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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors, shown below, in specification at [0089]-[0090] and [0136].
PNG
media_image1.png
183
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
203
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 118 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, claim 118 lines 2-3 and 7-8 reciting “(a) determining a soil type, void ratio, and/or degree of saturation for a composition… determined by the soil type, degree of saturation, and/or water content” is an evaluation or comparison and therefore would be an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after the determination of soil type, degree of saturation, and/or water content is accomplished, there is no application, as such there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim limitations are met by Constantz in view of Li (see below). In summary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized i) metal-bearing oxides or divalent cation soils, ii) CO2 permeation to soil pores (or void), and iii) dissolution of gaseous CO2 to aqueous CO2 as taught by Li in the method as taught by Constantz in order to provide the claimed (a) determining a soil type, void ratio, and/or degree of saturation… wherein the period of time is determined by the soil type, degree of saturation, and/or water content.
Examiner suggests amending the claims to either i) integrate the abstract idea or judicial exception into a practical application which shows steps/results on how the soil type, degree of saturation, and/or water content determines the period of time, ii) demonstrate that the claim limitations other than the abstract idea or judicial exception amounts to significantly more (i.e., not well understood, routine and conventional within the art), or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to overcome the rejection as set forth above.
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, 9 and 30-32 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 "such as" 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).
Examiner is treating claim 2 as requiring “wherein a combination of void ratio and water content results in the composition with a degree of saturation that maintains the continuous gas-phase in the composition to facilitate gas mobility via diffusion and/or advection” as claimed.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either: i) remove the additional preferential limitation; ii) amend the claim so as to incorporate the narrower preferential as desired; or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation "(i.e. Ca(OH)2)" 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).
Examiner is treating claim 9 as requiring “hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2)” as claimed.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either: i) remove the additional preferential limitation; ii) amend the claim so as to incorporate the narrower preferential as desired; or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claims 30-32 are rejected due to its dependency on claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 reciting “solid waste” fail to further to limit the subject matter of claim 3 upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-4, 8, 46 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Constantz et al. (US 2010/0196104 A1) (“Constantz” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Constantz teaches a method of soil stabilization (see Constantz at [0007] teaching a method of soil stabilization), the method comprising,
contacting a composition comprising soil, lime, and water, with exogenous carbon dioxide sufficient to create… a continuous gas phase in the composition for a period of time sufficient to precipitate carbonate minerals in the composition (see Constantz at [0007] teaching includes obtaining a soil stabilization composition that includes a carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestering component, contacting the soil stabilization composition with soil, and allowing the stabilization composition with soil, and allowing the stabilization composition-contacted soil to set into a solid product, see Constantz at [0058] teaching in some embodiments, proton-removing agents, see Constantz at [0059] teaching naturally occurring proton-removing agents encompass any proton-removing agents that can be found in the wider environment that may create or have a basic local environment… some embodiments provide for naturally occurring proton-removing agents including minerals that create basic environments upon addition to solution… such minerals include… lime (CaO), see Constantz at [0083] teaching the water from saltwater source… is first charged with CO2 to produce CO2 charged water, which CO2 charged water is then subjected to carbonate and/or bicarbonate compound precipitation conditions… contact protocols of interest include, but are not limited to: direct contacting protocols… concurrent contacting means, see Constantz at [0084] teaching in certain embodiments, a pH raising agent may be employed, where examples of such agents include oxides, hydroxides… brucite… and the like, see Constantz at [0085] teaching CO2 charging… may occur in a… continuous process, see Constantz at [0086] teaching following production of the… carbonate… precipitate from the water).
Regarding claims 3-4, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Constantz further teaches wherein the composition comprises… silt (claim 3), and wherein the composition comprises… one… of… silt (see Constantz at [0044] teaching the term “soil” is used in its conventional sense to refer to all of the types of natural media for the growth of land plants… it may also refer to all of the unconsolidated materials above bedrock and may include… silt).
Regarding claim 8, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Constantz further teaches wherein the lime is… quick lime (see Constantz at [0059] teaching naturally occurring proton-removing agents encompass any proton-removing agents that can be found in the wider environment that may create or have a basic local environment… some embodiments provide for naturally occurring proton-removing agents including minerals that create basic environments upon addition to solution… such minerals include… lime (CaO)). CaO is taken to meet the claimed quicklime based on specification at [0085] disclosing quicklime (i.e. CaO).
Regarding claim 46, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Constantz further teaches wherein the precipitated carbonate mineral is calcium carbonate (see Constantz at [0086] teaching following production of the… carbonate… precipitate from the water, see Constantz at [0030] teaching a composition that contains carbonates… calcium carbonates).
Regarding claim 79, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Constantz further teaches wherein the formation of the carbonate mineral does not result in substantial atmospheric release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (see Constantz at [0024] teaching embodiments of methods of the disclosure are negative carbon footprint methods… by “negative carbon footprint” is meant that the amount by weight of CO2 that is sequestered… by practice of the methods is greater that the amount of CO2 that is generated… to practice the methods).
Claims 109, 112 and 117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Constantz et al. (US 2010/0196104 A1) (“Constantz” hereinafter); as evidenced by Lim et al. (“Environmental Remediation and Conversion of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) into Useful Green Products by Accelerated Carbonation Technology, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health) (“Lim” hereinafter) with respect to claim 109.
Regarding claim 109, Constantz teaches a method accelerated of soil stabilization (see Constantz at [0007] teaching a method of soil stabilization). The method of soil stabilization as taught by Constantz as evidenced by Lim (see Lim at page 206, section 2.2.2 evidencing in accelerated carbonation, CO2 in a high purity is artificially injected into solid wastes to make the reaction much faster than that by atmospheric CO2, and the reaction can be finalized within a few minutes or hours), the method comprising,
contacting a composition comprising soil… a metal oxide… and water, with exogenous carbon dioxide sufficient to create… a continuous gas phase in the composition for a period of time sufficient to precipitate carbonate minerals in the composition (see Constantz at [0007] teaching includes obtaining a soil stabilization composition that includes a carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestering component, contacting the soil stabilization composition with soil, and allowing the stabilization composition with soil, and allowing the stabilization composition-contacted soil to set into a solid product, see Constantz at [0058] teaching in some embodiments, proton-removing agents, see Constantz at [0059] teaching naturally occurring proton-removing agents encompass any proton-removing agents that can be found in the wider environment that may create or have a basic local environment… some embodiments provide for naturally occurring proton-removing agents including minerals that create basic environments upon addition to solution… such minerals include… lime (CaO), see Constantz at [0083] teaching the water from saltwater source… is first charged with CO2 to produce CO2 charged water, which CO2 charged water is then subjected to carbonate and/or bicarbonate compound precipitation conditions… contact protocols of interest include, but are not limited to: direct contacting protocols… concurrent contacting means, see Constantz at [0084] teaching in certain embodiments, a pH raising agent may be employed, where examples of such agents include oxides, hydroxides… brucite… and the like, see Constantz at [0085] teaching CO2 charging… may occur in a… continuous process, see Constantz at [0086] teaching following production of the… carbonate… precipitate from the water). Lime (CaO) is taken to meet the claimed “metal oxide”.
Regarding claim 112, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 109 above, and Constantz further teaches wherein the… metal oxide… is selected from the group consisting of… CaO (see Constantz at [0059] teaching naturally occurring proton-removing agents encompass any proton-removing agents that can be found in the wider environment that may create or have a basic local environment… some embodiments provide for naturally occurring proton-removing agents including minerals that create basic environments upon addition to solution… such minerals include… lime (CaO)).
Regarding claim 117, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 109 above, and Constantz further teaches wherein the precipitated carbonate mineral is… calcium carbonate (see Constantz at [0086] teaching following production of the… carbonate… precipitate from the water, see Constantz at [0030] teaching a composition that contains carbonates… calcium carbonates).
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:
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 9 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantz.
Regarding claim 9, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Constantz further teaches wherein the lime is hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) and wherein the hydrated lime is in amount between about 3% to about 15% by weight of the solid, as outlined below.
Constantz teaches in some embodiments, producing a soil stabilization product includes mixing the CO2 sequestering component with… calcium hydroxide (see Constantz at [0009])…. In normal sea water, 93% of the dissolved CO2 is in the form of bicarbonate ions (HCO3-) and 6% is in the form of carbonate ions (CO3-2)… when calcium carbonate precipitates from normal sea water, CO2 is released… in fresh water, above pH 10.33, greater than 90% of the carbonate is in the form of carbonate ion, and no CO2 is released during the precipitation of calcium carbonate… in sea water this transition occurs at a slightly lower pH, closer to a pH of 9.7… while the pH of the water employed in methods may range from 4 to 14 during a given precipitation process, in certain embodiments the pH may be raised to alkaline levels in order to drive the precipitation of carbonate compounds, as well as other compounds, e.g., hydroxide compounds, as desired… in certain of these embodiments, the pH is raised to a level which minimizes if not eliminates CO2 production during precipitation, causing dissolved CO2, e.g., in the form of carbonate and bicarbonate, to be trapped in the carbonate compound precipitate… in these embodiments, the pH may be raised to 10 or higher (see Constantz at [0056]).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount of calcium hydroxide is a result effective variable that could be optimized to provide a raise pH to alkaline levels in order to drive the precipitation of carbonate compounds.
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 optimized the amount of calcium hydroxide as taught by Constantz so as to raise pH to alkaline levels in order to drive the precipitation of carbonate compounds and arrive at the claimed wherein the lime is hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) and wherein the hydrated lime is in amount between about 3% to about 15% by weight of the solid.
Regarding claim 59, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Constantz further teaches wherein the exogenous carbon dioxide is applied under a constant pressure (see Constantz at [0074] teaching where the CO2 is a gas, contact protocols of interest include, but are not limited to: direct contacting protocols… concurrent contacting means. The claimed “applied under a constant pressure” is being treated as being taught by Constantz because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed limitation is critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Constantz to choose an appropriate contact protocols so as to arrive at the claimed “applied under a constant pressure”.
Claims 2, 20, 30-32, 58 and 118 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantz, further in view of Li et al. (The state of the art of carbonation technology in geotechnical engineering: A comprehensive review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews) (“Li” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 2, 20, 30-32 and 58, Constantz teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Constantz does not explicitly teach wherein a combination of void ratio and water content results in the composition with a degree of saturation that maintains the continuous gas-phase in the composition to facilitate gas mobility via diffusion and/or advection (claim 2), wherein the composition comprises about 5% to about 50% water (claim 20), wherein the void ratio, eo, is between about 0.3 to about 2.0 (claim 30), wherein the void ratio, eo, is between about 0.5 to about 21.3 (claim 31), wherein the degree of saturation is between about 10% to about 80% (claim 32), and wherein the period of time is between about 2 hours and about 300 hours (claim 58). Void ratio is described in specification at [0032] disclosing the term “void ratio” (also referred herein as e) refers to a ratio of space occupied by voids to the space occupied by solids… the space occupied is represented by a volume of a void and/or solid. Degree of saturation is described in specification at [0029] disclosing the term “degree of saturation”… in general refers to a ratio of volume of water to void volume of a composition.
Like Constantz, Li teaches stabilisation of soils by carbonation (see Li at Abstract teaching the carbonation technology, which is promising in carbon capture and storage, is an emerging soil treatment method adopted in geotechnical engineering and geo-environmental engineering to enhance mechanical properties or mitigate environmental risks).
Li further teaches carbonation reactions occur via the gas-liquid-solid route when water exists in soil pores… the sequential mechanism in eight steps is illustrated in Fig. 4 (shown below)… this three-phase route has more complex reaction steps but a faster reaction rate… besides, the carbonation reaction can also effectively accelerate the hydration reaction, which may jointly improve the soil strength… from the existing research, both natural and artificially accelerated carbonation in geotechnical engineering involves this carbonation path, in general (see Li at page 3, left column, section 2.2.).
PNG
media_image3.png
680
1017
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that CO2 permeation to soil pores (or void) and dissolution of gaseous CO2 to aqueous CO2 are result effective variables that could be optimized to provide the desired precipitated carbonates and time of carbonation.
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 optimized CO2 permeation to soil pores (or void) and dissolution of gaseous CO2 to aqueous CO2 as taught by Li in the method as taught by Constantz in order to provide the claimed wherein a combination of void ratio and water content results in the composition with a degree of saturation that maintains the continuous gas-phase in the composition to facilitate gas mobility via diffusion and/or advection (claim 2), wherein the composition comprises about 5% to about 50% water (claim 20), wherein the void ratio, eo, is between about 0.3 to about 2.0 (claim 30), wherein the void ratio, eo, is between about 0.5 to about 21.3 (claim 31), wherein the degree of saturation is between about 10% to about 80% (claim 32), and wherein the period of time is between about 2 hours and about 300 hours (claim 58).
Regarding claim 118, Constantz teaches a method of soil stabilization (see Constantz at [0007] teaching a method of soil stabilization), the method comprising,
(a)… a composition comprising soil… metal oxide… and water (see Constantz at [0007] teaching includes obtaining a soil stabilization composition that includes a carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestering component, contacting the soil stabilization composition with soil, and allowing the stabilization composition with soil, and allowing the stabilization composition-contacted soil to set into a solid product, see Constantz at [0058] teaching in some embodiments, proton-removing agents, see Constantz at [0059] teaching naturally occurring proton-removing agents encompass any proton-removing agents that can be found in the wider environment that may create or have a basic local environment… some embodiments provide for naturally occurring proton-removing agents including minerals that create basic environments upon addition to solution… such minerals include… lime (CaO), see Constantz at [0083] teaching the water from saltwater source… is first charged with CO2 to produce CO2 charged water, which CO2 charged water is then subjected to carbonate and/or bicarbonate compound precipitation conditions… contact protocols of interest include, but are not limited to: direct contacting protocols… concurrent contacting means),
(b) contacting a composition with exogenous carbon dioxide sufficient to… create… a continuous gas phase in the composition for a period of time sufficient to precipitate carbonate minerals in the composition (see Constantz at [0085] teaching CO2 charging… may occur in a… continuous process, see Constantz at [0086] teaching following production of the… carbonate… precipitate from the water),
Constantz does not explicitly teach (a) determining a soil type, void ratio, and/or degree of saturation… wherein the period of time is determined by the soil type, degree of saturation, and/or water content. Void ratio is described in specification at [0032] disclosing the term “void ratio” (also referred herein as e) refers to a ratio of space occupied by voids to the space occupied by solids… the space occupied is represented by a volume of a void and/or solid. Degree of saturation is described in specification at [0029] disclosing the term “degree of saturation”… in general refers to a ratio of volume of water to void volume of a composition.
Like Constantz, Li teaches stabilisation of soils by carbonation (see Li at Abstract teaching the carbonation technology, which is promising in carbon capture and storage, is an emerging soil treatment method adopted in geotechnical engineering and geo-environmental engineering to enhance mechanical properties or mitigate environmental risks).
Li further teaches soil carbonation occurs when metal-bearing oxides or divalent cations in soils react with CO2 to form insoluble solid carbonates (see Li at page 2, right column, paragraph 2)…. Carbonation reactions occur via the gas-liquid-solid route when water exists in soil pores… the sequential mechanism in eight steps is illustrated in Fig. 4 (shown above)… this three-phase route has more complex reaction steps but a faster reaction rate… besides, the carbonation reaction can also effectively accelerate the hydration reaction, which may jointly improve the soil strength… from the existing research, both natural and artificially accelerated carbonation in geotechnical engineering involves this carbonation path, in general (see Li at page 3, left column, section 2.2.).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that i) metal-bearing oxides or divalent cations in soils react with CO2 to form insoluble solid carbonates, ii) CO2 permeation to soil pores (or void), and iii) dissolution of gaseous CO2 to aqueous CO2 are result effective variable that could be optimized to provide the desired precipitated carbonates and time (or period) of carbonation.
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 optimized i) metal-bearing oxides or divalent cation soils, ii) CO2 permeation to soil pores (or void), and iii) dissolution of gaseous CO2 to aqueous CO2 as taught by Li in the method as taught by Constantz in order to provide the claimed (a) determining a soil type, void ratio, and/or degree of saturation… wherein the period of time is determined by the soil type, degree of saturation, and/or water content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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 R 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights