming an aqueous slurry containing the starting material;
supplying the pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide to the aqueous slurry (lines 7-15, p. 9: a process of CO2 mineralization comprising reacting CO2 with a natural mineral phase, in form of fine particulate, in an aqueous slurry containing up to 35% by weight of said finely ground mineral phase, at a temperature from 50 to 300°C and at a pressure of CO2 >1.0 MPa (> 9.9 atm)); and
mixing the aqueous slurry in the presence of the pressurized gas for a treatment period (lines 4-6, p. 13: the first slurry prepared in step a) is loaded in a reactor with proper mechanical stirring wherein it is reacted with CO2 being maintained at a pressure > 1.0 MPa).
Regarding claim 2, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1, wherein the step of size-reducing the starting material is conducted prior to forming the aqueous slurry (lines 7-15, p. 9: a process of CO2 mineralization comprising reacting CO2 with a natural mineral phase, in form of fine particulate, in an aqueous slurry containing up to 35% by weight of said finely ground mineral phase). Please note, that the limitation “optionally the size reduction step is conducted in a vertical mill” is not positively required by the claim.
Regarding claim 3, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1, wherein the step of size-reducing the starting material is conducted after forming the aqueous slurry (lines 21-22, p. 10: the carbonated solid material obtained after drying in step e) can be conveniently and directly added to the Portland clinker, with no further treatment, except for a possible grinding). Please note, that the limitation “optionally wherein the mixing of the aqueous slurry in the presence of the pressurized gas is carried out in a tumbling ball mill, a stirred bead mill or a horizontal mill” is not positively required by the claim.
Regarding claim 4, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1, further comprising dewatering the aqueous slurry after the step of supplying pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide to the aqueous slurry to form a dewatered pozzolan, wherein the step of dewatering the aqueous slurry optionally comprises filtration, sedimentation, use of a hydrocyclone, and/or use of a thickener settling tank (lines 15-19, p. 14: in step c) said solid phase is separated from the reaction liquid contained in the second slurry produced in step b), preferably after de-compression at room pressure, by any one of the methods fit for the purpose, many of which are also used on an industrial scale, in particular, filtration, decantation or centrifugation). Please note, the limitation “the method optionally further comprising drying the dewatered pozzolan, optionally wherein drying the dewatered pozzolan comprises drying at ambient temperature for a period of at least eight hours” is not positively required by the claim. However, MILLINI teaches that the optional drying step e) can be carried out with any one of the known techniques for drying mineral solid materials; drying is conveniently carried out in air, or even under reduced pressure in suitable static or rotating driers: it can occur at room temperature (lines 21-25, p. 15).
Regarding claim 7, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1, further comprising a second size reduction step conducted subsequent to the step of drying the dewatered pozzolan, the method further comprising a step of removing undesirably large particles after the step of drying the dewatered pozzolan or after the second size reduction step (lines 21-22, p. 10: the carbonated solid material obtained after drying in step e) can be conveniently and directly added to the Portland clinker, with no further treatment, except for a possible grinding). MILLINI also discloses using the sieve (line 12, p. 12), thus indicating the removal of the particles having larger size. Please note, that the limitation “wherein optionally the second size reduction step is conducted using a ball mill, rolls crusher or pulverizer, wherein the step of removing undesirably large particles optionally comprises air classification” is not positively required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MILLINI.
Regarding claim 16, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1, wherein the pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide is supplied at a pressure of about 5 to about 150 psi gauge (lines 5-6, p. 10: with CO2 maintained at a pressure of ≥ 1 MPa/145 psi). MILLINI teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Please note, that the limitation “optionally wherein the pressurized gas contains carbon dioxide at a concentration of between about 5% and 100%, optionally wherein the pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide comprises carbon dioxide and one or more of CO, SO2, NO, and/or NO2” is not positively required by the claim. However, MILLINI teaches that other gases that can be contained in CO2 supplied in step b) of the present process are nitrogen, oxygen, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen; furthermore, sulphur oxides SOx can be contained (lines 6-9, p. 14).
Regarding claim 21, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1, wherein the treatment period comprises between about 1 hour and about 12 hours, and/or wherein the aqueous slurry is maintained at a temperature in the range of about 10°C to about 80°C during the treatment period (lines 4-10, p. 13: the first slurry prepared in step a) is loaded in a reactor with proper mechanical stirring wherein it is reacted with CO2 at a temperature between 50 and 300°C, preferably for a time lapse between 0.5 and 200 hours). MILLINI teaches ranges which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges.
