DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/21/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, line 18, change “where” to –were--,
On page 5, line 31-32, “spend reducing agent” requires grammatical correction
On page 11, line 7, “spend reducing agent” requires grammatical correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: transporting means in claim 1, “gas sealing means” in claim 1, “fluidizing means” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/125579 (WO ‘579). WO ‘579 discloses a manufacturing apparatus (20) for providing a reduced cementitious material, the apparatus comprising: a heating device (21) , configured to heat a cementitious material precursor to or above an activation temperature; a reducing device (SEE Figure 1) configured to accommodate the cementitious material and to reduce said cementitious material to output a reduced cementitious material; a cooling device (27), configured to cool the reduced cementitious material such that the cementitious material is at least partially maintained in its reduced state; the reducing device (Figure 1) includes a first end (11) being connected to the heating device (SEE Figure 2) and comprising gas sealing means (10), such that a heated cementitious material from the heating device is feedable to the first end of the reducing device substantially without any gas from the heating device entering the reducing device; a second end (5) connected to the cooling device, such that the reduced cementitious material passed through the reducing device is provided to the cooling device; transporting means (2) configured to transport the cementitious material from the first end to the second end (SEE page 6, line 31 – page 7, line 30); and wherein the reducing device is configured to receive a reducing agent (pressurized gas via gas distributor 3) or a precursor for a reducing agent so that a reducing atmosphere is achieved and maintained in the reducing device. In re claim 2, WO ‘579 further discloses that the second end (5) being connected to the cooling device and comprising gas sealing means such that reduced cementitious material passed through the reducing device (Figure 1) is provided to the cooling device substantially without any gases from the reducing device entering the cooling device (WO ‘579 describes the loop as a gas tight environment. In re claim 3, WO ‘579 discloses that the reducing device (Figure 1) and the transporting means (2) are configured for accommodating the cementitious material in powder form and wherein the cementitious material is transported from the first end to the second end in a dense phase (the loop seal is sized to accommodate cement meal and not cement meal combined with alternative fuel, ie: the meal is in powder form). In re claim 4, WO ‘579 discloses that the reducing device is configured with fluidizing means (3) to fluidize the cementitious material (page 6, line 31 – page 7, line 30). In re claim 5, WO ‘479 discloses that the fluidizing means is configured to fluidize by means of pulses of gas (page 6, line 31 – page 7, line 30). In re claims 6 & 7, WO ‘579 discloses that the gas sealing means is a loop seal (SEE Abstract, for example and page 6, lines 19-22). In re claim 8, WO ‘579 discloses
a gas outlet (34) “for removing an excess amount of gas comprising spent reducing agent from the reducing device” is being regarded as a statement of intended use wherein it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In re claim 9, WO ‘579 discloses that the cooling device (27) is configured to cool at oxidizing conditions (SEE page 8, lines 29-36). In re claim 10, WO ‘579 discloses that the cooling device comprises one or more of cooling (SEE clinker cooler 27). In re claim 17, WO ‘579 discloses a gas outlet (34) for removing an excess amount of gas comprising spent reducing agent from the reducing device and wherein the heating device is positioned and configured so that the excess amount of gas is provided to the heating device (via 37, SEE Figure 2). In re claim 18, WO ‘579 discloses that the cooling device is configured to cool at oxidizing conditions via air quenching (page 8, lines 29-36). In re claim 19, WO ‘579 discloses that the cementitious material is a powder and the reducing device is configured to fluidize the cementitious material (page 6, line 31 – page 7, line 30). In re claim 20, WO ‘579 implicitly discloses that the cementitious material is a thermally activated clay mineral containing compound (SEE page 8, lines 16-36). In re claim 21, WO ‘579 discloses that the cementitious material is cement clinker (SEE page 8, lines 16-36). In re claim 22, WO ‘579 discloses that the cementitious material is crushed or ground white cement clinker (meal, SEE page 8, lines 16-36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP 0240304 similarly discloses a plant for manufacturing cement clinker including the use of gas tight seal device (16) through which burned cement clinker is dis-charged, to a cooling system such as a fluidized-bed type cooler so as to be cooled and then taken out as the final product. CN 108474618 similarly discloses the U-shaped sealing element of WO ‘579.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights