DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 27-30, 32-34 and 36-46 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 02/26/2026.
Applicants filed a Request for Continued Examination, and amended claim(s) 27, on 06/25/2026.
Claim(s) 27-46 are pending, and claim(s) 31 and 35 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 27-30, 32-34 and 36-46 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The present abstract is less than 50 words. However, the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27-30, 32-34 and 36-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27, lines 5-9, recites a first phrase “dissolving the lime in an aqueous base solution under one or more dissolution conditions to produce a first aqueous solution comprising calcium salt, and a gaseous stream comprising ammonia”, and a second phrase “dissolving the soft burnt lime in an aqueous solution comprising N-containing salt to produce an aqueous solution comprising calcium salt, and a gaseous stream comprising ammonia”.
However, it is unclear if claim 27 requires two dissolving steps as described respectively in the first phrase and the second phrase, or the first phrase is redundant, in which case it is advised to be deleted.
Examiner interprets that the first phrase is redundant and it is advised to be deleted.
Regarding dependent claims 28-30, 32-34 and 36-46, these claims does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 27 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 27-30, 32-34 and 36-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Devenney et al., US9,902,652 B2 (Devenney) (provided in IDS received on 12/06/2022) in view of Eloneva et al., Preliminary assessment of a method utilizing carbon dioxide and steelmaking slags to produce precipitated calcium carbonate, Applied Energy, 2012, 90, 329-334 (Eloneva) (provided in IDS received on 12/06/2022) and Hassibi, An overview of lime slaking and factors that affect the process, Chemoco Systems, 2009 (Hassibi).
Regarding claims 27-30, Devenney teaches method comprising treating a slag solid or carbide lime suspension with an ammonium salt in water (i.e., an aqueous N-containing inorganic salt solution) to produce an aqueous solution comprising calcium salt, ammonium salt, and solids; contacting the aqueous solution with carbon dioxide from an industrial process under one or more precipitation conditions to produce a precipitation material comprising calcium carbonate (Devenney, Abstract);
recovering a gas exhaust stream comprising ammonia during the treatment and/or contacting step (Devenney, Abstract).
Devenney further teaches the ammonium salt is ammonium chloride (Devenney, column 1, bottom paragraph; column 10, bottom paragraph).
Devenney further teaches the slag solid comprises 20-60 wt.% calcium oxide (i.e., CaO source to produce CaCO3) (Devenney, column 1, bottom paragraph).
Devenney further teaches contacting the aqueous solution (i.e., produced after treating a slag solid or carbide lime suspension with an ammonium salt in water) with carbon dioxide from an industrial process (Devenney, column 1, lines 45-46), a source of carbon dioxide such as exhaust from a coal-fired power plant or exhaust from a cement kiln (carbon dioxide is recycled from an industrial process) (Devenney, column 11, lines 54-56).
Further regarding claims 27 and 39, Devenney further teaches in some embodiments of the foregoing aspect and embodiments, the calcium carbonate produced comprises reactive vaterite (Devenney, column 2, bottom paragraph).
Further regarding claim 27, Devenney does not explicitly disclose (a) calcining limestone to form lime and a gaseous stream comprising carbon dioxide; dissolving lime in an aqueous solution comprising N-containing salt; wherein the temperature is set to form any amount of dead burnt lime; or (b) calcining the limestone at a temperature high enough to form soft burnt lime.
With respect to the difference (a), Eloneva teaches production of calcium carbonate by using ammonium salts as a solvent (Eloneva, page 329, right column, bottom paragraph).
Eloneva specifically teaches limestone is converted to CaO (i.e., lime) after a lime kiln (i.e., calcined), as an alternative to slag processing; in order to provide a CaO source to produce CaCO3 (Eloneva, page 333, Fig.6.).
Eloneva is analogous art as Eloneva is drawn to production of calcium carbonate by using ammonium salts as a solvent.
In light of the disclosure of Eloneva of the equivalence and interchangeability of using slag as disclosed in Devenney (Devenney, Abstract and column 1, lines 58-59), with lime from calcining limestone as presently claimed, to provide a source of CaO for CaCO3 formation (Eloneva, page 333, Fig.6.), it would therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use lime from calcining limestone instead of slag in Devenney (also reading upon wherein the temperature is set to form any amount of dead burnt lime), and thereby arrive at the claimed limitation.
With respect to the difference (b), Hassibi teaches process regarding lime. Hassibi specifically teaches kiln temperature affects the quality of CaO produced, large specific surfaces are desirable end product from calcium oxide (Hassibi, page 9, 1st paragraph); Figure 6 shows relation of surface area to calcination temperature, also shown below, (Hassibi, page 9, Figure 6); soft burned lime (Hassibi, page 9, 2nd paragraph); a soft-burned lime is full of small hair-like cracks where CO2 has escaped from the limestone during the calcination process; when the lime is exposed to water, the water penetrates the cracks and the hydration take place quickly (Hassibi, page 8, bottom paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
538
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Hassibi
As Hassibi expressly teaches, soft burned lime is highly-reactive (Hassibi, page 9, 2nd paragraph).
Hassibi is analogous art as Hassibi is drawn to a process regarding lime.
In light of the motivation of using soft burned lime, as taught by Hassibi, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art calcine limestone at a temperature high enough to obtain CaO that is soft burned lime, in Devenney in view of Eloneva, in order to obtain CaO with small hair-like cracks and high-activity, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 32, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches NH3 in the aqueous phase (i.e., dissolved ammonia) upon the reaction of lime with aqueous NH4Cl (Devenney, column 11, line 15).
Regarding claim 33, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further discloses recovering a gas exhaust stream comprising ammonia during the treating step (i.e., during treating a slag solid or carbide lime suspension with an ammonium salt in water, and therefore reading upon wherein the dissolving step further produces a gaseous stream comprising ammonia) (Devenney, column 1, lines 52-54); in some embodiments, the treating step further comprises adding ammonia; in some embodiments of the foregoing aspect and embodiments, the added ammonia is the ammonia recovered in the treating step (i..e, adding the recovered exhaust stream comprising ammonia to the treating step) (Devenney, column 2, 1st paragraph), and therefore reading upon “the treating step further comprises treating the aqueous solution comprising calcium salt with the gaseous stream comprising ammonia”.
Regarding claim 34, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches an aqueous solution comprising calcium salt, ammonium salt, and solids (Devenney, Abstract).
Regarding claim 36, as applied to claim 34, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches in some embodiments, the solids are not separated from the aqueous solution and the aqueous solution is contacted with the carbon dioxide to produce the precipitation material further comprising the solids (Devenney, column 4, 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 37, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further discloses the step (iii) of removing and optionally recovering the residual ammonium salt from the precipitation material comprises heating the precipitation material between between about 300-360° C, to evaporate the ammonium salt from the precipitation material with optional recovery by condensation of the ammonium salt (Devenney, column 2, bottom paragraph).
Further regarding claim 38, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further discloses recovering the residual ammonium salt from the supernatant aqueous solution (Devenney, column 1, 4th paragraph); in some embodiments, the method further comprises recovering the residual ammonium salt from the supernatant aqueous solution using recovery process selected from the group consisting of thermal decomposition, pH adjustment, reverse osmosis, multi-stage flash, multi-effect distillation, vapor recompression, distillation, and combinations thereof (Devenney, column 2, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 40, as applied to claim 39, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches the method further comprises after step (iii) adding water to the precipitation material comprising reactive vaterite and transforming the vaterite to aragonite wherein the aragonite sets and hardens to form cement or cementitious product (Devenney, column 2, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 41, as applied to claim 40, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches the cementitious product is a formed building material selected from masonry unit, construction panel, conduit, basin, beam, column, slab, acoustic barrier, insulation material, and combinations thereof (Devenney, column 2, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 42, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches the method further comprises adding an additive to the aqueous solution at the contacting step wherein the additive is a fatty acid ester (Devenney, column 4, 4th paragraph); some examples of inorganic additive or organic additive in the compositions provided herein, include, but not limited to, sodium decyl sulfate, lauric acid, sodium salt of lauric acid, urea, citric acid, sodium salt of citric acid, phthalic acid, sodium salt of phthalic acid, taurine, creatine, dextrose, poly(n-vinyl-1-pyrrolidone), aspartic acid, sodium salt of aspartic acid, magnesium chloride, acetic acid, sodium salt of acetic acid, glutamic acid, sodium salt of glutamic acid, strontium chloride, gypsum, lithium chloride, sodium chloride, glycine, sodium citrate dehydrate, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium sulfate, magnesium acetate, sodium polystyrene, sodium dodecylsulfonate, poly-vinyl alcohol, or combination thereof (Devenney, column 31, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 43, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches the precipitation material comprising vaterite is a particulate composition with an average particle size of 0.1-100 microns; in certain embodiments, unimodel or multimodal, e.g., bimodal or other, distributions are present (Devenney, column 34, bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 44, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches the composition may further include Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) (reading upon Portland cement) (Devenney, column 35, 2nd paragraph); in certain embodiments, the composition may further include an aggregate (Devenney, column 35, bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 45, as applied to claim 27, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches in some embodiments, the precipitation material in wet or dried form, may be mixed with one or more admixtures to impart one or more properties to the product, examples of the admixtures include, but not limited to, set accelerators, set retarders, air-entraining agents, foaming agents, defoamers, alkali-reactivity reducers, bonding admixtures, dispersants, coloring admixtures, corrosion inhibitors, damp-proofing admixtures, gas formers, permeability reducers, pumping aids, shrinkage compensation admixtures, fungicidal admixtures, germicidal admixtures, insecticidal admixtures, rheology modifying agents, finely divided mineral admixtures, pozzolans, aggregates, wetting agents, strength enhancing agents, water repellents, reinforced material such as fibers, and any other admixture (Devenney, column 37, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 46, as applied to claim 45, Devenney in view of in view of Eloneva and Hassibi further teaches the compositions of the invention are employed with reinforced material such as fibers, e.g., where fiber-reinforced product is desirable; fibers can be made of zirconia containing materials, aluminum, glass, steel, carbon, ceramic, grass, bamboo, wood, fiberglass, or synthetic materials (Devenney, column 39, 2nd paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“Applicant respectfully maintains that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the new limitations of the currently amended claim 27.”
Remarks, p. 2
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Devenney in view of Eloneva and Hassibi teaches the amended claim 27, as set forth above, specifically, Devenney teaches recovering a gas exhaust stream comprising ammonia during the treatment and/or contacting step (Devenney, Abstract).
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights