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 .
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 2 and 17 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 recitations “like” in lines 4 and 6, "i.e." in line 8 render claim 2 indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the recitations are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner is treating claim 2 as requiring “concrete demolition waste… remains from hydraulically hardening building materials… solid parts in the waste water from cleaning devices for concreting”, as claimed.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either: i) remove the additional preferential limitations; ii) amend the claim so as to incorporate the narrower preferential limitations as desired; or iii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 17 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 2.
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 1-3, 5-11, and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek et al. (EP 3 498 681 A1) (“Skocek” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Skocek teaches a method for manufacturing a supplementary cementitious with improved reactivity from waste concrete (see Skocek at [0001] teaching a method for manufacturing a supplementary cementitious material from recycled concrete fines (or RCF), see Skocek at [0007] teaching surprisingly it has now been found that carbonated RCF are a reactive and useful supplementary cementitious material and can replace a considerable amount of cement in composite binders),
providing a starting material comprising waste concrete (see Skocek at [0016] teaching the method for manufacturing a supplementary cementitious material from recycled concrete fines requires RCF in the form of suitably treated demolished concrete as starting material),
subjecting the starting material to carbonation (see Skocek at [0026] teaching the starting material is subjected to carbonation),
to provide a carbonation product having a carbonation degree of at least 50% (see Skocek at [0013] teaching compared to a natural carbonation defined like this the RCF used as SCM according to the disclosure contains at least 1.25 times… more CO2 than is bound by natural carbonation, see Skocek at [0034] teaching the carbonated starting material obtained de-agglomerated… to form the supplemental cementitious material according to the disclosure… the paste fraction of the SCM obtained contains calcium carbonate… not more than 70 wt.% of the calcium carbonate is formed as calcite), which is taken to meet the claimed limitation based on specification at [00044] discloses that a carbonation degree of at least 50%... carbonation degree is defined herein as the ratio of the calcium and magnesium in carbonates formed during carbonation to the carbonatable calcium and magnesium in the starting material (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and
heat treating the carbonated product at a temperature ranging from 120 to 350 oC (see Skocek at [0026] teaching the starting material is placed inside a carbonation device and subjected to… 20 to 200 oC) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)),
until constant mass (see Skocek at [0045] teaching thermogravimetry was used to determine the amount of bound CO2… samples of… SCM according to the disclosure… the amount of the bound CO2 was calculated from the mass loss… and normalized to the ignited cement paste mass). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the carbonated starting material forming the supplemental cementitious material according to the disclosure has a constant mass because the amount of the bound CO2 was calculated from the mass loss,
to provide the supplementary cementitious material with improved reactivity (see Skocek at [0034] teaching the carbonated starting material obtained de-agglomerated… to form the supplemental cementitious material according to the disclosure, see Skocek at [0014] teaching the reactivity index of the carbonated RCF, i.e. the SCM according to the disclosure, is at least 1.1 times… that of limestone).
Regarding claim 2, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the starting material comprises… one… of concrete demolition waste (see Skocek at [0016] teaching the method for manufacturing a supplementary cementitious material from recycled concrete fines requires RCF in the form of suitably treated demolished concrete as starting material).
Regarding claim 3, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the particle size of the starting material is adjusted to a D90 of < 300 µm by mechanical treatment (see Skocek at [0018] teaching the particle size distribution… of RCF useful as starting material for conversion into SCM by carbonation usually conforms to a D90 below 0.5 mm… they can be… ground) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein additional materials is added into the starting material… which accelerates the carbonation process… wherein the additional material is selected from the group consisting of… substances that regulate the pH during the carbonation process (see Skocek at [0019]-[0020] teaching it is possible to include additional material into the starting material that accelerates the carbonation process… moreover, it is possible to add substances that regulate the pH during the carbonation process).
Regarding claim 6, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the concentration of carbon dioxide in a gas introduced for or during carbonation is at least 1 Vol.% (see Skocek at [0026] teaching a carbonating atmosphere containing from 10 to 100 Vol% CO2… the carbonation atmosphere is a gas) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the carbonated product is… deagglomerated (see Skocek at [0034] the carbonated starting obtained is de-agglomerated, see Skocek at [0029] teaching the carbonation device can be a closed vessel or an open reactor… examples are a grinding-reacting chamber (e.g. in a mill)).
Regarding claim 8, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the temperature ranging from 150 to 300 oC (see Skocek at [0026] teaching the starting material is placed inside a carbonation device and subjected to… 20 to 200 oC) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 9, Skocek teaches a supplementary cementitious material obtained by method according to claim 1 (see Skocek at [0001] teaching a method for manufacturing a supplementary cementitious material from recycled concrete fines (or RCF), and see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 10, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and Skocek further teaches having a particle size distribution with a D90 from 10 µm to 500 µm (see Skocek at [0018] teaching the particle size distribution… of RCF useful as starting material for conversion into SCM by carbonation usually conforms to a D90 below 0.5 mm, preferably below 200 µm and most preferred below µm… they can be… ground) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, Skocek teaches a method for manufacturing composite cements, comprising the steps of providing a supplementary cementitious material according to claim 10 (see Skocek at [0001] teaching the present disclosure relates to a use of carbonated recycled concrete fines as supplementary cementitious in composite binders… to composite binders containing carbonated recycled concrete fines as supplementary cementitious material, and to a method for manufacturing a supplementary cementitious material from recycled concrete fines, see Skocek at [0035] teaching the reactivity of the supplementary cementitious material according to the disclosure allows its use in composite binders),
providing a hydraulic cement, and blending the hydraulic cement with the supplementary cementitious material (see Skocek at [0035] teaching the reactivity of the supplementary cementitious material according to the disclosure allows its use in composite binders… suitable cements… Portland cement (OPC)… the cement is usually present in an amount from 5 to 95 wt-%... in the binder). Portland cement (OPC) is taken to meet the claimed hydraulic cement.
Regarding claim 13, Skocek teaches a composite cement comprising a supplementary cementitious material obtained by a method according to claim 1 and a hydraulic cement (see Skocek at [0035] teaching the reactivity of the supplementary cementitious material according to the disclosure allows its use in composite binders… suitable cements… Portland cement (OPC)… the cement is usually present in an amount from 5 to 95 wt-%... in the binder, and see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 14, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the hydraulic cement is selected from the group consisting of… Portland cement (see Skocek at [0035] teaching the reactivity of the supplementary cementitious material according to the disclosure allows its use in composite binders… suitable cements… Portland cement (OPC)).
Regarding claim 15, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the composite cement comprises from 5 to 95 wt.-% hydraulic cement and from 95 to 5 wt.-% supplementary cementitious material (see Skocek at [0035] teaching the reactivity of the supplementary cementitious material according to the disclosure allows it use in composite binders in an amount from 1 to 80 wt-%... suitable cements are… Portland cement (OPC)… the cement is usually present in an amount from 5 to 95 wt-%... in the binder) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 16-17, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1-3 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the particle size of the starting material is adjusted to a D90 of < 150 µm by… grinding (claim 16), wherein the particle size of the starting material is adjusted to a D90 of < 100 µm by mechanical treatment (claim 17) (see Skocek at [0018] teaching the particle size distribution… of RCF useful as starting material for conversion into SCM by carbonation usually conforms to a D90 below 0.5 mm… they can be… ground) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claims 18-19, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claims 1, 3, 8 and 16 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the temperature set during heat treating ranges from 180 to 250 oC (see Skocek at [0026] teaching the starting material is placed inside a carbonation device and subjected to… 20 to 200 oC) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 20, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the hydraulic cement is selected from the group consisting of… calcium sulfoaluminate cement (see Skocek at [0035] teaching suitable cements are… calcium sulfoaluminate cement (CSA)).
Regarding claim 21, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, and Skocek further teaches wherein the hydraulic cement is a Portland cement according to DIN-EN 197-1 and the composite cement comprises from 30 to 90 wt.-% hydraulic cement and from 10 to 70 wt.-% supplementary cementitious material (see Skocek at [0035] teaching the reactivity of the supplementary cementitious material according to the disclosure allows it use in composite binders in an amount from 1 to 80 wt-%... suitable cements are… Portland cement (OPC)… the cement is usually present in an amount from 5 to 95 wt-%... in the binder) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2016/0075598 A1) (“Schmitt” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Skocek teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Skocek does not explicitly teach wherein the starting material is hydrothermally treated prior to carbonation in a temperature range from 25 to 400 oC and/or at a water solid-ratio from 0.2 to 4 and/or for 30 minutes to 48 hours and/or at an absolute pressure in the range from 1 to 25 bars. However, Skocek teaches the chemical… composition in terms of oxides… of four typical RCF… is a follows… SiO2… Al2O3… CaO (see Skocek 0017).
Like Skocek, Schmitt teaches supplementary cementitious material use in composite binders (see Schmitt at [0001] teaching a method of enhancing the latent hydraulic and/or pozzolanic reactivity of materials, especially waste and by-products to obtain useful supplementary cementitious materials that can be used as components in hydraulic binders).
Schmitt also teaches a method of enhancing the latent hydraulic and/or pozzolanic reactivity of materials, especially wastes and by-products, comprising steps… providing a starting material, preferably from one or more waste(s) and/or by-product(s), containing sources for CaO and at least one of SiO2 and Al2O3… hydrothermal treating of the starting material mixed with water… at a temperature of 100 to 300 oC (Schmitt at [0010]-[0013]), which is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the starting material is hydrothermally treated prior to carbonation… in a temperature range from 25 to 400 oC (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Schmitt teaches that hydrothermal treatment enhances the latent hydraulic and/or pozzolanic reactivity of materials of waste containing sources for CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3, and seek those advantages by hydrothermal treatment of the recycled concrete fines (or RCF) as taught by Skocek.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to hydrothermally treat as taught by Schmitt the recycled concrete fines (or RCF) as taught by Skocek so as to enhance the latent hydraulic and/or pozzolanic reactivity of RCF which contains CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3.
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