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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (05/06/2024, 08/08/2024, 10/08/2024) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 4 diagrams the reversible reaction between 4. MgO + V IT MgCO₃, wherein "V" appears to be a typographical error and should be "CO2" (see Applicant's Specification at [0064]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Table 1, first row, second column recites “Ex-1- Mix-“. This appears to be typographical error missing the number “1”, and should read - - Ex-1- Mix-1 - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 line 2 recites "plain carbon steel epoxy coated steel", which appears to have a typographical error, and should have a comma between “plain carbon steel” and “epoxy coated steel.” 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.
Claim 7 is 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 “fine glass powder” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have not have a standard for ascertaining Applicant’s scope of how “fine” the glass powder would need to be to perform as intended, and therefore making the claim indefinite.
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 – 9, 11 – 12, 14 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atakan et al. (US 2016/0340261 A1), in view of Herfort et al. (WO 2010/130623 A1), as evidenced by the non-patent literature of Peter J. Jackson (“Portland Cement: Classification and Manufacture”), and Beuchle et al. (US 2010/0206199 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Atakan teaches a method of making a carbonated low calcium silicate cement-based material ([0001]; note that Atakan [0098-0100, 0102, 0118] discloses the use of Solidia cement (SC-L®), which is a low calcium silicate cement, as disclosed by Applicant’s specification at [0009], “carbonatable low calcium silicate based uncarbonated concrete materials, such as those described above (i.e., Solidia CementTM and Solidia ConcreteTM”) have a pore solution which has a pH value of greater than 12 when it is freshly mixed”) comprising:
mixing a low calcium silicate cement with water (see [0031, 0077, 0082, 0098-0100, 0102, 0118]), and
filler particles comprising CaO or SiO2 having a particle size of 0.1 µm to 1000 µm, to form a wet mixture ([0055, 0077]),
casting the wet mixture in a mold ([0031, 0055, 0077]),
wherein the cast wet mixture has a plurality of pores that contain at least some of the water, wherein the water dissolves at least some elements from the low calcium silicate cement and/or the filler particles to produce a pore solution ([0020-0025, 0031, 0055, 0061-0066, 0075]),
wherein the pore solution in the cast wet mixture has a pH of 11.5 or greater (note that [0098-0100, 0102, 0118] Atakan’s composition is virtually identical to the claimed composition, particularly disclosing the use of the same cement i.e., Solidia cement, therefore reasonably expected to have the same pore solution pH value of greater than 12);
removing the cast wet mixture from the mold to obtain a porous body comprising pores containing the pore solution ([0031, 0055, 0077, 0079]); and
curing the porous body comprising pores containing the pore solution under the conditions of:
a pressure from ordinary pressure, but not excluding pressurization [0085], overlapping with the claimed range of from about atmospheric pressure to about 30 psi,
a temperature in the range from 60° C or more [0081], overlapping with the claimed range of from about 30°C to about 90°C,
a relative humidity of about 65% or more [0081], overlapping with the claimed range of from about 10 % to about 90%,
an atmosphere of a CO2 gas concentration of 95% [0085], overlapping with the claimed range of from about 15% to about 100%, and
for a duration of about 6 hours to 60 hours [0081], overlapping with the claimed range of from about 8 hours to about 28 days, to form the low calcium silicate cement-based carbonated material comprising pores containing a modified pore solution [0104-0112].
Atakan does not explicitly disclose, wherein the modified pore solution in the cured low calcium silicate cement-based carbonated composite material has a pH of at least 9.5.
Like Atakan, Herfort et al. teaches reinforcement anti-corrosion compositions and method for making carbonatable low calcium silicate cement-based material (notice that Herfort et al. (page 5 lines 9-25) discloses the composition could comprise, inter allia, 15 – 55 % w/w Portland cement clinker, and 3 – 25 % w/w of filler particles comprising CaO and SiO2, e.g., metakaolin and/or limestone and/or montmorillonite, see Tables 1 and 2; as evidenced by Jackson1, Portland cement clinker has a ratio by mass (CaO/Si02) of not less than 2.0, which overlaps with Applicant’s definition at paragraph [0090] of “low calcium silicate based cement or “CSC cement,” means a material composed mainly of calcium silicates and having a Ca to Si atomic ratio of 0.8 to 2.0. “CSC concrete” means a composite formed from carbonated CSC cement.”).
