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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant’s request for continued examination and amendment/remarks filed 06/22/2026.
Claims 1, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19-24 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the above amendment. The amendment deleted all new matter from the claims.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendment. It is noted claim 19 as amended recites, within the closed-ended “consisting of” method, a step of “slaking said calcium oxide particulate with water including only one additive increasing BET surface area to form calcium hydroxide particles”. While “including” can be synonymous with open-ended “comprising”, the entire context of the limitation reciting “including only one additive …” grammatically means the water has only one additive (or the water is with only one additive) that increases BET surface area and is indeed properly closed to all non-recited components.
It is noted the independent claims have been broadened in some aspects (the D90/D10 and D90/D50 ratios and quantified reactivity properties have been deleted from the claims) while narrowed in others (the BET surface area of the calcium hydroxide particles has been limited from 40 m2/g or greater to 50 m2/g or greater).
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over/based-on Hamano et al. (JP 5952582 B2) in view of Tate et al. (US 10,369,518 B2) are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over/based-on 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) are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
However, upon careful consideration of the amended claims, the current rejection utilizes a combination of some, but not all, of the prior references of record, e.g., Hamano et al. (JP 5952582 B2) and Longouilloux (WO 2017/220775 A1) as primary references and Moran et al. (US 5,492,685 A), Kishino et al. (JP 2008-255007 A), and/or Dumont et al. (WO 92/09528 A1) as secondary references combined with each of the primary references, which render obvious the instant claims as amended. See the new 103 rejections, below.
Claim Interpretation
In addition to all discussed above, it is noted claim 1 recites a method with steps under the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of”. As similarly set forth in a prior Office action, 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.
It is noted the term “said calcium oxide feed” (and entire relative concentration thereof) has sufficient, implicit antecedent basis in the recitation of “slaking calcium oxide particulate water including one additive …” meaning calcium oxide (in the form of particulates) is fed/provided with the additive.
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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 11, 13, and 15-17 be found allowable, claims 20-24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). For clarity, claim 20 is an exact duplicate of claim 11, claim 21 is an exact duplicate of claim 13, claim 22 is an exact duplicate of claim 15, claim 23 is an exact duplicate of claim 16, and claim 24 is an exact duplicate of claim 17.
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, 11, 13, 15-17, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano et al. (JP 5952582 B2) 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 Hamano et al., 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.
As to claims 1, 11, and 20, 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. 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(s) 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 obtains, inter alia, calcium hydroxide particles having a BET specific surface area above 35 m2/g, e.g., above 40 m-2/g, Hamano et al. fail to explicitly teach their method obtains calcium hydroxide particles having a BET specific surface area of 50 m2/g or greater as recited in claim 1 or 60 m-2/g or greater as recited in claim 11.
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 (e.g., between 0.6:1 and 2:1 and subsets thereof for water/CaO and greater than 0.002:1 and subsets thereof such as between 0.005:1 and 0.02:1 for the additive/CaO; note that between 0.005:1 and 0.02:1 additive/CaO corresponds to 0.5-2 wt.% additive relative to CaO) 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. 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 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 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 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.
As to claims 13 and 21, note the above-cited Example 1 in Hamano et al. 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 claims 15 and 22, the above rationale to claim 1 cites and has rationale to Hamano et al. teaching/meeting the additive being diethylene glycol (Id.).
The above combination of references also alternatively reads on the claimed limitations of claims 15 and 22 that the method/water/additive further is/comprises triethanolamine while also obtaining calcium hydroxide particles with a BET surface area of 50 m2/g or greater. Hamano et al. teach the addition diethylene glycol (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 50 m2/g or greater. Also note that Dumont et al. and Kishino et al. each teach diethylene glycol as a suitable additive therein.
As to claims 16 and 23, 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.
The above combination of references also alternatively reads on the claimed limitations of claims 16 and 23 that the method/water/additive further is/comprises triethanolamine while also obtaining calcium hydroxide particles with a BET surface area of 50 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 50 m2/g or greater. Also note that Dumont et al. and Kishino et al. each teach triethanolamine as a suitable additive therein.
As to claims 17 and 24, the above rationale to claim 1 cites and has rationale to Hamano et al. teaching/meeting the additive (diethylene glycol) being added at 0.5% by weight of diethylene glycol with respect to quicklime, i.e., calcium oxide particulate, during slaking (Id.)
Claims 1, 11, 13, 15-17, and 20-24 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 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.
As to claims 1, 13, 17, 20, and 24, 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 calcium hydroxide surface area of 50 m2/g or greater 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 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 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 50 m2/g or greater and/or 60 m2/g or greater as claimed.
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 (e.g., between 0.6:1 and 2:1 and subsets thereof for water/CaO and greater than 0.002:1 and subsets thereof such as between 0.005:1 and 0.02:1 for the additive/CaO; note that between 0.005:1 and 0.02:1 additive/CaO corresponds to 0.5-2 wt.% additive relative to CaO) 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 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 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 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 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.
As to claims 13 and 21, 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 claims 15 and 22, the above rationale to claim 1 cites and has rationale to Longouilloux teaching/meeting the additive being diethylene glycol (Id.).
The above combination of references also alternatively reads on the claimed limitations of claims 15 and 22 that the method/water/additive further is/comprises diethylene glycol while also obtaining calcium hydroxide particles with a BET surface area of 50 m2/g or greater. Longouilloux teaches the addition of diethylene glycol (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 50 m2/g or greater. Also note that Dumont et al. and Kishino et al. each teach diethylene glycol as a suitable additive therein.
As to claims 16 and 22, 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.
The above combination of references also alternatively reads on the claimed limitations of claims 16 and 23 that the method/water/additive further is/comprises triethanolamine while also obtaining calcium hydroxide particles with a BET surface area of 50 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 50 m2/g or greater. Also note that Dumont et al. and Kishino et al. each teach triethanolamine as a suitable additive therein.
Claim 19 is 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 Dumont et al. (WO 92/09528 A1). An English language machine translation of Dumont et al. is of record and citations to the reference are with respect to the translation document except where otherwise noted.
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).
One of two main differences between Longouilloux’s example and the claims (besides the calcium hydroxide surface area of 50 m2/g or greater 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.
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 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 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 50 m2/g or greater as claimed.
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 (e.g., between 0.6:1 and 2:1 and subsets thereof for water/CaO and greater than 0.002:1 and subsets thereof such as between 0.005:1 and 0.02:1 for the additive/CaO; note that between 0.005:1 and 0.02:1 additive/CaO corresponds to 0.5-2 wt.% additive relative to CaO) 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.
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 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 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.
As Longouilloux does not teach any further step(s) as mandatory and forms a reactive sorbent composed of calcium hydroxide equivalent to the recited steps, the present rationale of Longouilloux in view of Dumont et al. reads on the “consisting of” scope of claim 19. The required steps of Longouilloux in view of Dumont 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 as well as adjusting other ratios such as CaO/water therein to obtain a calcium hydroxide particles with a high (40+ and even 50+ m2/g BET) surface area useful as (or for forming into) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hamano et al. (JP 5952582 B2) and Longouilloux (WO 2017/220775 A1 / US 2019/0193049 A1) teach methods where obtained calcium hydroxide do not obtain BET surface areas substantially over 40 m2/g, and the Dumont et al. (WO 92/09528 A1), Moran et al. (US 5,492,685 A), or Kishino et al. (JP 2008-255007 A) secondary references do not show use of the additive as part of the slaking water and in the slaking step to increase the BET surface area as claimed as they include an additive after slaking rather than within the slaking step as claimed. Applicant’s position is Kishino et al. allegedly indicates a higher specific surface area is obtained by exposing an additive to a previously slaked lime meaning the additive is not in the water used to slake calcium oxide as claimed, Moran et al. allegedly utilizes their organic solvent in a post-hydrating wash step carried out after slaking, and Dumont et al. allegedly appears to attribute BET surface increase to wet-grinding of the resultant calcium hydroxide in the presence of the additive in a lime milk.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually (particularly the primary references failing to teach the specific surface areas as amended), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (the primary references in view of the secondary references). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the arguments to the secondary references allegedly indicating additives introduced in other subsequent steps excluded by the present claim language, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s) (at least in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
While Applicant appears to interpret independent claim 1 as requiring the slaking step expressly forms calcium hydroxide particles with a BET surface area of 50 m2/g or greater closed to any modification, breadth, or further steps, this is not what is actually recited in the claims. Rather, the claims have a more broad open-ended scope than alleged. As set forth in the Claim Interpretation of record, the 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. Note that all of the prior art references of record meet this requirement as they do not deter from forming a reactive calcium hydroxide particle sorbent.
Nevertheless, independent claim 1 effectively has the broad scope of a method comprising, inter alia, slaking said calcium oxide particulate with water comprising an additive increasing BET surface area to from calcium hydroxide particles and forming a sorbent composition from said calcium hydroxide particles either directly or with unrecited steps between where said calcium hydroxide particles (at any time between their formation and when they are further processed to form a sorbent composition therefrom, permitting further processing via unrecited steps) have a BET surface area of 50 m2/g or greater. If Applicant would like independent claim 1 to require the slaking process forms calcium hydroxide particles having a BET surface area of 50 m2/g or greater, the claim should be amended to remove the BET surface area range from the wherein clause and place it with the slaking step.
However, it is noted Applicant’s argument is somewhat persuasive regarding independent claim 19 (with closed “consisting of” language limiting the slaking step that forms calcium hydroxide particles to have a BET surface area of 50 m2/g or greater prior to forming a sorbent composition therefrom without any further steps). Kishino et al. and Moran et al. do not teach or suggest a slaking step expressly forms calcium hydroxide particles having a BET surface area of 50 m2/g of greater for the reasons stated by Applicant in the present remarks. Accordingly, claim 19 is not rejected utilizing these references. However, Dumont et al. is still applicable as a secondary reference to Longouilloux meeting this claimed limitation.
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 (e.g., between 0.6:1 and 2:1 and subsets thereof for water/CaO and greater than 0.002:1 and subsets thereof such as between 0.005:1 and 0.02:1 for the additive/CaO; note that between 0.005:1 and 0.02:1 additive/CaO corresponds to 0.5-2 wt.% additive relative to CaO, which is within both the instantly claimed range and the range taught by Longouilloux) 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.
While Applicant’s concern that some examples of Dumont et al. are directed to showing specific surface areas obtained by grinding via a wet process or grinding without a wet process with increasing amounts of diethylene glycol as an additive (p.6 and Table II), disclosed examples and preferred embodiments (Applicant’s cited embodiments of Table II and the accompanying discussion/teachings) do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (the Office’s cited teachings on p.2 and p.4 that selection of the additive’s identity, which are precisely the same as/within those instantly claimed, as well as ratios of the water/water and additive/CaO affect the specific surface area alternative to the wet grinding process). In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
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.
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./
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights