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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are pending and under examination.
Priority
The provisional U.S. application 61/328,233 does not support each of claims 1-23. The effective filing date of each of claims 1-23 is 4/25/2011, which is the filing date of U.S. Application No. 13/093,335.
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.
Claims 20-23 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.
Claim 20 recites providing a solution which includes calcium ions and adding an amount of urea, wherein the urea, the solution, and the calcium ions are added to the loose pieces of aggregate simultaneously or at different times or in a different order. Since the calcium ions are included in the solution, it is unclear how the solution and the calcium ions can be added at different times or in a different order. Applicant may consider amending claim 20 to recite “wherein the urea and the solution which includes calcium ions are added to the loose pieces of aggregate simultaneously or at different times or in a different order.”
Claim 21-23 each recite the limitation "the amount" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may consider amending claims 20-23 to recite a “first amount” and an “second amount” rather than “an amount” and “an additional amount.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites that the aggregate particles comprise an aggregate material and the rotating the formwork allows a second portion of the solution to penetrate into an interior of the aggregate material. Claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because claim 4 merely suggests desired outcomes of performing the method steps and collectively names the aggregate particles an aggregate material.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The specification is enabling for forming calcium carbonate by applying a solution comprising calcium ions and urea to aggregate particles to which urease or a urease-producing bacteria has been added.
The specification is also enabling for applying one or more solutions comprising calcium ions, urea, urease, or a urease-producing bacteria to aggregate particles.
However, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for forming calcium carbonate by applying a solution to aggregate particles, wherein the solution does not further comprise urea and neither the solution nor the aggregate particles contain urease or a urease-producing bacteria.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Per MPEP 2164.01(a), the following eight factors should be considered when determining whether the person of ordinary skill in the art would face undue experimentation to make and/or use the invention: (1) The nature of the invention; (2) the state of the prior art; (3) the relative skill of those in the art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the breadth of the claims; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary. While it is not essential that every factor be examined in detail, those factors deemed most relevant should be considered.
Nature of the invention. Claim 1 recites a method for producing a construction material comprising providing a solution comprising calcium ions, providing aggregate particles to which an enzyme or an enzyme-producing bacteria has been added, and applying a first portion of the solution to the aggregate particles in a first direction to form calcium carbonate within at least some of the gaps to bond together a first set of aggregate particles. Claim 20 recites a method for manufacturing a construction material comprising at least partially filling a formwork with loose pieces of aggregate wherein gaps are formed between at least some of the pieces of aggregate; preparing a solution which includes calcium ions, applying an amount of the solution to loose pieces of aggregate in a first direction to form calcium carbonate within at least some of the gaps to bond together a first set of the pieces of aggregate; adding an amount of urea, , wherein the urea, the solution, and the calcium ions are added to the loose pieces of aggregate simultaneously or at different times or in a different order.
Breadth of the claims. Although both independent claims 1 and 20 require the formation of calcium carbonate, claim 1 only requires calcium ions and an enzyme or enzyme-producing bacteria and claim 20 only requires the calcium ions and urea. Claim 16 recites that the enzyme is urease but does not require urea.
State of the prior art and unpredictability. Kucharski teaches the cementation of Si-sand with urea, calcium ions, and urease-producing bacterial cells (Example 1, lines 15 and 24 on page 20, lines 26-27 on page 4). Kucharski teaches that mineral plugs form as a result of precipitation caused by the increase in pH that occurs as a result of ammonia formation during the enzymatic breakdown of urea by the urease enzyme (lines 13-15 on page 1). Kucharski (WO 2006/066326 A1) teaches combining reactants in a mold to produce cement products of a predetermined shape such as bricks (page 17, lines 6-7).
Stocks-Fischer et al. ("Microbiological precipitation of CaCO3." Soil biology and biochemistry 31.11 (1999): 1563-1571) teaches that B. pasteurii uses urea as an energy source and produces ammonia which increases pH in the proximal environment, causing Ca2+ and CO32- to precipitate as CaCO3 (page 1563, right column, paragraph 2).
Guidance in the specification and working examples. Example 2 of the specification discloses the rotation method for preparing a brick. The cementation solution and the bacteria solution are prepared according to example 1 ([0057]). The bacteria solution includes Sporascarina pasteurii and media modified with urea, whereas the cementation solution includes urea, ammonium chloride, sodium hydrogen carbonate, calcium chloride and tryptic soy broth ([0050]). Calcium chloride is added to the prepared cementation solution and then fed to the formwork via gravity ([0058]). Bacteria solution is then fed to the formwork via gravity feed through the influent holes ([0059]). Another batch of cementation solution with urea and calcium chloride was prepared and fed to the formwork via gravity feed through the influent holes ([0060]).The formwork is then rotated 180 degrees along one axis with the bottom of the formwork becoming the top and the top becoming the bottom ([0061]). Another batch of cementation solution with urea and calcium chloride was prepared and fed to the formwork via gravity feed through the influent holes ([0062]).
Amount of experimentation necessary. No amount of experimentation would suffice to enable the person of ordinary skill in the art to form calcium carbonate to bond together pieces of aggregate without the presence of urease and urea in addition to the calcium ions.
Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claimed invention. Thus, the claims are not fully enabled by the disclosure.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13-15, and 17-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,728,365 (‘hereafter ‘365). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-6, 11, 13-15, and 20-21 are obvious over claim 1 of ‘365.
Claim 1 of ‘365 recites a method for producing construction material comprising:
at least partially filling a formwork with loose pieces of aggregate wherein gaps are formed between at least some of the pieces;
preparing a first solution which includes urease which is formed by an enzyme producing bacteria;
adding an amount of the first solution to the loose aggregate;
adding an amount of urea and an amount of calcium ions to the loose aggregate; the first solution, the urea and the calcium ions being added to the loose aggregate simultaneously or at different times or in a different order; the calcium ions contributing to the formation of calcium carbonate; the calcium carbonate fills at least some of the gaps between the loose pieces of aggregate, bonding to the aggregate and thereby forming a solid material;
rotating the formwork;
adding an additional amount of first solution to the loose aggregate;
adding an additional amount of the urea and calcium ions to the loose aggregate; the additional amounts of the first solution and the urea and calcium ions being added to the loose aggregate simultaneously or at different times or in a different order; and
removing the solid construction material from the formwork.
Regarding instant claims 1-4 and 20, claim 1 of ‘365 does not explicitly recite that the formwork is rotated such that the additional amount of the urea and calcium ions are added in a second direction different from the different direction.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the calcium ions at a different direction than the first direction in order to more evenly distribute the calcium ions in the gaps among the loose aggregate. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in rotating the formwork to a different orientation than the first orientation, resulting in applying the calcium ions in a second direction different than the first direction.
Although claim 1 of ‘365 does not explicitly recite forming calcium carbonate, the presence of urease, calcium ions, and urea necessarily results in the formation of calcium carbonate.
Regarding instant claim 5, although claim 1 of ‘365 recites rotating the formworks, claim 1 of ‘365 does not recite rotating the formworks 180 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the formwork 180 degrees from the first direction in order to ensure that the calcium ions reach the opposite end of the loose aggregate, thus ensuring calcium carbonate formation across the entirety of the loose aggregate. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in rotating the formwork 180 degrees prior to adding the additional amount of calcium ions.
Regarding instant claim 6, rotating the formwork 180 degrees necessarily reverses fluid flow within the loose aggregate.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 1 of ‘365 recites that the urea and the calcium ions are added to the loose aggregate simultaneously or at different times or in a different order. Thus, adding an amount of urea to the aggregate particles prior to applying the second portion of the solution comprising calcium ions to the aggregate particles is within the scope of claim 1 of ‘365.
Regarding instant claim 14, claim 1 of ‘365 recites filling the formwork with loose pieces of aggregate (“aggregate particles”) prior to adding the calcium ions and claim 1 of ‘365 also recites removing the construction material from the formwork subsequent to adding an additional amount of calcium ions.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 1 of ‘365 recites adding an additional amount of calcium ions after adding the first solution comprising calcium ions.
Regarding the interpretation of instant claim 17, the claim does not require that the third direction is different than the first direction, only that the second direction is different than the first and the third direction is different than the second.
Claim 1 of ‘365 does not recite adding a third portion of the solution to aggregate particles sin a third direction different from the second direction to form calcium carbonate that binds together a third set of the aggregate particles.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the step of adding the solution comprising calcium ions to the first direction in order to increase the number of aggregate pieces bonded together. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in repeating the step of adding the solution to the first direction.
Regarding instant claims 18-19, claim 1 of ‘365 does not recite rotating the formworks along at least three axes of rotation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the number of axes of rotation in order to maximize distribution of the calcium ions among all gaps within the loose aggregate. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the number of axes of rotation.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 21, although claim 1 of ‘365 does not explicitly recite that the formwork includes one or more openings, the formwork necessarily includes at least one opening in order to add an amount of the first solution to the loose aggregate within the formworks.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,728,365 (‘hereafter ‘365), as applied to claims 1-6, 11, 13-15, and 17-21 above, in view of Kucharski (WO 2006/066326 A1).
See discussion of claim 1 of ‘365 above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 1 of ‘365 recites adding urease to the loose aggregate.
Claim 1 of ‘365 does not recite that the loose aggregate is grains of sand.
Kucharski teaches combining reactants in a mould to produce cement products of a predetermined shape such as bricks (page 17, lines 6-7). Kucharski teaches the cementation of Si-sand with urea, calcium ions, and urease-producing bacterial cells (Example 1, lines 15 and 24 on page 20, lines 26-27 on page 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically use sand as the loose aggregate in the method of claim 1 of ‘365 given the teaching of Kucharski. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kucharski teaches the same reaction (cementation is calcium carbonate formation).
Claims 6-10, 12, and 22-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,728,365 (‘hereafter ‘365), as applied to claims 1-6, 11, 13-15, and 17-21 above, in view of Ozdogan et al. (A study on the triaxial shear behavior and microstructure of biologically treated sand specimens. Diss. University of Delaware, 2010) and Mukherjee et al. (Ann. Ind. Acad. Eng 7 (2010): 41-51).
See above discussion of claim 1 of ‘365 above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Regarding instant claims 6-8 and 23, although claim 1 of ‘365 recites rotating the formworks and then adding a second portion of the solution comprising calcium ions, claim 1 of ‘365 does not recite reversing a fluid flow for the solution prior to applying the second portion of the solution to the aggregate particles or that the plurality of openings comprises effluent openings when while applying the first portion of the solution and the plurality of openings comprises influent openings while applying the second portion of the solution.
Regarding instant claims 12 and 22, claim 1 of ‘365 does not recite that the formworks includes a top panel and a bottom panel.
Ozdogan teaches pumping urea, calcium chloride and S. pasteurii through sand in a column (“formworks”) followed by repeated treatments of urea and calcium chloride (page 62 paragraph 1). Ozdogan teaches that the bacterial treatment is applied to the formworks through tubing (3.6 Bacterial Treatment, paragraph 1 on page 61; Figure 3.10). The formworks has an opening at the bottom and the top (Figure 3.10). The formworks is a cylinder comprising a flat portion (“panel”) on the top and the bottom (Figure 3.7 and 3.10). Ozdogan adds the solution through the bottom of the cylinder via a peristaltic pump (Figure 3.10).
Mukherjee teaches the consolidation of sand into a column via microbial cementation (Figure 4). Mukherjee teaches that the influence of microbial cementation on granular behavior is dependent on the ability of microbes to freely move throughout the pore space and on sufficient particle-particle contacts per unit volume at which cementation will occur. Calcite precipitation occurs predominantly in the areas close to the surface of the sand column (page 5, paragraph bridging left and right columns).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the formworks of Ozdogan to the method of claim 1 of ‘365. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a cylindrical construction material. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the formworks of Ozdogan to the method of claim 1 of ‘365.
Although Ozdogan teaches adding the solution via a peristaltic pump, it would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to eliminate the pump of Ozdogan in the method of claim 1 of ‘365 modified by Ozdogan in favor of gravity feeding a first portion of the solution to the top of the sand column and then rotating the sand column (“formworks”) 180 degrees to feed a second portion of the solution to the opposite end of the formworks, thus maximizing calcite precipitation at both ends of the sand column. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in these modifications, which would have necessarily resulted in a direction of the fluid flow for the solution through the tubing (“hoses”) being reversed prior to applying the second portion of the solution to the aggregate particles.
Regarding the number of openings, Ozdogan teaches a single inlet and outlet for the sand column rather than more than one opening (“openings” or “plurality of openings”) in the top and bottom of the sand column.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the number of openings in the top and bottom of the sand column in order to maximize calcite precipitation across the cross-section of the column. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teaching of Mukherjee, who suggests that . calcite precipitation occurs predominantly in the areas close to the surface of the sand column (page 5, paragraph bridging left and right columns). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the number of openings at the top and bottom of the sand column.
Regarding instant claims 9-10, introducing a first portion of the solution through the top of the sand column, rotating the sand column, and then introducing a second portion of the solution through the opposite (“bottom”) of the sand column necessarily changes the bottom openings from effluent openings to an influent openings and top openings from influent openings to effluent openings.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13-16, and 17-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23, 28 and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 9,428,418 (‘hereafter ‘418). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1-6, 11, 13-16, and 17-21 are obvious over claims 23, 28, and 32 of ‘365.
Claim 15 of ‘418 recites a method for producing construction material comprising:
providing amounts of urease, calcium and urea in an aqueous composition; incubating the composition with an aggregate in a formworks; and forming the construction material. Claim 23 of ‘418 recites that the aggregate comprises sand. Claim 28 of ‘418 recites rotating the formworks and adding an additional amount of the aqueous composition to the aggregate.
Claim 32 of ‘418 recites the formworks comprises molds or other apparatus that hold aggregate.
Regarding instant claims 1-4, claim 28 of ‘418 does not explicitly recite that the formwork is rotated such that the additional amount of the calcium ions are added in a second direction different from the first direction.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the calcium ions in a different direction than the first direction in order to more evenly distribute the calcium ions in the aggregate. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in rotating the formwork to a different orientation than the first orientation, resulting in applying the calcium ions in a second direction different than the first direction.
Although claim 28 of ‘418 does not explicitly recite forming calcium carbonate, the presence of urease, calcium ions, and urea necessarily results in the formation of calcium carbonate.
Regarding instant claim 5, although claim 28 of ‘418 recites rotating the formworks, claim 28 of ‘418 does not recite rotating the formworks 180 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the formworks 180 degrees from the first direction in order to ensure that the calcium ions reach the opposite end of the aggregate, thus ensuring calcium carbonate formation across the entirety of the aggregate. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in rotating the formworks 180 degrees prior to adding the additional amount of the aqueous solution comprising calcium ions.
Regarding instant claim 6, rotating the formwork 180 degrees necessarily reverses fluid flow within the loose aggregate.
Regarding instant claim 13, claim 28 of ‘418 recites adding an aqueous solution comprising urea and calcium ions to the formworks and then adding an additional amount of the solution. Thus, urea is added to the aggregate particles prior to applying the second portion of the solution comprising calcium ions to the aggregate.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 20, claim 28 of ‘418 recites incubating a composition with an aggregate in a formworks and forming a construction material. Although claim 28 of ‘418 does not recite filling the formworks or removing the construction material from the formworks, claim 32 of ‘418 recites the formworks comprises molds or other apparatus that hold aggregate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the aggregate to the formworks before adding the aqueous solution in order to mold the aggregate to a specific shape. It would have been further obvious to remove the construction material from the mold such that the mold can be reused. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in these operations.
Regarding instant claim 15, claim 28 of ‘418 recites adding an additional amount of the aqueous solution comprising calcium ions after adding the aqueous solution comprising calcium ions.
Regarding instant claim 17, claim 28 of ‘418 does not recite adding a third portion of the solution to the aggregate in a third direction different from the second direction to form calcium carbonate. Note that instant claim 17 does not require that the third direction is different than the first direction.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the step of adding the solution comprising calcium ions to the first direction in order to increase aggregate binding. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in repeating the step of adding the solution to the first direction.
Regarding instant claims 18-19, claim 28 of ‘418 does not recite rotating the formworks along multiple axes of rotation or at least three axes of rotation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the number of axes of rotation in order to maximize distribution of the calcium ions among the aggregate. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the number of axes of rotation.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 21, the formworks necessarily includes an opening such that the additional amount of aqueous composition is added to the aggregate. Furthermore, claim 32 of ‘418 recites that the formworks comprises frames, forms, molds, or other apparatus that hold aggregate.
