DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending, and claims 1-10 are currently under review.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn.
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’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/15/2026.
Claim Objections
The term “the maximum operating temperature” in claim 2 should be corrected to recite “a maximum operating temperature”. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “the operating temperature” in claim 3 should be corrected to recite “an operating temperature”. 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 1-10 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. Claims 1 and 5 recite the term “assist”, and claim 1 further recites the term “promotes”, which is indefinite because these terms are qualitative in nature such that it is unclear to the examiner as to how the claim scope is meant to be narrowed. For example, it is unclear as to what numerical degree of impurity removal (ie. purity %), if any, is required by the claimed flux which serves to “assist in the removal of impurities from the molten steel”. It is further indefinite as to whether assisting in removal of impurities means that an increased rate of purification is required, and if so, it is also unclear as to what arbitrary value said increased rate of purification is made in relation to. The term “promotes” is also considered to be indefinite for the same reasons as explained above.
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) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komarov (RU2677550, machine translation referred to herein) alone or further in view of Shi (2004, Steel slag – its production, processing, characteristics, and cementitious properties) and/or Rodriguez et al. (US 2022/0243294).
Regarding claim 1, Komarov discloses a method of using construction waste for a slag-forming mixture, which meets the claimed step of providing a cement paste derived from construction and demolition waste [0002-0007]. Komarov further teaches that the mixture is washed, treated with acid, and includes water, which naturally meets the limitation of a paste as claimed [0023, table1]. Although Komarov does not expressly teach steps of providing an electric arc furnace, providing steel scrap, forming molten steel in said furnace, loading the cement paste to form a clinkered slag, or removing said clinkered slag, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that slag-forming mixtures are utilized in steelmaking, wherein use of an electric arc furnace to melt steel scrap along with slag-forming components for fluxing purposes to form a separated molten iron product and slag product for use in cements are all commonly known and obvious steps in conventional steelmaking.
Alternatively, these features are also expressly disclosed in the prior art. Shi expressly teaches that steelmaking is conventionally known to involve melting of steel scrap and fluxing components in an electric arc furnace (ie. providing an electric arc furnace, steel scrap, and cement paste of Komarov), which would naturally further require a consideration of adding (ie. loading) said steel scrap and fluxing components into said furnace [abstract, p.230-231]. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that a flux will naturally serve to remove impurities from the molten steel based on the basic mechanism/definition of a flux component. The examiner notes that the recitation of “wherein the heat of the molten steel promotes clinkering…” is instance of functional language which merely requires formation of a clinkered slag and would naturally result from the disclosure of Komarov which teaches a similar slag composition. Nonetheless, Shi also expressly teaches that steel slag is known to be utilized as a cement clinker material [p.233]. One of ordinary skill would further recognize that slag must naturally be removed from the furnace for further use, which meets the claimed step of “removing…” Nonetheless, Shi also expressly teaches removing the slag for cooling by several known methods such as pouring out of the furnace [p.231].
Alternatively, the aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a cement paste as claimed. Rodriguez et al. discloses that flux materials can be provided in known forms such as pastes to provide a substrate/sustenance/solvent of flux material [0042-0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by providing the cement in a paste form for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Rodriguez et al. Alternatively, the examiner notes that all of the claimed feature are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at the predictable result of the claimed steelmaking method of the aforementioned prior art, wherein a particular paste form of the flux material is provided. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Shi further teaches slag cooling down to 500 degrees C within 20 minutes after removal of said slag from the furnace [p.231-232].
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Rodriguez et al. further teaches that flux materials can be agglomerated, which meets the limitation of pelletizing because both processes result in agglomeration [0042-0043].
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Komarov further teaches addition of several components in the mixture such as fluorspar in an amount of 5.4 weight percent [0082].
Regarding claim 6, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 5 (see previous). Komarov further teaches addition of CaO in the mixture [0034, table1].
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Shi further teaches that the clinkered slag can be used in Portland cement, which meets the limitation of a Portland cement clinker [p.233].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komarov (RU2677550, machine translation referred to herein) alone or in view of others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ASM Handbooks (2008, Electric arc furnace melting).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a furnace operating temperature as claimed. ASM Handbooks discloses that it is known to performing melting during steelmaking in an electric arc furnace such that temperatures of over 1500 degrees C are reached throughout different steps during steelmaking such as oxidation and deoxidation among others [p.94-97]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by heating to above 1500 degrees C to perform the aforementioned steps as taught by ASM Handbooks.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komarov (RU2677550, machine translation referred to herein) alone or in view of others as applied to claim 1 above, and evidenced by or in further in view of Slovenski Standard (2009, EN197-1).
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Although Shi further teaches using steelmaking slags for Portland cement clinkers as explained above; the aforementioned prior art does not teach a clinker composition as claimed. However, as evidenced by Slovenski Standard, Portland cement clinkers are known to have a composition identical to that as recited in claim 9 [p.9]. Therefore, the slag of Shi being a Portland cement clinker would naturally have the claimed composition as evidenced by Slovenski Standard. Alternatively, Slovenski Standard teaches that Portland cement clinker has the precise composition as recited in claim 9 to achieve desired properties specific to Portland cement [p.5-6, 9]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art to obtain a steel slag having the precise composition of Portland cement clinker to obtain the desired properties unique to Portland cement as taught by Slovenski Standard.
Regarding claim 10, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the Portland cement clinker composition disclosed by Slovenski Standard including 3CaOSiO2 and 2CaOSiO2 meet the limitations of Alite and Belite as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights