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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 1, the status of the parent application should be updated (the information should include the application number, the filing date and the patent number).
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 12 and 18 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.
In claim 12, the expression “close to zero” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear exactly what constitutes a slump which is close to zero.
In claim 18, the expressions “a pipes” (line 1), “a tiles” (line 2) and “a sewage pipes” (line 4) are indefinite because it is not clear if these expressions refer to a singular product or plural products.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12, 129,207 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0073270 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shao et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0007], [0013], [0020], [0021], [0027], [0103], [0106], [0107], [0131], [0136], [0138], [0151], [0158], [0159] and [0195]) teaches a process (see (paragraph [0007] (method for making a building product (e.g., concrete block)) of Shao et al), including (a) mixing a composition including a slag-based binder, an aggregate, water and an additive selected from the group consisting of calcium chloride, ground eggshells, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium hydroxide, fine calcium carbonate, calcium oxide, borax, ammonium chloride and combinations thereof, to obtain a concrete mixture (see paragraphs [0020] (binder is steel slag), [0021] (combining granular material and binder, mixing combined granular material and binder with water), [0151] (slag is mixed with a silica-rich material (i.e., an additive)) and [0158] (silica-rich material is fly ash (i.e., fly ash includes calcium oxide; depending on the type of coal, the amount of calcium oxide in fly ash is about 1-40%)) of Shao et al); (b) forming the concrete mixture into a desired shape to obtain a formed concrete, the formed concrete having a first water-to-binder ratio (see paragraphs [0021] (mixing combined granular material and binder with water to a first water-to-binder ratio, compacting the combined granular material and binder) and [0103] (compacting includes molding) of Shao et al); (c) drying the formed concrete to obtain a dried concrete having a second water-to-binder ratio less than the first water-to-binder ratio (see paragraphs [0021] (reducing the quantity of water in the combined granular material and binder to a second water-to-slag ratio that is lower than the first water-to-slag ratio) and [0138] (applying an air flow to the mixture to reduce the amount of water in the mixture) of Shao et al); and (d) carbon curing the concrete mixture to obtain the concrete product (see paragraph [0021] (the combined granular material is cured with carbon dioxide) of Shao et al).
Regarding claims 2, 5 and 6, see paragraph [0158] (silica-rich material (i.e., additive) is fly ash; the mixture of slag and fly ash includes about 20-40% fly ash; depending on the type of coal, the amount of calcium oxide in fly ash is about 1-40%)) of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 8, see paragraph [0103] (compacting includes molding) of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 9, see paragraph [0136] (after molding, the block is removed from the mold) of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 11, see paragraph [0131] (mixture is molded or precast) of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 13, see paragraph [0027] (first water-to-slag ratio is at least about 0.2, second water-to-slag ratio is at least about 0.10 (reduction of at least 50%)) of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 14, see paragraphs [0106] (carbon dioxide gas at a concentration of at least 50%) and [0107] (curing time of at least 2 hours, carbon dioxide gas pressure of 23 psi) of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 15, see paragraph [0159] (slag and silica-rich material may be ground before being mixed) of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 17, see paragraph [0007] (steel slag) of Shao et al.
Regarding claim 18, see paragraphs [0013] (construction block) and [0195] (slag-bonded blocks for load-bearing masonry units) of Shao et al.
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.
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) 3, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0073270 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Murphy et al (GB 1599916 A).
Regarding claim 3, Shao et al does not teach (1) that a soluble form of the additive is dissolved in water. Murphy et al (see the entire document, in particular, page 1, lines 5-9; page 2, lines 33-47) teaches a process (see page 1, lines 5-9 (making a cementitious product) of Murphy et al), wherein a soluble form of the additive is dissolved in water (see page 2, lines 33-47 (water-soluble additives include borax and ammonium chloride) of Murphy et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a water-soluble additive in the process of Shao et al in view of Murphy et al in order to control the physical and chemical properties of the cementitious mixture (see page 2, lines 33-34 of Murphy et al).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, see page 2, lines 33-47 (water-soluble additives include borax and ammonium chloride) of Murphy et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0073270 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Sabbah (WO 2019/025699 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shao et al does not teach (1) that the demolding step overlaps or is simultaneous with the drying. Sabbah (see the entire document, in particular, page 3, paragraphs two and three; page 4, paragraph nineteen of the translation) teaches a process (see page 3, second paragraph (method of manufacturing structural elements) and page 3, third paragraph (structural elements include concrete) of Sabbah), wherein the demolding step overlaps or is simultaneous with the drying (see page 4, paragraph nineteen (a step of simultaneous demolding of the structural elements and additional drying of the structural elements) of Sabbah), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a demolding step which overlaps or is simultaneous with drying in the process of Shao et al in view of Sabbah in order to increase process efficiency and speed by combining the separate steps of demolding and drying.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0073270 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Mahoutian II (WO 2020/206541 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shao et al does not teach (1) that the concrete has a zero slump or a slump of close to zero. Mahoutian II (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0002] and [0004]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (method of producing a wet-cast, slag-based concrete product) of Mahoutian II), wherein the concrete has a zero slump or a slump of close to zero (see paragraph [0004] (non-zero slump concrete) of Mahoutian II), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a concrete having a zero slump or a slump of close to zero in the process of Shao et al in view of Mahoutian II in order to provide use for slag as a binder in the manufacture of concrete products (see paragraph [0002] of Mahoutian II).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0073270 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20100011712 A).
Regarding claim 16, Shao et al does not teach (1) that the concrete mixture has an alkaline pH. Lee (see the entire document, in particular, the abstract; page 1 (description), third paragraph of the translation) teaches a process (see the abstract (making a concrete structure from a ready-mixed concrete including a slag binder, aggregate and water) of Lee), wherein the concrete mixture has an alkaline pH (see page 1 (description), third paragraph (general concrete has strong alkalinity with a pH of 12.5-13) of Lee), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a concrete mixture having an alkaline pH in the process of Shao et al in view of Lee in order to manufacture concrete products.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0073270 A1) in combination with Mahoutian I (WO 2020/206540 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Shao et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0007], [0013], [0020], [0021], [0027], [0103], [0106], [0107], [0131], [0136], [0138], [0151], [0158], [0159] and [0195]) teaches a process (see (paragraph [0007] (method for making a building product (e.g., concrete block)) of Shao et al), including (a) mixing a composition including a slag-based binder, an aggregate, water and an additive selected from the group consisting of calcium chloride, ground eggshells, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium hydroxide, fine calcium carbonate, calcium oxide, borax, ammonium chloride and combinations thereof, to obtain a concrete mixture (see paragraphs [0020] (binder is steel slag), [0021] (combining granular material and binder, mixing combined granular material and binder with water), [0151] (slag is mixed with a silica-rich material (i.e., an additive)) and [0158] (silica-rich material is fly ash (i.e., fly ash includes calcium oxide; depending on the type of coal, the amount of calcium oxide in fly ash is about 1-40%)) of Shao et al); (b) molding the concrete mixture into a desired shape, the formed concrete having a first water-to-binder ratio (see paragraphs [0021] (mixing combined granular material and binder with water to a first water-to-binder ratio, compacting the combined granular material and binder) and [0103] (compacting includes molding) of Shao et al); (d) drying the formed concrete to obtain a dried concrete having a second water-to-binder ratio less than the first water-to-binder ratio (see paragraphs [0021] (reducing the quantity of water in the combined granular material and binder to a second water-to-slag ratio that is lower than the first water-to-slag ratio) and [0138] (applying an air flow to the mixture to reduce the amount of water in the mixture) of Shao et al); and (e) carbon curing the concrete mixture to obtain the concrete product (see paragraph [0021] (the combined granular material is cured with carbon dioxide) of Shao et al). Shao et al does not teach (1) demolding the concrete mixture to form an intermediate. Mahoutian I (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001] and [0004]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (method of producing a wet-cast, slag-based concrete product) of Mahoutian I), including demolding the concrete mixture to form an intermediate (see paragraph [0004] (demolding a slag-based intermediate) of Mahoutian I), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to demold a concrete mixture to form an intermediate in the process of Shao et al in view of Mahoutian I in order to provide a concrete product having a desired water-to-binder ratio.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0073270 A1) in combination with Mahoutian I (WO 2020/206540 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Haas et al (WO 97/17131 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Shao et al (in combination with Mahoutian I) does not teach (1) drying and carbon curing are performed at least partially at the same time. Haas et al (see the entire document, in particular, page 3, paragraphs two and six; page 4, paragraphs eight and nine; page 6, paragraph two) teaches a process (see page 4, paragraph nine (method for hardening aerated concrete) and page 3, paragraph two (calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) building materials, such as aerated concrete) of Haas et al), including performing drying and carbon curing at least partially at the same time (see page 6, paragraph two (according to the method of the invention, CSH materials are simultaneously hardened and dried) of Haas et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform drying and carbon curing at least partially at the same time in the process of Shao et al (in combination with Mahoutian I) in view of Haas et al in order to optimize the effect of hardening and drying (see page 4, paragraph eight of Haas et al).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742