Regarding instant claim 16, claim 23 of ‘418 recites that the aggregate comprises sand.
Claims 6-10, 12, and 22-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23, 28, and 32 of U.S. Patent No. 9,428,418 (‘hereafter ‘418) in view of Ozdogan et al. (A study on the triaxial shear behavior and microstructure of biologically treated sand specimens. Diss. University of Delaware, 2010) and Mukherjee et al. (Ann. Ind. Acad. Eng 7 (2010): 41-51).
See above discussion of claims 23, 28, and 32 of ‘365 above, which is incorporated into this rejection as well.
Regarding instant claims 6-8 and 23, although claim 28 of ‘418 recites rotating the formworks and then adding an additional amount of the aqueous solution comprising calcium ions, claim 28 of ‘418 does not recite reversing a fluid flow for the solution prior to applying the additional amount of the aqueous solution comprising calcium ions or that the plurality of openings comprises effluent openings when while applying the first portion of the solution and the plurality of openings comprises influent openings while applying the second portion of the solution.
Regarding instant claims 12 and 22, claim 28 of ‘418 does not recite that the formworks includes a top panel and a bottom panel.
Ozdogan teaches pumping urea, calcium chloride and S. pasteurii through sand in a column (“formworks”) followed by repeated treatments of urea and calcium chloride (page 62 paragraph 1). Ozdogan teaches that the bacterial treatment is applied to the formworks through tubing (3.6 Bacterial Treatment, paragraph 1 on page 61; Figure 3.10). The formworks has an opening at the bottom and the top (Figure 3.10). The formworks is a cylinder comprising a flat portion (“panel”) on the top and the bottom (Figure 3.7 and 3.10). Ozdogan adds the solution through the bottom of the cylinder via a peristaltic pump (Figure 3.10).
Mukherjee teaches the consolidation of sand into a column via microbial cementation (Figure 4). Mukherjee teaches that the influence of microbial cementation on granular behavior is dependent on the ability of microbes to freely move throughout the pore space and on sufficient particle-particle contacts per unit volume at which cementation will occur. Calcite precipitation occurs predominantly in the areas close to the surface of the sand column (page 5, paragraph bridging left and right columns).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the formworks of Ozdogan to the method of claim 28 of ‘418. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a cylindrical construction material. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the formworks of Ozdogan to the method of claim 28 of ‘418. Although Ozdogan teaches adding the solution via a peristaltic pump, it would have been further obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to eliminate the pump of Ozdogan in the method of claim 28 of ‘418 modified by Ozdogan in favor of gravity feeding the aqueous solution to the top of the sand column and then rotating the sand column (“formworks”) 180 degrees to feed a second portion of the solution to the opposite end of the sand column, thus maximizing calcite precipitation at both ends of the sand column. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in these modifications, which would have necessarily resulted in a direction of the fluid flow for the solution through the tubing (“hoses”) attached to both ends of the sand column being reversed prior to applying the additional amount of the aqueous solution comprising calcium ions to the aggregate.
Regarding the number of openings in the formworks, Ozdogan teaches a single inlet and outlet for the sand column rather than more than one opening (“openings” or “plurality of openings”) in the top and bottom of the sand column.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the number of openings in the top and bottom of the sand column in order to maximize calcite precipitation across the cross-section of the column. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teaching of Mukherjee, who suggests that . calcite precipitation occurs predominantly in the areas close to the surface of the sand column (page 5, paragraph bridging left and right columns). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the number of openings at the top and bottom of the sand column.
Regarding instant claims 9-10, introducing a first portion of the solution through the top of the sand column, rotating the sand column, and then introducing a second portion of the solution through the opposite (“bottom”) of the sand column necessarily changes the bottom openings from effluent openings to an influent openings and top openings from influent openings to effluent openings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANDICE LEE SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)272-0177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-4:30 PM (Eastern).
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at (571)272-5543. 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.
/LOUISE W HUMPHREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/CANDICE LEE SWIFT/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights