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 .
Claim Objection
Claims 1, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
In the preamble of claim 1, the space between “char” and the comma should be deleted.
Claims 10 & 13
Claims 10 and 13 should, apparently, read - - dried at room temperature [[C]] for about 1 hour to about 3 hours - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-8 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.
The term “gently” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How gently must the CPC be ground in order to fall within the scope of the claim? How vigorously may the CPC be ground in order to fall within the scope of the claim? How is such “gentleness” measured? The instant Specification provides no guidance by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez-Riera et al. The use of Biochar to reduce the carbon footprint of cement-based materials. Procedural Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 199-210 (“Suarez”), in view of JP 2013-221353 A (“JP 353”).
Claim 1
Suarez discloses a method for pre-coating pyrolysis char, comprising:
forming a cement paste using water and a cement material (forming a cement paste by mixing cement and water; p. 205, para. 4, tables 3-4);
soaking a pyrolysis char (PC) in the cement paste to create a coated pyrolysis char (CPC); and stirring the CPC and cement paste (letting the mixture of water, cement (i.e., cement paste), and pyrolysis biochar stand for 90 seconds (i.e., soaking), and activating mixing (CPC); abstract; p. 205, para. 4).
Suarez does not teach sieving the CPC and cement paste with a mesh.
JP 353 discloses sieving cement paste with a mesh (separating cement slurry from sediment using a vibrating sieve; abstract; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Suarez so as to have provided for sieving the cement paste with a mesh, as disclosed by JP 353. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully separating particles from the cement slurry (including, e.g., the CPC particles).
Claim 2
The combined teaching of Suarez and JP 353 is detailed above.
Suarez further teaches that the ratio of cement to water is between about 0.2:1 and about 1:1 (mixtures were prepared with a water-to-cement ratio of 0.50; p. 205; para. 4, table 4).
Claim 3
The combined teaching of Suarez and JP 353 is detailed above.
Suarez does not teach that a mesh size of the mesh is about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm.
JP 353 teaches the mesh size is about 0.5 mm (mesh size of 0.5 mm; p. 6, para. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Suarez so as to utilize a mesh size of about 0.5 mm, as disclosed by JP 353. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully separating small particles from the cement slurry (including, e.g., the CPC particles).
Claim 4
The combined teaching of Suarez and JP 353 is detailed above.
Suarez further teaches that the PC is soaked in the cement paste for about 15 seconds to about 90 seconds (letting the mixture of water, cement (i.e., cement paste), and pyrolysis biochar (PC) to stand for 90 seconds (i.e., soaking); abstract; p.205, para. 4).
Claim 5
The combined teaching of Suarez and JP 353 is detailed above.
Suarez does not teach shaking the cement paste after sieving.
JP 353 teaches shaking the cement paste after sieving (separating the cement slurry and solid matter by air blowing means and using the vibration to unclog the sieve mesh (after sieving); abstract; p. 6, para. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, so modify the process of Suarez in order to shake the cement paste after sieving, as disclosed by JP 353. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of facilitating the sieving process while preventing clogging of the sieve mesh.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0061714 A1.
Claim 6
US 714 teaches a process for pre-coating pyrolysis char (PC) comprising: mixing a PC with a cement material to form a dry mixture and applying water onto the dry mixture of the PC and the cement material to form a wet mixture (“[t]he method includes introducing pyrolysis char . . . and cement to water,” which implied the dry ingredients are added to the water) [0075]. The method further comprises mixing the resultant PC, cement, water mixture and then curing it in a mold [0075]. The mixing reads on the claimed “stirring” and the “curing” reads on the claimed “drying,” since the finished product is a char brick.
US 714 does not specify any means for “introducing” the dry ingredients to the water. It is the Primary Examiner’s position that any known means would be suitable. Since spraying a dry substrate such as concrete mix with water (e.g., from a hose) is known in the art, 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 process of US 714 so as to utilize sprayed water to wet the cement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully forming a PC-cement slurry.
Claims 7 & 8
The teaching of US 714 is detailed above.
This reference does not specifically teach grinding and sieving the CPC after drying.
It is the Primary Examiner’s position that grinding the char bricks of US 714 is a readily obvious means for their recycling and reuse in the making of new bricks or other products. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have ground the char brick and sieved the powder to produce a suitable product for the production of new char-based products.
Claims 9 & 10
The teaching of US 714 is detailed above.
This reference teaches drying the CPC (bricks) at room temperature [0109], but does not specify drying in an oven at about 30-50°C for about 24-72 hours (claim 9) or at room temperature for about 1-3 hours after drying in the oven.
In general time and temperature regimes are result-effective variables affecting the cure rate and cure degree of a wet cementitious object to produce a dry cementitious object. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heating time and temperature regime by routine experimentation, absent evidence of criticality. See MPEP § 2144.05. There is no evidence of record indicating that such optimization would have been anything other than the exercise of ordinary skill. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, “[t]he mere fact that multiple result-effective variables were combined [time and temperature] does not necessarily render their combination beyond the capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 1298.
30. Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0061714 A1 or, in the alternative, Suarez-Riera et al. The use of Biochar to reduce the carbon footprint of cement-based materials. Procedural Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 199-210 (“Suarez”) either of them in view of US 2019/0201859 A1.
Claim 11
The teachings of Suarez and US 714 are detailed above.
Neither Suarez nor US 714 teach, before mixing the cement material with the PC material, that the PC material is fist soaked in water, sieved, and vibrated.
US 859 teaches subjecting PC to a surface treatment with water in order to impart beneficial properties to the PC – to modify the pore structure of the PC, to modify the pH of the PC, to remove undesirable compounds from the PC. See § C. Benefits of Treatment. US 859 further teaches sieving [0374, 0391] and vibrating [0271] to size the PC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Suarez or US 714 so as to pre-treat the PC according to US 859 so as to modify the structure of the PC and achieve PC of a desired size.
Claims 12 & 13
The teachings of US 714 or Suarez, either in view of US 859, are detailed above.
This reference teaches drying the CPC (bricks) at room temperature [0109], but does not specify drying in an oven at about 30-50°C for about 24-72 hours (claim 9) or at room temperature for about 1-3 hours after drying in the oven.
In general time and temperature regimes are result-effective variables affecting the cure rate and cure degree of a wet cementitious object to produce a dry cementitious object. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heating time and temperature regime by routine experimentation, absent evidence of criticality. See MPEP § 2144.05. There is no evidence of record indicating that such optimization would have been anything other than the exercise of ordinary skill. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, “[t]he mere fact that multiple result-effective variables were combined [time and temperature] does not necessarily render their combination beyond the capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 1298.
Claim 14
The teachings of US 714 and Suarez, either in view of US 859, are detailed above.
None of them teaches the claimed mesh size. Nevertheless, the mesh size of the PC is a result-effective variable affecting the ability of the PC to function, e.g., as a filler in a cementitious mixture. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the mesh size by routine experimentation, absent evidence of criticality. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 15
The teachings of US 714 and Suarez, either in view of US 859, are detailed above.
None of them teaches the claimed mesh size. Nevertheless, the vibration time of the PC is a result-effective variable affecting the size distribution as well as the speed of arriving at said distribution. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the vibration time by routine experimentation, absent evidence of criticality. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
7 February 2026
Prosecution Insights