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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks, filed 05/11/2026, are noted with appreciation.
Claim(s) Status
Claims 1-15 remain pending, as amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 02/11/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 (timing statement). Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Primary Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in traverse of the non-final Office action mailed 02/11/2026 (“non-final action”), set forth in the remarks, have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1, 10, and 13 in the non-final action are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 7-8 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in the non-final action is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Suarez-Rivera et al. in view of JP 353 is withdrawn in view of the amendment. Suarez-Rivera is limited to the use of Biochar, which is derived from biomass (i.e., organic waste), not inorganic coal.
The rejection of claims 6-10 are maintained in view of the amendment. In Example 3, US 714 teaches the following compositional mass ratio [0109]:
Cement : sand : PC : water = 1 : 1.5 : 1.5 : 1.65 => PC : cement = 1.5 : 1.
Consequently, US 714 meets the limitations of claims 6-10, as amended.
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) 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.
US 714 teaches that the PC is a solid residue from a pyrolysis of coal. See, e.g., [0046]. Moreover, as noted above, In Example 3, US 714 teaches the following compositional mass ratio [0109]:
cement : sand : PC : water = 1 : 1.5 : 1.5 : 1.65 => PC : cement = 1.5 : 1.
Consequently, US 714 meets the limitation requiring a ratio of PC to cement material to be from about 1.5 : 1 to about 4 : 1.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest art is of record. The prior art does not teach, show suggest, or otherwise render obvious the processes of claims 1 and 11 wherein the PC is a solid residue from a pyrolysis of coal.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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
15 July 2026
Prosecution Insights