Claims 10 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MILLINI in view of Macdonald et al. (WO 2019079333 A1), hereinafter referred to as MACDONALD, and CLARENS et al. (US 20220002203 A1), hereinafter referred to as CLARENS.
Regarding claim 10, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1. While MILLINI discloses a process of CO2 mineralization with natural mineral phases with prevalent silicate content of at least an alkaline-earth metal producing a carbonate material comprising a mixture of at least a carbonate of said alkaline-earth metal, amorphous silica and other possibly non-reacted or non-carbonatable phases (see MILLINI at lines 9-14, p. 1), MILLINI fails to explicitly teach wherein the starting material comprises soda-lime glass or wherein the starting material comprises post-consumer glass waste.
However, MACDONALD discloses a methods of making activated glass pozzolans (see MACDONALD at paragraph [003]). MACDONALD teaches that the glass is soda lime glass, bottle glass, plate glass, or e-glass. In some embodiments, the glass is soda lime glass, bottle glass, plate glass, e-glass, or a combination thereof (see MACDONALD at paragraph [004]). The method of MCDONALD includes reacting the glass in the activation solution at an elevated temperature, furthermore, the activation can include treating the glass at elevated pressure, wherein the elevated pressure is a pressure above 1 atm (see MACDONALD at paragraphs [024] and [026]). MACDONALD also teaches that the activation mixture can be exposed to air during mixing; this air exposure during mixing, can fix carbon dioxide from the air to manufacture nucleation sites (see MACDONALD at paragraph [031]). Moreover, CLARENS discloses studying the reaction of pseudowollastonite (PWOL), a high-temperature polymorph of calcium silicate, with CO2 and water (see CLARENS at paragraph [0151]). CLARENS discovered that PWOL reacts with CO2 at high temperatures to form chemically stable and mechanically strong products likely including calcium silicate carbonates as well as sodium- and calcium-containing hydrates that bind intimately with calcium carbonate (see CLARENS at paragraph [0152]). CLARENS teaches that these reactions can be deployed at scale to generate mineral products with commercial application and with much lower carbon intensity than conventional cements; PWOL appears in many industrial waste streams; the carbonation and hydration of PWOL can be performed at high temperatures and elevated partial pressures of CO2; and that waste glass and/or ocean or brackish water can also be used during the production and curing of these materials (see CLARENS at paragraph [0153]). Thus, similarly to MILLINI, MACDONALD and CLARENS disclose methods of forming cementitious materials by treating aqueous solutions of minerals and waste products comprising calcium silicate (e.g., soda-lime glass disclosed by MACDONALD and pseudowollastonite including waste glass disclosed by CLARENS).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when using soda-lime glass or waste glass of MACDONALD in the process of MILLINI based on the teachings of MACDONALD describing reacting the glass in the activation solution at an elevated temperature, at elevated pressure, and exposing the solution to air during mixing to fix carbon dioxide from the air to manufacture nucleation sites (see MACDONALD at paragraphs [024], [026] and [031]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the possibility of utilizing waste glass as a starting material in the process of MILLINI since CLARENS explicitly teaches that PWOL (including waste glass) reacts with CO2 at high temperatures to form chemically stable and mechanically strong products, and that that these reactions can be deployed at scale to generate mineral products with commercial application and with much lower carbon intensity than conventional cements (see CLARENS at paragraphs [0151-153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilize waste glass disclosed by MACDONALD and CLARENS as a starting material in the process of MILLINI in order to generate mineral products with commercial application and with much lower carbon intensity than conventional cements.
Regarding claim 23, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1. The use of glass disclosed by MACDONALD and CLARENS as a staring material in the process of MILLINI was discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above. MILLINI as modified by MACDONALD and CLARENS teaches a process wherein the staring material is glass, and wherein the step of size-reducing the starting material is conducted until the glass has a D50 passing in the range of about 2 to about 15 µm (see MILLINI at lines 9-14, p. 12: d90 defines the size of the sieve through whose meshes at least 90% by weight of the sample passes, its value must be more preferably < 30 µm). MILLINI teaches a range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 24, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1. The use of glass disclosed by MACDONALD and CLARENS as a staring material in the process of MILLINI was discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above. MILLINI as modified by MACDONALD and CLARENS teaches a process wherein the process comprising removing an alkali metal from glass to be used as supplementary cementitious material, wherein the alkali metal is optionally sodium (see MILLINI at lines 1-2, p. 15: at the washing step d) alkaline metals, particularly Na and K are considered as substantially removed from the solid). Please note, that the limitation “optionally wherein the amount of sodium removed from the glass as the starting material is between about 10% and about 25%” is not positively required by the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MILLINI in view of Filali et al. (US 20110248419 A1), hereinafter referred to as FILALI.
Regarding claim 13, MILLINI teaches a process as defined in claim 1, wherein: the step of forming aqueous slurry comprises forming a slurry containing between about 5% and 50% by weight of the starting material (see MILLINI at lines 11-12, p. 9: an aqueous slurry containing up to 35% by weight of finely ground mineral phase; which overlaps with the claimed range).
But MILLINI fails to explicitly teach a carbon dioxide solubilizer added to the aqueous slurry.
However, FILALI discloses a process using a wet mix of limestone aggregates treated with carbon dioxide under pressure (see FILALI at Abstract). LILALI teaches that during the reaction under pressure step, the carbon dioxide can be concentrated under its hydrous form: carbonic acid; the CO2 dissolved in the water forms with the latter carbonic acid H2CO3; it is liposoluble; it can be concentrated in the dissolved lipid phase or as an emulsion in water, for example an alcohol in water; this increases strongly the solubility of the carbon dioxide (see LILALI at paragraph [0044]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit to improve the process of MILLINI by adding alcohol to the aqueous slurry as disclosed by FILALI since FILALI explicitly teaches increased solubility of carbon dioxide (see FILALI at paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of MILLINI by adding alcohol to the aqueous slurry as disclosed by FILALI in order to increase solubility of carbon dioxide.
Please note, that the limitation “wherein the carbon dioxide solubilizer optionally comprises glycerin, and wherein the glycerin is optionally added at a rate of about 6 g per kg of the starting material; or TiO2 is added to the aqueous slurry, wherein the TiO2 is optionally added at a rate of about 1% by weight of the starting material” is not positively required by the claim.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlasopoulos et al. (WO 2012028418 A1), hereinafter referred to as VLASOPOULOS.
Regarding claim 1, VLASOPOULOS teaches a process for producing a pozzolan from a starting material (lines 4-5, p. 1: an integrated process for the production of cement and the components thereof), comprising the steps of:
size-reducing the starting material (lines 31-34, p. 6: it is preferred to grind or mill the feedstock particles);
forming an aqueous slurry containing the starting material;
supplying the pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide to the aqueous slurry (lines 25-31, p. 5: the process comprises the following steps: a. producing a slurry of a particulate magnesium silicate having an average particle size of less than 1000 microns in water; b. feeding the slurry to at least one reactor in which it is continuously contacted with carbon dioxide, and a pressure of 0.5-25 MPa); and
mixing the aqueous slurry in the presence of the pressurized gas for a treatment period (lines 3-5: step (a) of the process may be suitably conducted by mixing the water and the particulate material together in a stirred or highly agitated tank).
Regarding claim 18, VLASOPOULOS teaches a process as defined in claim 1, wherein the pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide is supplied for an initial period, following which the pressure is released from a vessel containing the aqueous slurry, following which the pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide is reintroduced to the vessel (lines 29-35, p. 9 – lines 1-3, p. 10: in step e) of the process… typically the pressure is in the range up to 7.2 MPa… the carbon dioxide is removed from the second reactor system and recycled to the first reactor(s) after being cooled, and if necessary re-pressurized back to the superfluid critical state; any carbon dioxide absorbed in water may also be pumped back to a supercritical pressure and recycled). Please note, that the limitation “optionally wherein the pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide is supplied for the initial period until the pH of the aqueous slurry reaches a value between about 4.0. and about 6.0, further optionally wherein subsequent to the pressurized gas containing carbon dioxide being reintroduced to the vessel, the aqueous slurry is processed for a second period until the pH of the aqueous slurry reaches a level of between about 6.0 and about 7.0” is not positively required by the claim. However, VLASOPOULOS teaches that the pH of the first reactor contents at steady state will typically be in the range from 2 to 8.5 (lines 1-2, p. 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights