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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment/remarks filed 12/30/2025.
Claims 1-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The claims as amended have 112 new matter and indefiniteness issues necessitated by the amendment. See below.
The 102 and 103 rejections over or based on Hamano et al. (JP 5952582 B2) are withdrawn in view of the above amendment. However, the current rejection utilizes a new reference, Tate et al. (US 10,369,518 B2), in addition to Hamano et al. under a new ground(s) of rejection that renders obvious the instant claims as amended. See the new 103 rejection(s), below.
The 103 rejections over or based on Longouilloux (WO 2017/220775 A1) are withdrawn in view of the above amendment. However, like Hamano et al. (Id.), the current rejection utilizes Tate et al. (US 10,369,518 B2) in addition to Longouilloux under a new ground(s) of rejection that renders obvious the instant claims as amended. See the new 103 rejection(s), below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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 1-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Both independent claims (claims 1 and 19) recite “wherein said calcium hydroxide particles have a D90/D10 ratio of greater than 8 and a D90/D50 ratio of greater than 3”. There is insufficient basis in the original disclosure for these newly added limitations.
Applicant states the new D90/D10 and D90/D50 limitations indicate the composition, which is not a HRH (high reactivity calcium hydroxide) based on its particle size distribution, can be (or is) made as an HRH having the indicated reactivity because it is produced in accordance with the claimed method. Applicant cites basis for these ratios are located in US 9,517,471 that was incorporated by reference in the present specification. Applicant specifically states, “These ratios are used to indicate non-HRH compositions (those that lacks the indicated reactivity) in, for example, United States Patent number 9,517,471 the disclosure of which was incorporated by reference into the present specification” (p.12 of response filed 12/30/2025).
While there is no in haec verba requirement to satisfy written description, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. Applicant is certainly permitted to incorporate essential material by reference to a U.S. patent in order to provide a written description of the claimed invention and/or describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention (see MPEP 608.01(p), I & 37 CFR 1.57). However, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated Applicant was in possession of the newly claimed limitation that the claimed method produces calcium hydroxide particles having a D90/D10 ratio of greater than 8 and a D90/D50 ratio of greater than 3 at the time of the effective filing date.
First, the instant application's literal disclosure (considering the literal text as submitted without accounting for incorporation(s) by reference) never mentions or suggests a "D90/D10" or "D90/D50", let alone any of a D90, D50, or D10 individually. The instant application's provisional application has the same deficiency(ies).
Second, moving to the alleged incorporation by reference of US 9,517,471 providing written description support for the new limitation(s), US 9,517,471 teach and claim a high reactivity lime and method of making thereof. Therein, the lime may have a D90/D10 of less than about 8 and a BET surface area of about 18 m2/g or greater (col. 6 lines 61-64 and claim 1). No D90/D50 ratio is expressly stated in US 9,517,471. Furthermore, US 9,517,471 disclose an entirely different method than that claimed. While US 9,517,471 support a product comprising (and method of making thereof obtaining), inter alia, a D90/D10 of less than about 8, it is unclear how this provides sufficient written description basis (or has any nexus to) the instantly claimed method (distinct from that of the ‘471 patent's disclosure) having or obtaining, inter alia, a D90/D10 ratio of greater than 8 (opposite of that claimed) and a D90/D50 ratio of greater than 3 (undisclosed). The incorporation(s) by reference fail to disclose or suggest Applicant was in possession of the newly recited features that the instantly claimed invention (the recited method) includes or excludes calcium hydroxide particles having a D90/D10 ratio of greater than 8 and a D90/D50 ratio of greater than 3.
Where precisely (with citations) is it disclosed, suggested, or incorporated by reference the claimed invention has, obtains, or is capable of obtaining a D90/D10 ratio of greater than 8 and a D90/D50 ratio of greater than 3?
Claims 2-11, 13, and 15-17 are also rejected for including the same inadequately-disclosed limitations in their scope via their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites a method with steps under the transitional phrase “consisting of”. The term "consisting of" renders the claim a closed scope, excluding any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. However, in one of the steps in the body of the claim, a limitation recites “slaking said calcium particulate with water including one additive …”. The term “including” is synonymous with “comprising”, having an open scope, that does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. This renders the claim unclear whether the claim is closed (the water has one additive and nothing more) or if the claim is open to additional, unrecited additives.
For purposes of further examination, claim 19 is construed as if it is actually closed to the recited steps and components (i.e., “slaking said calcium oxide particular with water with/having one additive …”).
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Interpretation
In addition to all discussed above, it is noted claim 1 has been amended to recite a method with steps under the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”. The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. This renders the claim scope more broad than might be appreciated by Applicant. Note that the original specification does not have a definition for the term “consisting essentially of”. Absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, it is proper to construe "consisting essentially of" equivalent to "comprising." See MPEP 2111.03. However, after review of the original disclosure, it appears the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention is the formation of reactive calcium hydroxide particles from calcium oxide that are useful as a sorbent. So long as a prior art reference does not deter from forming a reactive calcium hydroxide particle sorbent, it fairly reads on the “consisting essentially of” language as it has the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention regardless of any additional elements or steps.
Regarding the closed scope of claim 19, note that the two “forming” steps are quite broad and may encompass any number of substeps so long as the recited products are made from the recited precursors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano et al. (JP 5952582 B2) in view of Tate et al. (US 10,369,518 B2). An English language machine translation is appended to the supplied copy of the reference and citations to the reference are with respect to the translation document except where otherwise noted.
As to claims 1-10, 15, and 17, Hamano et al. teach a method for forming a sorbent composition with improved acid gas reactivity (producing slaked lime useful as an acid gas removing agent, Technical Field p.1). The method comprises forming a calcium oxide particulate (providing quick lime powder), slaking/reacting said calcium oxide particulate with water and/including an additive, and drying to obtain the slaked lime (see General manufacturing process of slaked lime on p.4), i.e., obtain calcium hydroxide powder (Background section; see also p.21 discussing classifying the dried slaked lime; see also claim 8); the obtained slaked lime powder is useful as an acid gas removing agent (Id.) which reads on the slaked lime/calcium hydroxide powder being a sorbent composition. Note, Hamano et al.’s initial quick lime is clearly a particulate as it is fed to a device with stirring equipment (Fig. 1); the process would not operate if the quick lime were a bulk solid. The additive is provided to obtain a BET specific surface area of 20 m2/g or more, more preferably 35 m2/g or more (p.2). Diethylene glycol and triethanolamine are preferred additives (p.6). Note, diethylene glycol is a glycol derived from (or capable of being derived from) ethylene oxide, and triethanolamine is an amine produced from (or is capable of being produced from) reacting ethylene oxide with ammonia. Hamano et al. discuss use of slaked lime as an acid gas remover depletes and uses up the slaked lime and commercially available slaked lime, i.e., without the disclosed additive(s), have BET specific surface area of 10-20 m2/g and the higher BET specific surface area of their invention via the additive (e.g., >20 m2/g, >30 m2/g, >35 m2/g, etc.) has an improved acid gas adsorption performance, i.e., higher reactivity (see p.5). As Hamano et al. teach forming a reactive sorbent composed of calcium hydroxide equivalent to the recited steps, it very fairly meets the “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase.
Exemplified methods notably include, among others, addition of 0.5% by weight of diethylene glycol with respect to quicklime during slaking obtains a dried slaked lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide powder) of 41.1 m2/g BET specific surface area (Example 1 on p.9). This example very clearly teaches including, i.e., comprising, one additive to increase BET surface area being diethylene glycol in water while slaking calcium oxide particulate to obtain a BET surface area within the claimed range.
Furthermore, another exemplified method includes addition of 1.0% by weight of diethylene glycol with respect to quicklime without anything else during slaking obtains a dried slaked lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide powder) of 40.0 m2/g BET specific surface area (Comparative Example 1-2 on p.9) whereas the comparative example prior to Comparative Example 1-1 provides no additive and obtains a “small and insufficient” BET specific surface area of 12.5 m2/g (Comparative Example 1-1 on p.9). In view of the foregoing showing of Comparative Example 1-1 and 1-2, Hamano et al. very clearly teach diethylene glycol is an additive increasing BET surface area.
Hamano et al. fail to teach the obtained calcium hydroxide particles/sorbent have a D90/D10 ratio of greater than 8 and a D90/D50 ratio of greater than 3.
However, Tate et al. is similarly drawn calcium hydroxide compositions made by slaking quicklime that are suitable for treatment of exhaust gases, i.e., use as a reactive sorbent composition, (abstract and col. 1 lines 15-19). Tate et al. teach an additive, such as diethylene glycol or triethanolamine, is provided during slaking the quicklime that results an improved particle size distribution (col. 7 lines 29-39 but see also the remainder of this paragraph through line 63). Tate et al. teach an optimal distribution of coarse and fine particles (e.g., based on particle size distribution or D.sub.90/D.sub.10 ratios) provides enhanced removal efficiency relative to conventional compositions, and , stated differently, the composition's particle size and D90/D10 ratio can be optimized according to embodiments of the present disclosure to enhance reactivity by increasing the flowability and/or dispersion characteristics of the composition, and thereby more effectively treat acidic species of a gas/exhaust stream (col. 4 lines 24-35). Tate et al.’s D90/D10 ratio is preferably about 8 to 20 (abstract), which meets if not falls within the claimed D90/D10 ratio range. Tate et al. further exemplify various particle size distributions where D90/D10 ratios and D90/D50 ratios are exemplified, e.g., in Table 3 on col. 9, Batch 9M has a D90/D10 of 14.88 and a D90/D50 of 3.74 and Batch 10M has a D90/D10 of 11.94 and a D90/D50 of 3.27, which are within both of the ranges instantly claimed.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the particle size distribution features (D90/D10 and D90/D50) taught by Tate et al. to Hamano et al.’s calcium hydroxide particles in order to obtain a reactive calcium hydroxide-based sorbent for treating acid gases having an enhanced reactivity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claimed reactivity of less than 10 seconds (and other smaller reactivity times in the dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10) defined as the amount of time it takes the calcium hydroxides to neutralize in citric acid having a mass greater than 10 times (and 26g / 1.7g, i.e., about 15.3 times, in dependent claim 6) the mass of calcium hydroxide particles, the claimed features would flow naturally from the combination of references. Hamano et al. teach their calcium hydroxide particles are made with the same additive in the same (and/or overlapping) concentration with the same method as those instantly claimed in order to obtain high BET specific surface area calcium hydroxide powder suitable as a reactive acid gas removing/adsorption agent (e.g., specifically diethylene glycol and triethanolamine additive in an amounts of 0.5 and 1.0 wt.% as an exemplary amounts with respect to calcium oxide, Id.) and the cited teachings of Tate et al. provide the calcium hydroxide within a particular particle size distribution within that claimed in order to improve the reactivity of the calcium hydroxide (Id.).
As to claim 13, note the above-cited Example 1 in the reference merely consists of providing quicklime, water, and about 1.5% by weight of additives, slaking the quick lime/mixture, followed by drying (Id. and “manufacturing process” disclosed on p.8). Drying overnight at 110°C would clearly remove supernatant water. Accordingly, the resultant dried slaked lime powder of Example 1 would comprise at least 95% calcium hydroxide particles as claimed, e.g., about 98.5 wt.% calcium hydroxide particles. Furthermore, the reference generally supports there finally being at least 95% calcium hydroxide particles as claimed by subtracting the overlapping additive amount from 100% to obtain the calcium hydroxide concentration.
As to claim 16, while Hamano et al. fail to teach their examples contain triethanolamine (the cited example(s) contain diethylene glycol, Id.), Hamano et al. teach species of “ethanolamines” are listed as an entire genus of suitable additive and include “triethanolamine” alternative to the prior-disclosed, exemplified, and cited diethylene glycol species of “glycol”. See p.6.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide or substitute triethanolamine with or in place of the prior cited diethylene glycol in the slaking additive in order to obtain the slaked lime with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano et al. (JP 5952582 B2) in view of Tate et al. (US 10,369,518 B2) as applied to claims 1-10, 13, and 15-17 above, and further in view of Dumont et al. (WO 92/09528 A1), Moran et al. (US 5,492,685 A), or Kishino et al. (JP 2008-255007 A). English language machine translations of Dumont et al. and Kishino et al. are of record and citations to the references are with respect to the translation documents except where otherwise noted.
The disclosure of Hamano et al. in view of Tate et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
As to claim 11, Hamano et al. teaches a working example where addition of 0.5% by weight of diethylene glycol with respect to quicklime during slaking obtains a dried slaked lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide powder) of 41.1 m2/g BET specific surface area (Id.). Hamano et al. is generally drawn to a method of producing slaked lime (calcium hydroxide powder) and sorbents (gas removal agents) thereof having a high surface area and is not merely limited to the precise working example cited above. Note, Hamano et al.'s specific surface area ranges are open-ended (e.g., "a BET specific surface area of 20 m2/g or more, ... more preferably 35 m2/g or more", p.4) and no maximum BET specific surface area is disclosed or set.
While Hamano et al.’s method (in view of Tate et al.) obtains, inter alia, calcium hydroxide particles having a BET specific surface area above 40 m-2/g, Hamano et al. fails to teach their method obtains calcium hydroxide particles having a BET specific surface area of 60 m-2/g or greater.
However, Dumont et al. is similarly drawn to methods for preparing calcium hydroxide and sorbents (acid gas purifying agents) thereof by slaking (reacting) calcium oxide in water to obtain high specific surface areas (abstract). Dumont et al. teach selection of a proper additive chosen from, among few others, diethylene glycol and triethanolamine, provided during reacting/slaking as well as adjustment of the ratios of water/CaO and additive/CaO within particular ranges during reacting/slaking renders it possible to obtain calcium hydroxide having specific surface area of above 40 m2/g and up to 80 m2/g (p.2 & p.4), which overlaps the claimed range.
Alternatively, Moran et al. is similarly drawn to preparing calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) and sorbents thereof by slaking (hydrating) calcium oxide (lime) (abstract). Moran et al. teach, after hydrating/slaking the lime, providing a post-hydration washing step in order to displace water before drying in order to further increase specific surface area, rendering it possible to obtain specific surface areas greater than 55 m2/g and up to 85 m2/g (col. 3 lines 2-9). Moran et al. also separately teach the surface area of final calcium hydroxide product can be adjusted between about 50-85 m2/g depending on the surface area of the calcium oxide feed and conditions during hydration and washing (col. 9 lines 5-8). Both ranges overlap the claimed range.
Alternatively, Kishino et al. is similarly drawn to methods for preparing a highly reactive calcium hydroxide (slaked lime) and sorbents (waste gas treatment agents) thereof having a high specific surface area of 45-70 m2/g (abstract). Like the claimed method and Hamano et al., Kishino et al. teach the slaked lime is prepared by a conventional method comprising hydrating/slaking (digesting) calcium oxide (lime) in the presence of an alkylene glycol or amino alcohol (p.4); examples of the alkylene glycol include ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and propylene glycol, and examples of the amino alcohol include ethanolamine, diethanolamine, and triethanolamine (p.4). Kishino et al. teach, after obtaining a slaked lime, providing a pulverization step with addition of an alcohol-based auxiliary agent in order to increase/obtain the specific surface area to the range of 45-70 m2/g (p.3), which overlaps the claimed range.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at/within the claimed BET surface area of 60 m2/g by providing any one of the techniques taught be Dumont et al., Moran et al., or Kishino et al. to the method of Hamano et al. in view of Tate et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a variety of reasons:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the technique(s)/step(s) of 1) selection of a proper additive (e.g., diethylene glycol, triethanolamine) provided during reacting/slaking and/or 2) adjustment of the ratios of water/CaO and additive/CaO within particular ranges during reacting/slaking as taught by Dumont et al. to the method of Hamano et al. in view of Tate et al. in order to obtain calcium hydroxide and sorbents thereof having an increased specific surface area of above 40 m2/g and up to 80 m2/g with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the technique(s)/step(s) of 1) providing a post-hydration washing step after hydrating/slaking lime/CaO and/or 2) adjust the surface area of the calcium oxide feed and conditions during hydration and washing as taught by Moran et al. to the method of Hamano et al. in view of Tate et al. in order to obtain calcium hydroxide and sorbents thereof having an increased specific surface area of above 50 m2/g and up to 85 m2/g with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the technique/step of providing a pulverization step with addition of an alcohol-based auxiliary agent after hydrating/slaking lime/CaO as taught by Kishino et al. to the method of Hamano et al. in view of Tate et al. in order to obtain calcium hydroxide and sorbents thereof having an increased specific surface area of above 45 m2/g and up to 70 m2/g with a reasonable expectation of success.
The above rationale also alternatively reads on the claimed limitations of claim 16 that the method/water/additive further is triethanolamine while also obtaining calcium hydroxide particles with a BET surface area of 40 m2/g or greater. Hamano et al. teach the addition triethanolamine (Id.), and the Dumont et al., Moran et al., and Kishino et al. secondary references teach various techniques and steps to extend/increase the BET surface area clearly into the claimed range of 40 m2/g or greater. Also note that Dumont et al. and Kishino et al. each teach triethanolamine as a suitable additive therein.
Claims 1-10, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longouilloux (WO 2017/220775 A1, utilizing US 2019/0193049 A1 as an English language equivalent) in view of Tate et al. (US 10,369,518 B2).
As to claims 1-10, 15, and 17, Longouilloux teaches a method for producing a powdery slaked lime useful for use as a sorbent for treating acid gas (abstract & 0097-0102). An exemplary method provides calcium oxide (quicklime) particulate (which per para. 0003 is generally obtained by calcination of limestone, i.e., formed, and per para. 0047 is provided as particles), slakes said calcium oxide particulate with water including one additive of diethylene glycol present in an amount 0.2 wt.% by weight of the calcium oxide to obtain wet calcium hydroxide (slaked lime), and dries the obtained wet calcium hydroxide to produce a porous powdery calcium hydroxide (slaked lime), useful as a sorbent composition (Id.), having a specific surface area of 41.1 m2/g. See Example 1 at para. 0119-0120. The process obtains a very high specific surface area from the provision of solely diethylene glycol as an additive (Id.), meaning the additive reads on an additive increasing BET surface area. Also, diethylene glycol is a glycol derived from (or capable of being derived from) ethylene oxide. The specific surface area values in the reference are BET specific surface area (para. 0067). If the cited example at para. 0119-0120 somehow does not sufficiently teach a step of forming a sorbent composition from the dried calcium hydroxide (slaked lime) particles, note that forming a sorbent composition from the exemplary dried calcium hydroxide is nevertheless strongly encompassed by the reference in view of Longouilloux’s express teachings that the powdery slaked lime is for use and provided as a sorbent for treating acid gas (Id. at para. 0097-0102, i.e., the powdery slaked lime composition is a sorbent composition), and the slaked lime has an improved sorption capacity (e.g., para. 0054). As Longouilloux teaches forming a reactive sorbent composed of calcium hydroxide equivalent to the recited steps, it very fairly meets the “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase.
One of two main differences between Longouilloux’s example and the claims (besides the D90/D10 and D90/D50 ratios addressed later, below) is Longouilloux’s example provides the additive at a ratio of 0.2% of said calcium oxide feed by weight (Id.) whereas the claims require the additive is provided at a ratio of between 0.5% to 3% of said calcium oxide feed by weight. Longouilloux’s exemplary amount of 0.2% diethylene glycol additive falls ever so short of the claimed between 0.5-3.0% additive range and more specific about 0.5% amount.
However, at the time of the effective filing date this minor difference would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Longouilloux teach the additive provided in the method (presented and discussed with the terminology of a “non-solid residual phase” which may and include all of residual humidity content/water and/or residual additive added before or during the slaking process such as a “residual organic solid additive” that includes the diethylene glycol as a poly glycol ethylene organic additive; see para. 0078 and 0085-0086) may be present in various concentrations such as between 0.3-5% by weight, 0.5-4% by weight, 0-3.5 wt.%, 0.5-2.0 wt.% (para. 0081-0082) which ultimately overlap and encompass the claimed range of additive. In other words, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to slightly increase the exemplary 0.2 wt.% amount of diethylene glycol and arrive within the claimed range of 0.5-3 wt.% because the reference teaches and permit providing additional/alternative amounts of organic additive in the slaking process that overlap and encompass the claimed range of additive.
Longouilloux fails to teach the obtained calcium hydroxide particles/sorbent have a D90/D10 ratio of greater than 8 and a D90/D50 ratio of greater than 3.
However, Tate et al. is similarly drawn calcium hydroxide compositions made by slaking quicklime that are suitable for treatment of exhaust gases, i.e., use as a reactive sorbent composition, (abstract and col. 1 lines 15-19). Tate et al. teach an additive, such as diethylene glycol or triethanolamine, is provided during slaking the quicklime that results an improved particle size distribution (col. 7 lines 29-39 but see also the remainder of this paragraph through line 63). Tate et al. teach an optimal distribution of coarse and fine particles (e.g., based on particle size distribution or D.sub.90/D.sub.10 ratios) provides enhanced removal efficiency relative to conventional compositions, and , stated differently, the composition's particle size and D90/D10 ratio can be optimized according to embodiments of the present disclosure to enhance reactivity by increasing the flowability and/or dispersion characteristics of the composition, and thereby more effectively treat acidic species of a gas/exhaust stream (col. 4 lines 24-35). Tate et al.’s D90/D10 ratio is preferably about 8 to 20 (abstract), which meets if not falls within the claimed D90/D10 ratio range. Tate et al. further exemplify various particle size distributions where D90/D10 ratios and D90/D50 ratios are exemplified, e.g., in Table 3 on col. 9, Batch 9M has a D90/D10 of 14.88 and a D90/D50 of 3.74 and Batch 10M has a D90/D10 of 11.94 and a D90/D50 of 3.27, which are within both of the ranges instantly claimed.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the particle size distribution features (D90/D10 and D90/D50) taught by Tate et al. to Longouilloux’s calcium hydroxide particles in order to obtain a reactive calcium hydroxide-based sorbent for treating acid gases having an enhanced reactivity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claimed reactivity of less than 10 seconds (and other smaller reactivity times in the dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10) defined as the amount of time it takes the calcium hydroxides to neutralize in citric acid having a mass greater than 10 times (and 26g / 1.7g, i.e., about 15.3 times, in dependent claim 6) the mass of calcium hydroxide particles, the claimed features would flow naturally from the combination of references. Longouilloux teaches calcium hydroxide particles made with the same additive(s) in overlapping concentrations as those instantly claimed (e.g., specifically diethylene glycol, in the various amount encompassed by para. 0081-0082, e.g., between 0.3-5% by weight, 0.5-4% by weight, 0-3.5 wt.%, 0.5-2.0 wt.%) with the same method as that instantly claimed in order to obtain high BET specific surface area calcium hydroxide powder suitable as a reactive acid gas removing/adsorption agent and the cited teachings of Tate et al. provide the calcium hydroxide within a particular particle size distribution within that claimed in order to improve the reactivity of the calcium hydroxide (Id.).
As to claim 13, Longouilloux further teach the obtained powdery slaked lime composition (which is for use and provided as a sorbent for treating acid gas, Id., i.e., the composition is a sorbent composition) has a quantity of lime available (explicitly defined as the amount of calcium hydroxide present in the powdery slaked lime composition) of greater than or equal to 95% by weight compared to the dry matter content of the slaked lime composition (see para. 0093 for the range and para. 0095 for the definition), which overlaps, if not identical to, the claimed range.
As to claim 16, while the cited example and rationale thereof teach and meet the claimed additive increasing BET surface area is diethylene glycol, note that Longouilloux further teach providing triethanolamine as a (poly)ethanolamine an alternative organic additive from the diethylene glycol as a (poly) glycol ethylene (para. 0086). Note triethanolamine is an amine produced from (or is capable of being produced from) reacting ethylene oxide with ammonia.
Accordingly, while Longouilloux fail to teach an example where triethanolamine is provided as the additive in the process of making slaked lime/calcium hydroxide and a sorbent composition thereof, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute triethanolamine in place of the exemplary diethylene glycol additive with a reasonable expectation of success because Longouilloux list both species of additive as suitable alternatives.
As to claim 19, as Longouilloux does not teach any further step(s) as mandatory, the rationale of Longouilloux in view of Tate et al. to the “consisting essentially of” scope of independent claim 1 equally reads on the “consisting of” scope of claim 19. For purposes of brevity, the entire rationale to Longouilloux in view of Tate et al. is not repeated (or else the Office action would span many additional pages). Please see the detailed rationale to claim 1 over Longouilloux in view of Tate et al., above. The required steps of Longouilloux in view of Tate et al. amount to a method consisting of providing/forming calcium oxide (quicklime) particulate, slaking said calcium oxide particulate with water and an additive in an amount overlapping that claimed to obtain a wet calcium hydroxide and adjust the particle size distribution, and drying/adjusting particle size distribution thereof to obtain a porous and reactive powdery calcium hydroxide with a high (40+ m2/g BET) surface area, high reactivity, and particular particle size distribution useful as a sorbent composition, which reads on and is equivalent to the forming a calcium oxide particulate step, slaking said calcium oxide particulate with water and one additive to form calcium hydroxide particles step, and forming a sorbent composition from said calcium hydroxide particles step.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longouilloux (WO 2017/220775 A1, utilizing US 2019/0193049 A1 as an English language equivalent) in view of Tate et al. (US 10,369,518 B2) as applied to claims 1-10, 13, 15-17, and 19 above, and further in view of Dumont et al. (WO 92/09528 A1), Moran et al. (US 5,492,685 A), or Kishino et al. (JP 2008-255007 A). English language machine translations of Dumont et al. and Kishino et al. are of record and citations to the references are with respect to the translation documents except where otherwise noted.
The disclosure of Longouilloux in view of Tate et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
As to claim 11, Longouilloux teach a working example where addition of 0.2% by weight of diethylene glycol (that may be further increased, e.g., between 0.3-5% by weight, 0.5-4% by weight, 0-3.5 wt.%, or 0.5-2.0 wt.%, Id.) with respect to quicklime during slaking obtains a dried slaked lime (i.e., calcium hydroxide powder) of 41.1 m2/g BET specific surface area (Id.). Longouilloux is generally drawn to a method of producing slaked lime (calcium hydroxide powder) and sorbents for treating acid gas having a high surface area and is not merely limited to the precise working example cited above. Note, Longouilloux’s specific surface area ranges are open-ended (e.g., “a BET specific surface obtained by the adsorption of nitrogen greater than or equal to 30 m2/g, for preference greater than or equal to 32 m2/g, and in an advantageous manner greater than or equal to 35 m2/g”, para. 0065) and no maximum BET specific surface area is expressly required.
While Longouilloux’s method (in view of Tate et al.) obtains, inter alia, calcium hydroxide particles having a BET specific surface area above 40 m-2/g, Longouilloux fails to explicitly articulate their method obtains calcium hydroxide particles having a BET specific surface area of 60 m2/g or greater.
However, Dumont et al. is similarly drawn to methods for preparing calcium hydroxide and sorbents (acid gas purifying agents) thereof by slaking (reacting) calcium oxide in water to obtain high specific surface areas (abstract). Dumont et al. teach selection of a proper additive chosen from, among few others, diethylene glycol and triethanolamine, provided during reacting/slaking as well as adjustment of the ratios of water/CaO and additive/CaO within particular ranges during reacting/slaking renders it possible to obtain calcium hydroxide having specific surface area of above 40 m2/g and up to 80 m2/g (p.2 & p.4), which overlaps the claimed range.
Alternatively, Moran et al. is similarly drawn to preparing calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) and sorbents thereof by slaking (hydrating) calcium oxide (lime) (abstract). Moran et al. teach, after hydrating/slaking the lime, providing a post-hydration washing step in order to displace water before drying in order to further increase specific surface area, rendering it possible to obtain specific surface areas greater than 55 m2/g and up to 85 m2/g (col. 3 lines 2-9). Moran et al. also separately teach the surface area of final calcium hydroxide product can be adjusted between about 50-85 m2/g depending on the surface area of the calcium oxide feed and conditions during hydration and washing (col. 9 lines 5-8). Both ranges overlap the claimed range.
Alternatively, Kishino et al. is similarly drawn to methods for preparing a highly reactive calcium hydroxide (slaked lime) and sorbents (waste gas treatment agents) thereof having a high specific surface area of 45-70 m2/g (abstract). Like the claimed method and Longouilloux, Kishino et al. teach the slaked lime is prepared by a conventional method comprising hydrating/slaking (digesting) calcium oxide (lime) in the presence of an alkylene glycol or amino alcohol (p.4); examples of the alkylene glycol include ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and propylene glycol, and examples of the amino alcohol include ethanolamine, diethanolamine, and triethanolamine (p.4). Kishino et al. teach, after obtaining a slaked lime, providing a pulverization step with addition of an alcohol-based auxiliary agent in order to increase/obtain the specific surface area to the range of 45-70 m2/g (p.3), which overlaps the claimed range.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at/within the claimed BET surface area of 60 m2/g by providing any one of the techniques taught be Dumont et al., Moran et al., or Kishino et al. to the method of Longouilloux in view of Tate et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a variety of reasons:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the technique(s)/step(s) of 1) selection of a proper additive (e.g., diethylene glycol, triethanolamine) provided during reacting/slaking and/or 2) adjustment of the ratios of water/CaO and additive/CaO within particular ranges during reacting/slaking as taught by Dumont et al. to the method of Longouilloux in view of Tate et al. in order to obtain calcium hydroxide and sorbents thereof having an increased specific surface area of above 40 m2/g and up to 80 m2/g with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the technique(s)/step(s) of 1) providing a post-hydration washing step after hydrating/slaking lime/CaO and/or 2) adjust the surface area of the calcium oxide feed and conditions during hydration and washing as taught by Moran et al. to the method of Longouilloux in view of Tate et al. in order to obtain calcium hydroxide and sorbents thereof having an increased specific surface area of above 50 m2/g and up to 85 m2/g with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the technique/step of providing a pulverization step with addition of an alcohol-based auxiliary agent after hydrating/slaking lime/CaO as taught by Kishino et al. to the method of Longouilloux in view of Tate et al. in order to obtain calcium hydroxide and sorbents thereof having an increased specific surface area of above 45 m2/g and up to 70 m2/g with a reasonable expectation of success.
The above rationale also alternatively reads on the claimed limitations of claim 16 that the method/water/additive further is triethanolamine (an amine produced from [or capable of being produced from] reacting ethylene oxide with ammonia) while also obtaining calcium hydroxide particles with a BET surface area of 40 m2/g or greater. Longouilloux teaches the addition of triethanolamine (Id.), and the Dumont et al., Moran et al., and Kishino et al. secondary references teach various techniques and steps to extend/increase the BET surface area clearly into the claimed range of 40 m2/g or greater. Also note that Dumont et al. and Kishino et al. each teach triethanolamine as a suitable additive therein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Hamano et al. (JP 5952582 B2) Applicant argues the amendment of independent claim 1 from “comprising” to “consisting essentially of” excludes Hamano et al.’s requirement of silicon dioxide as an additive.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the term “consisting essentially of” is not as limited as argued by Applicant. The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. The original specification does not have a definition for the term “consisting essentially of”. Absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, it is proper to construe "consisting essentially of" equivalent to "comprising." See MPEP 2111.03. However, after review of the original disclosure, it appears the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention is the formation of reactive calcium hydroxide particles from calcium oxide that are useful as a sorbent. So long as a prior art reference does not deter from forming a reactive calcium hydroxide particle sorbent, it fairly reads on the “consisting essentially of” language as it has the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention regardless of any additional elements or steps. Hamano et al. teach forming a reactive sorbent composed to calcium hydroxide equivalent to the recited steps including an additive equivalent to a glycol derived from ethylene oxide and an amine produced from reacting ethylene oxide with ammonia and very fairly meets the “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase regardless of whether the reference requires a co-additive including silicon dioxide (e.g., bentonite).
Note that Hamano et al. is not relied upon in rejecting the closed, “consisting of” scope of new claim 19 as claim 19’s closed scope excludes Hamano et al.’s co-additive including silicon dioxide.
Regarding Longouilloux (WO 2017/220775 A1, utilizing US 2019/0193049 A1 as an English language equivalent) Applicant argues Longouilloux’s exemplary additive amount of 0.2 wt.% diethylene glycol cited in the Example at para. 0119-0120 does not overlap the claimed range nor is remotely close to the claimed range necessary to render obvious the claimed range of between 0.5% to 3% by weight.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the rejection cited other portions of the reference teaching overlapping concentrations to meet the claimed range other than the 0.2 wt.% working example as alleged, e.g., additive concentrations such as between 0.3-5% by weight, 0.5-4% by weight, 0-3.5 wt.%, 0.5-2.0 wt.% (para. 0081-0082) which ultimately overlap and encompass the claimed range of additive. The rejection relied on the overlapping ranges to meet the claimed range, not the 0.2 wt.% concentration outside the claimed range as alleged.
Applicant further argues, even if the claimed range is considered obvious, Longouilloux does not recognize the amount of diethylene glycol as a result-effective variable for BET surface area and the reference does not seek to improve BET surface area or reactivity.
In response, while a result-effective variable rationale has not been made in the rejection of record, Applicant’s argument to Longouilloux failing to teach or establish the additive concentration as a result effective variable is moot in view of the reference ultimately teaching a narrower additive concentration than that claimed, e.g., 0.5-2.0 wt.%, etc. at para. 0081-0082, which is narrower than the instantly claimed 0.5-3.0 wt.% range. The reference also obtains a significantly high (40+ m2/g) surface area.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated the claimed additive concentration of 0.5-3.0 wt.% as critical.
Additionally, in response to Applicant's additional arguments that Longouilloux is focused on improvement of other properties than those of the claimed invention, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant further argues the claimed reactivity is not an inherent property of a calcium hydroxide compound, Longouilloux is silent on reactivity as defined in the claims, and Longouilloux fails to teach or suggest the newly claimed D90/D10 and D90/D50 ratios/particle size distribution.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because an inherency anticipatory-type rationale was never utilized over Longouilloux. Longouilloux has only been used under an obviousness rationale rather than an anticipatory rationale as argued. Prior to the revised grounds of rejection set forth above, the rationale of record to Longouilloux was that the claimed reactivity time and improved acid gas reactivity would flow naturally from the cited teachings of Longouilloux (see p.14 of the previous Office action).
Nevertheless, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Longouilloux failing to teach the claimed reactivity and D90/D10 and D90/D50 ratios are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection, which also rely on the cited teachings of Tate et al. (US 10,369,518 B2) combined with the teachings of Longouilloux (Id.).
The remaining references listed on Forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
February 13, 2026