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 .
The examiner notes no power of attorney appears of record, and as such, no telephone interviews are possible at this time.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: correct the syntax of the method language to active steps:
hydrothermal treatment hydrothermally treating
to provide a hydrate product thereby providing a hydrate product
subsequent carbonation subsequently carbonating
to provide a pozzolanic product thereby providing a pozzolanic product
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-10, 12, 23-32 in the reply filed on 8/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not teach/anticipate the claim limitations in their entirety and does not disclose a combination of steps of hydrothermal treatment and carbonation and does not anticipate the claimed invention. This is not persuasive. The standard for lack of unity is failure to share a special technical feature and/or failure of the special technical feature to offer a contribution over the prior art. The special technical feature as set forth in the lack of unity was hydrothermal processing the claimed feed stock where the feed stock is hydrothermally treated and possesses a specified molar ratio and to make a pozzolanic product which is already contributed by the prior art Schmitt as cited therein. The standard is not one of anticipation for a lack of unity but “offering a contribution over the prior art” Applicant argues no burden. The standard for lack of unity is not a burden standard but a contribution over the prior art and/or lack of shared special technical features. Applicant argue that streamlined examination will be promoted in the absence of the lack of unity. Since claims can be rejoined as set forth in the MPEP the process promotes the public interest without extra expense. MPEP 1850 37 CFR 1.475 The remarks are not persuasive.
Claims 13, 20-22 and 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/25/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-10, 12 and 23-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbonation of the synthetic calcium silicate hydrate under different concentrations of CO.sub.2: chemical phases analysis and kinetics by Yongqiang Li Wei Liu Feng Xing Shuping Wang Luping Tang Shifa Lin and Zhijujn dong Journal of CO.sub.2 Utilization 35 (2020) 303-313 (Nov 4, 2019)
Regarding Claims 1-10, 12 and 23-32
Carbonation discloses hydrothermal synthesis production of amorphous calcium silicate hydrate C-S-H by mixing a slurry of lime and amorphous SIO.sub.2 in an autoclave. The Ca/Si molar ration of the initial material is 1:1 and a water solid ration was 10:1 (meting the limitations for hydrothermal treatment of the claimed feed stock with a ration of Ca:Si within he claimed ratio and water solids meeting the claimed ratio)
Hydrothermal treatment is at 120ºC for 7 hours with stirring at 400 rpm with filtering and drying at 80C (P304 Section 2.1 and P305 first col ) (meeting hydrothermal conditions and temperatures such as those including but not limited to claims 9, 12, 26, 30 and rendering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try the instantly claimed pressures in ranges which meet and or overlap the claimed ranges – See In re Aller)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
The C-S-H are carbonated where the sample containers have an environment with a mean temperature of 25ºC and relative humidity of 40-75%. (P305 2.2)
Carbonation may be conducted as different CO.sub.2 concentrations (P308-309 3.3) See Tables 2-4 CO.sub.2 concentrations ranging from 3-100 % including 20 5, 50 %, and 100 % where 50 % meeting the claimed ranges of the instant claims)
The reaction of C-S-H in 0.03 % co.sub.2 and accelerating carbonation for C-S-H carbonated under natural conditions only part of the c-S-H was decalcified to form a mixture of uncarbonated C-S-H calcium carbonate and declassified C-S-H (calcium modified silica gel and silica gel) the sample carbonated under accelerated conditions formed C-S-H calcium modified silica gel and silica gel together (P309 C2) calcium carbonate product (section 5 conclusion) (meeting the limitation for subsequent carbonation of hydrate with claimed carbon dioxide ranges to provide product comprising calcium silica gel and silica gel.)
These product differ from cement paste (P307 col 1 first par) No cement paste is required. (See P310 4.1 – P311 describing the difference between the studies product and cement paste)(rendering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to try zero cement paste or ranges which meet and or overlap the instantly claimed ranges)
The composition includes lime (natural source(P304)) mineral compositions before carbonation (i.e. natural (2.3.2 p305 and p307 3.2) silica fume fly ash slag etc. (P304 first col first par)
The reference teaches weight of the various silicate aluminate aluminosilicate in amount of Si Al or SI and Al in the silica aluminate and/or aluminosilicate and content of calcium See P308
Decalcification of calcium silicate hydrate gel triggers decalcification transforming calcium bonded silicate structure into calcium carbonate and polymerized silica gel. (Abstract)(P304 col1 )(P306-307)(P309 col 2)
The prior art teaches the claimed method with the claimed materials and steps in ranges which meet and or overlap the claimed ranges and teaches optimizing formation of C-S-H and carbonation products thereof. (P310-312)
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF CLAIMS, CLAIM INTERPRETATION
In the event of allowable subject matter, claims 13, 20-22 would need to be canceled as they are directed to calcium carbonate and silica gel alumina gel and/or silica alumina gel. Accordingly, these claims would require search for the product which may be made by another materially different process. The examiner notes that claims 13, 20-22 are drawn to a pozzolanic product and are submitted as a product by process claim set. Patentability is determined by the product. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) MPEP 2113.
In the event of identification of allowable subject matter, applicant may request rejoinder of claims 15-19 provided requisite corrections are made to syntax and no 112 issues are identified and provided the identified allowable subject matter is contained therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmitt Ben Haha Itul (US 2016/0075598) discloses starting material containing sources CaO and at least one of SiO.sub.2 Al.sub.2O.sub.3 with water at a water solids ratio of 0.1 to 100 (overlapping the water solids ratio of claims 1, 9, 26, 30 etc.) and hydrothermal treating to provide a product suitable as a supplementary cement material.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(this overlaps the claimed ratios of Ca:Si+Al of claims 1, 2, 8, and 23)
The hydrothermal treatment convers the starting mixture to products including calcium silicate hydrates, calcium aluminum hydrates calcium aluminum silicate hydrate [0026] (meeting claim 1) No hydrated cement is required meeting the claim limitations for same)The product is calcium carbonate[0027]
Regarding the limitation for carbonation of the hydrated produced at 1-99 vol % CO/2
Reduction of carbon dioxide released in cement manufacturing accounts for 5- 8 % of total man-made carbon dioxide emissions [0002] Supplementary cement materials decreases the amount of clinker thereby reducing energy and natural raw material consumption and reduces carbonation [0003] and reduction of caron dioxide emissions is achieved with use of alternative materials [0006]
Clarens Plattenberger (CA 3120081A1)WO2020102724A1
Clarens discloses methods and compositions of cured cement materials (P1 L27-32) The composition can trap and sequester carbon dioxide curing (P2 L1-10)
The composition is formed from contacting cement materials comprising calcium silicate comprising a molar ratio of Ca to Si from 0.9 to 1.10 (P2 L18-22)
PNG
media_image2.png
614
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(P11)
(overlapping the range of claim 1-2, 8, 23, Ca:Si + Al)
Calcium silicate includes naturally occurring minerals comprised of compounds including wollastonite CaSiO.sub.3, pseudowollastonnite CaO.SiO.sub.2, Rankinite, Belite, Alite, Spurrite, etc. each which may include one or more other metal ions and oxides of aluminum magnesium iron or manganese oxides and blends (P10 L15-38)
The materials include industrial waste material, coal ash, slag from processing pseudowollastonite (P2 L20-32)
Cementitious material includes vitreous calcium alumino silicate fly ash slag and ordinary Portland cement, limestone powder, silica fume and glass powder (P10 L18-30)
These references do not teach all of the limitations further there is no discussion of cement paste or a gel product and it cannot be said such a product will necessarily occur.
PNG
media_image3.png
538
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The materials are treated under hydrothermal conditions to hydrate the calcium silicate (P5 L3-10)
The cement industry is the most energy intensive manufacturing sector in the US economy. To achieve deep reductions in energy intensity while improving the performance over commercially available formulations, a class of materials called C5 cements (C5 = congruent calcium concentration via controlled carbonation) have been developed. The development of C5 cements is an outgrowth of two innovations.
The first innovation involves control of the concentration and ratio of calcium and silica available in the feedstock materials used to make the cement blend. Calcium and silica ratios can impact the development of the daughter compound phases that give cement its strength, but efforts have shown that the rate at which these ions are introduced into a mixture can dramatically alter the molecular structure of the precipitates. These precipitates control macroscale mechanical strength, permeability, chemical resistivity and durability. The second innovation involves the curing conditions used to set and strengthen the cement mixture. C5 cements can be cured at intermediate temperatures, elevated CO2
concentrations, under alkaline conditions, and in the presence of nucleation sites. Most common forms of cement (e.g., ordinary Portland cement (OPC)) are hydraulic cements, which means that they (1) harden when they react with water; and (2) following hardening, they form a semi-impermeable barrier to water. In contrast, C5 cements do not cure exclusively in water. As a consequence, C5 cements have a much lower permeability (and as a result possess more durability).
Figure 2 illustrates the connection between Ca/Si ratio and temperature of formation that are at the center of the first innovation. OPC (shown at the bottom right in Figure 2) derives its strength from calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) gels, which are complex and varied in chemical structure and are generally classified by their ratio of CaO to Si02 (Ca/Si). The products of OPC hydration result in CSH phases with a high ratio of Ca/Si (1.7 on average). The basic molecular phases of these CSH phases have been investigated, demonstrating that sparse and lower Ca/Si phases like tobermorite have higher mechanical properties.
Centuries ago, Roman engineers generated famously durable hydraulic cements which typically contained lower Ca/Si ratios (Figure 2), resulting in different phases such as wobermorite. Unfortunately, manufacturing Roman cements requires raw materials that are not common outside of volcanically active regions. To produce hydraulic cements, feedstocks must be heated to extreme temperatures in excess of 1450°C for OPC in order to dehydrate the material. To cure the cements, the material is hydrated over time at ambient temperatures.
With respect to the second innovation, C5 cements can be cured at temperatures higher than 90°C, which results in different mineral precipitates than those found in OPC. When pseudowollastonite (CaSiO 2) is cured at intermediate temperatures 90-150°C, it forms hydrated sheet silicates with exceptional mechanical strength and chemical stability. This suggests that these materials can both eliminate the need for extremely high temperatures (as in OPC manufacturing) while generating materials with high performance (e.g., high compressive strength).
Fig 2 and Fig 14 shows the composition comprises a CSH gel
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