Herfort et al. (page 12 lines 30-36) discloses, “Also shown in this example are the pHs values for the pore solution determined after expressing (or squeezing) the pore solution from paste specimens stored at 100% RH for 28 days. The pH values are consistently above 12 which someone skilled in the art of concrete technology would regard as sufficient to protect the steel reinforcement against corrosions under normal conditions (i.e. limited carbonation or diffusion of chlorides). This is not generally the case with pure alkali-activated aluminosilicate systems often referred to as geopolymers.”
Beuchle et al. [0047] discloses a monophase hydraulic binder consisting of hydraulically active calcium silicate, this binder contains less calcium and fewer calcium-substituting elements when compared to Portland cement, such that the molar ratio [CaO+(x/2)(M[6]x+Ox/2)]: [SiO2+M[4]y+Oy/2] is lower. Beuchle et al. [0014] discloses that the binder matrix of C--S--H gel present in the cement stone made from Portland cement which results from the reaction of tricalcium silicate Ca3SiO5, has a molar ratio of Ca:Si of 1.7 to 1.8. The excess CaO is present as portlandite Ca(OH)2 after the hydration.
[0015] portlandite determines the pH value of the building material during service life of the cements, which will then be about pH 12.5. Acid attacks are buffered by portlandite at first; however, once it has been consumed, for example, by having been transformed into CaCO3 by CO2, the pH value will decrease and the binder matrix made of C--S--H gel will be attacked and decomposed.
[0016] The buffering of the pH value in cement by portlandite thus represents a limited corrosion protection for constructional steel. A pH value of higher than 9.5 would suffice for corrosion protection.
Therefore, the method of Atakan has similar, if not the same, composition and steps (e.g., see Atakan [0100, 0118]) to make a similar, if not the same carbonated low calcium silicate cement-based material, to Applicant’s method, and thus, has similar properties, e.g., the modified pore solution in the cured low calcium silicate cement-based carbonated composite material having a pH of at least 9.5. Therefore, the claimed physical properties implicitly would have been achieved by the composite structure as claimed and rendered obvious (MPEP 2112.01(I,II)).
It has been held that when the claimed and prior art products are at least substantially identical, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Moreover, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the method of Atakan, so that the modified pore solution in the cured low calcium silicate cement-based carbonated composite material has a pH of at least 9.5, and/or having pH values are consistently above 12, as suggested by Herfort et al., for the purpose of, as suggested by the prior art of Herfort et al. and Beuchle et al., making a reinforcement anti-corrosion composition, since Beuchle et al. teaches that a pH value of higher than 9.5 would suffice for corrosion protection (Beuchle et al. [0016]). See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the modified pore solution in the cured low calcium silicate cement-based carbonated composite material has a pH of about 9.5 (e.g., Beuchle et al. [0016]) to 13.5 (e.g., Herfort Table 2, pH of pore solution 12.1 – 13.5), overlapping with the claimed range of from 10 to about 13.5. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of e.g., Herfort’s pH range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 3, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to the curing step, cutting or otherwise manipulating the porous body into a desired product shape (see Atakan [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the porous body further comprises one or more pH enhancing additives (e.g., Atakan [0028] fly ash, slag, silica fume; Herfort page 5 lines 12-15 alkali sulphate, Portland cement; Beuchle [0063, 0067] slags, NaOH).
Regarding claim 5, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the one or more pH enhancing additives is selected from the group consisting of NaOH, OPC, slag aggregate, and combinations thereof (e.g., Atakan [0028] fly ash, slag, silica fume, [0037, 0068-0069] aggregates; Herfort page 5 lines 12-15 alkali sulphate, Portland cement; Beuchle [0063, 0067] slags, NaOH).
Regarding claim 6, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising adding one or more additives to improve water resistance when forming the wet mixture (e.g., Atakan [0028, 0068] silica fume, limestone; Herfort Tables 1-2 limestone; Beuchle [0063] “ silicon-containing raw materials such as quartz, silica, mica, feldspars, old concretes, glasses” [0071] blast-furnace slag, fly ash).
Regarding claim 7, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more additives to improve water resistance is selected from the group consisting of Class C fly ash, Class F fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), fine glass powder, vitreous calcium aluminosilicate, silica fume, limestone powder, and combination thereof (e.g., Atakan [0028, 0068] silica fume, limestone; Herfort page 5 lines 15-25 “alkali stabilised framework aluminosilicates of zeolite like crystal structure (typically formed in pure alkali-activated aluminosilicate systems)”; Beuchle [0063] “ silicon-containing raw materials such as quartz, silica, mica, feldspars, old concretes, glasses” [0071] blast-furnace slag, fly ash).
Regarding claim 8, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising adding one or more water reducing agents (Atakan [0098]), air entraining agents (e.g., surfactants Atakan [0100] “FR-14”), set retarders (Atakan [0098]) , or combinations thereof, when forming the wet mixture (see Atakan [0098-0118]).
Regarding claim 9, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising at least partially embedding one or more iron or steel components within the cast wet mixture (Atakan [0006-0008]; Herfort page 12 lines 30-35; Beuchle [0016] constructional steel).
Regarding claim 11, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle taches the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more iron or steel components is a reinforcement bar or mesh (Atakan [0006-0008]; Herfort page 12 lines 30-35; Beuchle [0016] constructional steel).
Regarding claim 12, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising pre-curing the cast wet mixture, and removing the pre-cured cast wet mixture from the mold to obtain a porous body comprising pores containing the pore solution (Atakan [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the curing is performed under a pressure of about atmospheric pressure to about 30 psi (Atakan [0085] “the carbonation step can be performed at ordinary pressure, but the present invention does not exclude pressurization”), a temperature of about 30°C to about 90°C (Atakan [0092] “the temperature at the carbonation step was a temperature of 60° C or more, but in some cases 80° C or more is preferable”), a relative humidity of about 10% to about 90% (Atakan [0092] “the relative humidity in the carbonation step was 65% or more, but in some cases, 95% or more is preferable”), an atmosphere of a CO2 gas concentration of about 15 % to about 100%, and for a duration of about 24 hours to about 28 days (Atakan [0055] “an atmosphere of a CO2 gas concentration of 95% for 6 hours to 60 hours (e.g., 10 hours, 15 hours, 20 hours, 30 hours, 40 hours, 50 hours).”, [0081] “a relative humidity of 65% or more, and an atmosphere of a CO2 gas concentration of 95% for 6 hours to 60 hours”) .
Regarding claim 15, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pore solution in the cast wet mixture has a pH of about 12 or more (see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the modified pore solution has a pH of about 10 to about 13.5 (see the discussion of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 16, except for, wherein the curing is performed under conditions such that the carbonated composite material resulting therefrom has a compressive strength of at least about 3,500 psi. (4,000 psi or greater- claim 18, 5,000 psi or greater- claim 19, 7,000 psi or greater – claim 20, 10,000 psi or greater – claim 21).
Atakan, however, discloses that the “Effective control of the pore volume greatly affects the compressive strength. Therefore, in carbonation-cured AAC, to achieve the same compressive strength as that of an ordinary AAC at the same absolute dry density, the challenge lies in increasing the bubble volume while preventing a drop in compressive strength and a reduction in pore volume (in other words, increasing the carbonation so as to densify the solid parts that support the air bubbles)” [0020].
Herfort discloses “The phase assemblages that are targeted by the above means achieve comparable strengths (according to the standard EN 196-1 :1995 method) to Portland cement or Portland pozzolan cements with 28-day compressive strengths in the region of 50 to 70 MPa [7251.89 psi to 10,152.6 psi], but as noted with much lower clinker contents and therefore much lower CO2 emissions for the same level of performance.” (page 8 lines 31-35).
As the compressive strength is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said pore volume of the carbonated low calcium silicate cement-based material, with said compressive strength increasing as the pore volume is reduced and with increase carbonation, the precise compressive strength would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed compressive strength cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the pore volume in the carbonated low calcium silicate cement-based material in the method of Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle to obtain the desired balance between the compressive strength and pore volume (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 22, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 16, where curing is performed for at least 8 hours (Atakan [0031]).
Regarding claim 23, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 16, where curing is performed for at least 20 hours (Atakan [0031]).
Regarding claim 24, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the curing is performed in less than about 7 days (Atakan [0031]).
Regarding claim 25, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the curing is performed in less than about 14 days (Atakan [0031]).
Regarding claim 26, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches a carbonated composite material produced by a method of claim 1 (e.g., Atakan [0005, 0076-0087]).
Regarding claim 27, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches concrete object comprising a carbonated composite material of claim 24 (e.g., Atakan [0005, 0076-0087]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atakan et al. (US 2016/0340261 A1), in view of Herfort et al. (WO 2010/130623 A1), as evidenced by the non-patent literature of Peter J. Jackson (“Portland Cement: Classification and Manufacture”), and Beuchle et al. (US 2010/0206199 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jain et al. (US 2016/0168720 A1), and Krishnan et al. (US 2014/0263683 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle taches the method of claim 9, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the one or more iron or steel components is made of plain carbon steel, epoxy coated steel, galvanized steel, and/or stainless steel.
Jain et al., in the same field of endeavor of methods for anticorrosive protection of iron or steel surfaces, such as embedded iron or steel reinforcements components in composite materials (Abstract, [0042]), discloses at [0003] that in precast concrete objects, plain carbon steel is typically use as reinforcement (e.g., reinforcing bars (rebar) are common steel bars or meshes of steel wires). [0006] One way to improve anticorrosion performance is to use components made of stainless steel.
Krishnan et al., in the same field of endeavor of composite materials comprising coated steel rebars as reinforcements [0025], teaches that for steel rebars, their interface with the tie body may be sandwiched a protective material having a pH higher than 12 (e.g., a material comprising Portland cement mortar), thereby separating the tie body from direct contact with the steel rebars. In certain preferred embodiments, the protective material is a protective coating on the steel reinforcement bars selected from epoxy and zinc (galvanized steel).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the one or more iron or steel components in the method of Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle, to be made of plain carbon steel, epoxy coated steel, galvanized steel, and/or stainless steel, as suggested by the prior art, to improve anticorrosion performance, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 13, Atakan/Herfort/Beuchle teaches the method of claim 12, except for, wherein the pre-curing is performed under a pressure of about atmospheric pressure to about 30 psi, a temperature of about 30°C to about 90°C, a relative humidity of about 10% to about 90%, an atmosphere of a CO2 gas concentration of about 15 % to about 100%, and for a duration of about 3 hours to about 14 days.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Materials and Methods for Corrosion Control of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures in New Construction”, (PUBLICATION NO. 00-081, 2000; “NPL_1”).
Hargest et al. teaches methods of making a CO2-laden concrete precast product, [0156] FIG. 22 reveals a phenolphthalein-sprayed cross section of a concrete slab prepared via Carboclave technology and left to hydrate for a subsequent 28 days. The cross-section reveal pH gradient, with a highly alkaline core and a less alkaline periphery, which experiences the heaviest degree of carbonation. This densified outer layer also functions as a form of encapsulation to promote further internal hydration of the unreacted cement portion within the concrete. The very high compressive strength achieved by Carboclave blocks after 28 days is a reflection of this feature. Moreover, this internal hydration also incurs a pH rebound effect, bringing the pH back up to alkaline ranges typical of normal concrete and re-promoting the passivation protection of steel-reinforcement where applicable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
1 Portland Cement: Classification and Manufacture; pages 32-34, 2.1.1.1 Portland cement clinker (K)