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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quinn et al (US 20190135699; hereinafter Quinn).
As regarding claim 2, Quinn discloses the claimed invention for a CO2 immobilization material comprises one kind or two or more kinds of non-hydraulic compound selected from the group consisting of g-2CaO-SiO2, 3CaO-2SiO2, a-CaO-SiO2 and calcium magnesium silicate ([0044]).
Quinn does not disclose a disaccharide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a disaccharide in order to enhance material performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Quinn ([0041] – ‘sucrose’).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn et al (US 20190135699; hereinafter Quinn).
As regarding claim 5, Quinn discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Quinn discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the disaccharide is contained in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the CO2 immobilization material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the disaccharide is contained in an amount of 0.5 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the CO2 immobilization material in order to enhance material performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn et al (US 20190135699; hereinafter Quinn), as applied supra, and further in view of Keulen et al (US 20220332655; herein after Keulen).
As regarding claim 6, Quinn discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Quinn discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the disaccharide comprises trehalose. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the disaccharide comprises trehalose in order to enhance material performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Keulen ([0079]).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai Gao-Chao et al: "Studies of the Stability of b-Ca2SiO4 Doped by Minor Ions", 9 July 1992 (hereinafter Chao).
As regarding claim 1, Chao discloses the claimed invention for a CO2 immobilization material comprising one kind or two or more kinds of non-hydraulic compound selected from the group consisting of g-2CaO-SiO2, 3CaO-2SiO2, a-CaO-SiO2, and calcium magnesium silicate, wherein the CO2 immobilization material contains Li (pg 743-754).
Chao does not disclose a content percentage of the Li is 0.001 to 1.0% by mass in terms of oxide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a content percentage of the Li is 0.001 to 1.0% by mass in terms of oxide in order to enhance material efficiency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen % mass or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen % mass is critical and unexpected results.
As regarding claim 3, Chao as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Chao as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a molar ratio of CaO/SiO2 in the non-hydraulic compound is 0.8 to 2.3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a molar ratio of CaO/SiO2 in the non-hydraulic compound is 0.8 to 2.3 in order to enhance material efficiency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen molar ratio or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen molar ratio is critical and unexpected results.
Claim(s) 4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai Gao-Chao et al: "Studies of the Stability of b-Ca2SiO4 Doped by Minor Ions", 9 July 1992 (hereinafter Chao), as applied supra, and further in view of Quinn et al (US 20190135699; hereinafter Quinn).
As regarding claim 4, Chao as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Chao as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a disaccharide. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a disaccharide in order to enhance material performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Quinn ([0041] – ‘sucrose’).
As regarding claims 7 and 11, Chao as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Chao as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a method for producing a CO2 immobilization product, comprising subjecting the CO2 immobilization material to carbonation treatment at 75°C or lower and/or 50% RH or higher. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a method for producing a CO2 immobilization product, comprising subjecting the CO2 immobilization material to carbonation treatment at 75°C or lower and/or 50% RH or higher in order to enhance material performance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 8-11 are likewise rejected with similar reasons as set forth in claims 3 and 5-7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights