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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
On the 07-02-2025 IDS, two of the US Patent numbers (Citations No. 4 and 7) did not match the listed issue date and patentee name. Examiner determined that numbers were transposed in Citation No. 4, and that the first number was mis-typed in Citation No. 7, so Examiner annotated the IDS to correct the numbers.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “carbon dioxide” “at a concentration greater than its atmospheric concentration” is interpreted to mean at a concentration higher than found in air at standard temperature and pressure or greater than 0.04% by weight, as described in the specification at page 16, line 31-page 17, line 3.
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 11 is 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 11 recites “exposing the fibers to carbon dioxide in gaseous, liquid or solid form, wherein the carbon dioxide gas is at a concentration greater than its atmospheric concentration”. It is unclear if there “wherein” clause is limiting the claim to only carbon dioxide gas after the claim previously recited gaseous, liquid, or solid form.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittler ‘336 (US 4,199,336) in view of Ciuperca ‘527 (US 2019/0359527 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rittler ‘336 teaches:
heating volcanic basalt-type minerals to their melting point to form a fluid melt (column 1, lines 34-39; column 4, lines 38-42)
extruding the fluid melt to form a plurality of fibers (column 4, lines 42-45 - wherein at least spinning is a form of extruding) comprising one or more of un-carbonated Ca, Mg, Na, K, or Fe (column 1, lines 51-62; column 4, lines 58-62; column 6, lines 27-58; column 7, lines 48-51).
Rittler ‘336 is silent regarding hyaloclastite. In analogous art of volcanic basalt-type minerals, Ciuperca ‘527 suggests that hyaloclastite is a volcanic basalt-type mineral, and specifically a black volcanic glass, that can be found in nature or man-made, and which comprises one or more of uncarbonated Ca, Mg, Na, K, or Fe (¶ [0031]-[0032], [0040], [0047]-[0051], [0059]). Rittler ‘336 specifically mentions “black basalt glass” (column 1, line 39). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rittler ‘336 by utilizing hyaloclastite as a basalt-type mineral black volcanic glass, as suggested by Ciuperca ‘527.
Regarding claim 2, Rittler ‘336 further teaches olivine as a basalt-type mineral (column 1, lines 34-39). Ciuperca ‘527 also suggests combining olivine with hyaloclastite (¶ [0048]-[0050]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Rittler ‘336 further teaches the fluid melt is extruded by spinning (column 4, lines 42-45).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Rittler ‘336 further teaches cooling the plurality of fibers to solidify the fibers (column 5, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 7, Ciuperca ‘526 further suggests the hyaloclastite is basaltic hyaloclastite or intermediate basaltic hyaloclastite (¶ [0040], [0059]).
Regarding claims 8-10, Rittler ‘336 further teaches the fibers as-formed are vitreous (amorphous), and are then subjected to heat treatment to obtain fibers of at least 35% crystalline content (column 3, line 66-column 4, line 3; column 4, line 49-52). This suggests at least 65% and up to 100% amorphous content of the as-formed fibers, which overlap the claimed ranges.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rittler ‘336 (US 4,199,336) and Ciuperca ‘527 (US 2019/0359527 A1) in view of Huang ‘223 (US 5,776,223).
Regarding claim 11, Rittler ‘336 is silent regarding exposing the fibers to carbon dioxide in gaseous, liquid, or solid form, wherein the carbon dioxide gas is at a concentration greater than its atmospheric concentration. In analogous art of fiber manufacturing, Huang ‘223 suggests extruding fibers from a fluid melt to form a plurality of fibers, and exposing the fibers to carbon dioxide in gaseous, liquid, or solid form, wherein the carbon dioxide gas is at a concentration greater than its atmospheric concentration as a manner of cooling the fibers (column 2, line 61-column 3, line 9; column 3, line 66-column 4, line 2 - wherein carbon dioxide gas on its own would have a concentration greater than atmospheric concentration). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rittler ‘336 by exposing the fibers to carbon dioxide in gaseous, liquid, or solid form, wherein the carbon dioxide gas is at a concentration greater than its atmospheric concentration for the benefit of cooling the fibers, as suggested by Huang ‘223.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Rittler ‘336 and Ciuperca ‘527 are the closest prior art, and suggests heating hyaloclastite to form a fluid melt and extruding the fluid melt to form a plurality of fibers (as described for claim 1 above). The prior art does not fairly teach or suggest combining the plurality of fibers with a carbonation aid or with a carbon dioxide sorbent microporous material as claimed. Gadikota (WO 2022/051598 A2) discusses “producing solid inorganic carbonate compounds by capturing, converting and storing carbon dioxide” (Abstract) by combining carbonation aids with oxides (e.g., ¶ [00128]), but there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the teachings of Rittler ‘336 and Ciuperca ‘527 with such a process. Samanta (Samanta et al. “Post-Combustion CO2 Capture Using Solid Sorbents: A Review”. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2012 51 (4), 1438-1463.) suggests using carbon dioxide sorbent microporous material for capturing CO2, but there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the teachings of Rittler ‘336 and Ciuperca ‘527 with such a process. Gislason (Gislason et al. “Rapid solubility and mineral storage of CO2 in basalt”. Energy Procedia 63 (2014) 4561-4574.) suggests storing CO2 in basalt, but this is by injecting CO2 into deposits of basalt in the earth. There is no suggestion specifically of hyaloclastite, or to utilizing any man-made fiber form of hyaloclastite for CO2 storage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Snelting whose telephone number is (571)272-7169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERIN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741