DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 6/27/24.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 10/21/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejection(s) under 35. U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finley et al. US PGPub 2024/0240461 hereinafter FINLEY on claims 1-2 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Finley et al. US PGPub 2024/0240461 hereinafter FINLEY as applied to claim 1above, and further in view of Constantz US PGPub 2018/0280869 hereinafter CONSTANTZ on claim 3-5 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended and claim 3 has been cancelled.
The claim rejection(s) under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Finley et al. US PGPub 2024/0240461 hereinafter FINLEY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kalkanoglu et al. US PGPub 201110008622 hereinafter KALKANOGLU on claim 6-9 are withdrawn because the independent claim 1 has been amended and claim 3 has been cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finley et al. US PGPub 2024/0240461 hereinafter FINLEY in view of Eisenberger US PGPub 2020/0009504 hereinafter EISENBERGER.
As for claim 1, FINLEY teaches "A roofing and/or siding materials, and more particularly to improved roofing and/or siding materials having carbon dioxide absorbing properties" (abstract), i.e. a method.
FINLEY teaches "A portion of the granules 20, 22, 24 can optionally be typical granules used in roofing materials such as granules that are derived from a mineral base rock ... Such granules can be optionally coated to color the granules and/or provide the granules with antimicrobial resistance" (paragraph 59, lines 22-29), i.e. obtaining base particles; applying a paint composition to the base particles to produce painted base particles.
FINLEY teaches "the olivine and/or serpentinite granules or olivine- and/or serpentinite-containing granules will be partially or fully be located on the surface of the roofing system to absorb CO2 from the surrounding atmosphere during the partial or full life of the roof (e.g., 5-50 years)" (paragraph 16, lines 32-36), i.e. treating the painted base particles with the carbon dioxide gas.
FINLEY is silent on adding carbon dioxide gas to an interior volume of a chamber; placing the painted base particles into the chamber, such that the interior volume of the chamber has carbon dioxide gas at a concentration greater than atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas; and treating the painted base particles… in the chamber to thereby cure the painted base particles and form roofing granules, wherein the treating of the painted base particles with the carbon dioxide gas occurs prior to applying the painted base particles to a roofing material.
As noted above, FINLEY exposes its paint particles to the atmosphere after being applied onto a roof as a means to capture CO2 and remove it from the environment.
EISENBERGER teaches “A method and a system capable of removing carbon dioxide directly from ambient air” (abstract, lines 1-2).
EISENBERGER teaches “Specifically, in FIG. 10a, a rectangular carbon dioxide capture structure 1000 is illustrated, which has a sorbent structure, as described herein, that can be brought into contact with CO2 laden air to remove carbon dioxide from the CO2 laden air” (paragraph 83, lines 1-5), i.e. wherein adding carbon dioxide gas to an interior volume of a chamber; placing the painted base particles into the chamber, such that the interior volume of the chamber… in the chamber to thereby cure the painted base particles and form CO2 laden particles.
EISENBERGER further teaches “In yet another embodiment, up to about 25% by volume of an effluent gas can be added to the air. As before,it is important that the mixing was limited to a CO2 concentration at which the rate of CO2 capture was not high enough that the exothermic heat released during adsorption would raise the temperature of the monolith loaded with the sorbent to the point that its effectiveness for capturing CO2 was diminished. It must be noted that the term "effluent" gas can include a true flue gas, i.e., from the combustion of hydrocarbon, such as fossil, fuels. However, the effluent gas can also be the effluent from a hydrocarbon fuel generation process, such as the IGCC process of coal gasification, or more broadly any exhaust from a power generation system based upon the combustion of a hydrocarbon or any process operated at a high temperature created by the oxidation of a hydrocarbon” (paragraph 134), and “As another example, if one mixed in 5% effluent, costs would be reduced by a factor of 3; the concentration would be 3 times higher in the mixed stream than in the air alone, over a stand-alone air capture process. The temperature rise for that case is close to the 1 % methane case for mixing the full effluent gas stream version of the carburetor, or about 3.5 degrees C. Most importantly, even if the air capture only removed 70% of the CO2 in the mixed stream, the combined processes (i.e., the CCS and the present process) would remove over 100% of the CO2 emitted by the power plant. The combined result would be to produce carbon dioxide free power, or other processes that used fossil fuel as the energy source. The combined cost would be less than the cost of attempting to do it all in one stage, by optimizing the portions of CO2 removed at each stage” (paragraph 141), i.e. wherein exposing the material capable of removing CO2 from the air is done with an air flow with carbon dioxide is at a concentration greater than atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the particles of FINLEY in the carbon capture method of EISENBERGER such that it includes adding carbon dioxide gas to an interior volume of a chamber; placing the painted base particles into the chamber, such that the interior volume of the chamber has carbon dioxide gas at a concentration greater than atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas; and treating the painted base particles… in the chamber to thereby cure the painted base particles and form roofing granules, wherein the treating of the painted base particles with the carbon dioxide gas occurs prior to applying the painted base particles to a roofing material because EISENBERGER teaches that by exposing materials to a mixture of air with a higher concentration of carbon dioxide the efficiency of the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere can be improved.
As for claim 2, FINLEY teaches "A portion of the granules 20, 22, 24 can optionally be typical granules used in roofing materials such as granules that are derived from a mineral base rock ... Such granules can be optionally coated to color the granules and/or provide the granules with antimicrobial resistance" (paragraph 59, lines 22-29), i.e. wherein the base particles comprise ... mineral particles.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finley et al. US PGPub 2024/0240461 hereinafter FINLEY and Eisenberger US PGPub 2020/0009504 hereinafter EISENBERGER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Constantz US PGPub 2018/0280869 hereinafter CONSTANTZ.
As for claim 3, FINLEY teaches "the olivine and/or serpentinite granules or
olivine- and/or serpentinite-containing granules will be partially or fully be located on the
surface of the roofing system to absorb CO2 from the surrounding atmosphere during
the partial or full life of the roof (e.g., 5-50 years)" (paragraph 16, lines 32-36), i.e.
wherein the treating of the painted base particles with carbon dioxide gas comprises
placing the painted base particles in a chamber having a atmospheric level of carbon
dioxide gas.
CONSTANTZ teaches "Man-made surfaces of interest include, but are not limited to: roads, sidewalks, buildings and components thereof, e.g., roofs and components thereof (roof shingles, roofing granules, etc.)" (paragraph 141, lines 4-9).
CONSTANTZ teaches "By "CO2 sequestration" is meant the removal or segregation of an amount of CO2 from an environment, such as the Earth's atmosphere or a gaseous waste stream produced by an industrial plant, so that some or all of the CO2 is no longer present in the environment from which it has been removed" (paragraph 20, lines 6-11 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to expose the particles of FINL Y to a gaseous waste stream from an industrial plant such that wherein the treating of the painted base particles with carbon dioxide gas comprises placing the painted base particles in a chamber having a greater than atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas because CONSTANTZ teaches that by doing so it can result in the sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere.
As for claim 4, FINLEY is silent on a gas having a greater than atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas.
FINLEY teaches "the olivine and/or serpentinite granules or olivine- and/or serpentinite-containing granules will be partially or fully be located on the surface of the roofing system to absorb CO2 from the surrounding atmosphere during the partial or full life of the roof (e.g., 5-50 years)" (paragraph 16, lines 32-36), i.e. wherein the treating of the painted base particles with carbon dioxide gas comprises placing the painted base particles in a chamber having a atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas.
CONSTANTZ teaches "Man-made surfaces of interest include, but are not limited to: roads, sidewalks, buildings and components thereof, e.g., roofs and components thereof (roof shingles, roofing granules, etc.)" (paragraph 141, lines 4-9).
CONSTANTZ teaches "By "CO2 sequestration" is meant the removal or segregation of an amount of CO2 from an environment, such as the Earth's atmosphere or a gaseous waste stream produced by an industrial plant, so that some or all of the CO2 is no longer present in the environment from which it has been removed" (paragraph 20, lines 6-11 ).
CONSTANTZ teaches "The amount of CO2 in the CO2 -containing gas, in some instances, may be 20,000 or greater, e.g., 50,000 ppm or greater, such as 100,000 ppm or greater, including 150, 000 ppm or greater, e.g., 500,000 ppm or greater, 750,000 ppm or greater, 900,000 ppm or greater, up to and including 1,000,000 ppm or greater (in pure CO2 exhaust the concentration is 1,000,000 ppm) and in some instances may range from 10,000 to 500,000 ppm, such as 50,000 to 250,000 ppm, including 100,000 to 150,000 ppm." ( paragraph 72, lines 10-18). It is expected that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have converted the ppm to a volume ratio, which overlap with the instant claimed range of wherein the greater than atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas is from 5% to 100% by volume based on the total volume of the chamber. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to expose the particles of FINL Y to a gaseous waste stream from an industrial plant such that wherein the greater than atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas is from 5% to 100% by volume based on the total volume of the chamber because CONSTANTZ teaches that by doing so it can result in the sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere before it can even enter it.
As for claim 5, FINLEY teaches "the olivine and/or serpentinite granules or olivine- and/or serpentinite-containing granules will be partially or fully be located on the surface of the roofing system to absorb CO2 from the surrounding atmosphere during the partial or full life of the roof (e.g., 5-50 years)" (paragraph 16, lines 32-36), i.e. wherein the treating of the painted base particles with carbon dioxide gas comprises placing the painted base particles in a chamber having a atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas.
CONSTANTZ teaches "Man-made surfaces of interest include, but are not limited to: roads, sidewalks, buildings and components thereof, e.g., roofs and components thereof (roof shingles, roofing granules, etc.)" (paragraph 141, lines 4-9).
CONSTANTZ teaches "By "CO2 sequestration" is meant the removal or segregation of an amount of CO2 from an environment, such as the Earth's atmosphere or a gaseous waste stream produced by an industrial plant, so that some or all of the CO2 is no longer present in the environment from which it has been removed" (paragraph 20, lines 6-11 ).
Both FINLEY and CONSTANTZ are silent on the period of exposure to the carbon dioxide gas is 1 minute to 120 minutes.
However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to expose the particles of FINLEY to a gaseous waste stream from an industrial plant such that wherein the greater than atmospheric level of carbon dioxide gas because CONSTANTZ teaches that by doing so it can result in the sequestration of CO2 from the atmosphere. Examiner also notes that the amount of CO2 sequesters is a matter of time of exposure (paragraph 16, lines 32-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the time of exposure such that the desired amount of carbon dioxide sequestration is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Finley et al. US PGPub 2024/0240461 hereinafter FINLEY and Eisenberger US PGPub 2020/0009504 hereinafter EISENBERGER as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Kalkanoglu et al. US PGPub 201110008622
hereinafter KALKANOGLU.
As for claim 6, FINLEY is silent on how the colored coating is formed.
KALKANOGLU teaches "Dark colored roofing granule includes an inert base particle coated with a composition including a metal silicate, a non-clay latent heat reactant, and a dark colored by solar reflective pigment" (abstract).
KALKANOGLU teaches "Preferably, the metal silicate is selected from the group consisting of ... sodium silicate" (paragraph 16, lines 24-26) "The metal silicate binder employed in the coating com positions of the present invention is preferably... aqueous alkali metal silicate, such as, for example ... sodium silicate" (paragraph 34, lines 1-5), and "The coating com positions of the present invention also include at least one solar reflective pigment" (paragraph 37, lines 1-2) i.e. wherein the paint composition comprises water, one or more pigments, and sodium silicate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the paint composition comprises water, one or more pigments, and sodium silicate in the process of FINLEY because KALKANOGLU teaches that "The process of the present invention advantageously permits the solar reflectance of the shingles employing the solar-reflective granules to be tailored to achieve specific color effects" (paragraph 68).
As for claim 7, FINLEY is silent on how the colored coating is formed.
KALKANOGLU teaches "Dark colored roofing granule includes an inert base particle coated with a composition including a metal silicate, a non-clay latent heat reactant, and a dark colored by solar reflective pigment" (abstract), i.e. wherein the paint composition is free of clay.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the paint composition is free of clay in the process of FINLEY because KALKANOGLU teaches that "The process of the present invention advantageously permits the solar reflectance of the shingles employing the solar reflective granules to be tailored to achieve specific color effects" (paragraph 68).
As for claim 8, FINLEY is silent on how the colored coating is formed. KALKANOGLU is silent on including magnesium chloride into its coating composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the paint composition is free of magnesium chloride in the process of FINLEY because KALKANOGLU teaches that "The process of the present invention advantageously permits the solar reflectance of the shingles employing the solar-reflective granules to be tailored to achieve specific color effects" (paragraph 68).
As for claim 9, FINLEY is silent on how the colored coating is formed.
KALKANOGLU teaches that "The coating composition is dried at low temperature, such as by drying in a fluidized bed drier. Next, the coating composition is cured at an elevated temperature, preferably greater than the dehydration temperature of the coating com position" 9paragraph 60, lines 17-21) and "When an aqueous solution of a metal silicate, such as an aqueous solution of an alkali metal silicate such as water glass is employed, the latent heat reactant is preferably selected to react chemically with the metal silicate at a temperature greater than the dehydration temperature of the coating com position, but which is less than the glass sintering temperature of the coating com position" (paragraph 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the temperature of the application such that the desired temperature differential and sintering is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, Dah Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights