DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The Amendment filed on 13 April 2026 has been entered; claims 1-10, 20-25 and 31 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7 of the Remarks, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 26, the 112(b) rejection of claim 3, and the 103 rejections of claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 26, the 112(b) rejection of claim 3, and the 103 rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 7-8 of the Remarks, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 20-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although Bailey does not specifically teach the step of forming the first mixture, Bailey teaches that there is magnesium (hydr)oxide content in the lime feed 12 (see Paragraphs [0110-0114] for the process details associated with Fig. 1, and see Paragraphs [0053-0056]) for trace minerals contained in the lime. Therefore, a prilled lime composition is made that contains magnesium (hydr)oxide, and the result of the process is the same. The obviousness rejection is therefore maintained below over claims 20-25.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 31 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 claim(s) 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations which appear to lack support in the claim language are: “wherein the…magnesium oxide encapsulate at least a portion of the calcium hydroxide”, and regarding claim 31, the limitations which appear to lack support in the claim language are: “at least a portion of the magnesium oxide encapsulating at least a portion of the lime”. Paragraph [0043] of the published application discusses that magnesium mineral that encapsulates the calcium hydroxide/lime is magnesium hydroxide, which acts to protect the prill core. Clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 2-10, they are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2008/0216712), hereinafter “Bailey”.
With respect to claim 20, Bailey discloses a method for manufacturing lime pellet composition, comprising combining lime fines supplied via a first feed line (12) and a binder supplied via a second feed line (14) to form a first mixture (24) (“second mixture”), wherein the binder comprises at least one of lignosulphonates, polysaccharide derivative thereof, or a beet molasses derivative; supplying the first mixture (24) and a second mixture (26) including lime fines (“additional lime”) supplied via a third feed line (18) into an extruder (28) and mixing into a composition capable of being extruded; and moving the composition through the extruder (28) so as to pass by heating elements, and drying the extrudate (34) (see claim 10; paragraphs [0094], [0111], [0113]-[0114], [0116]; figure 1).
Bailey does not specifically teach combining lime and magnesium oxide to form a first mixture; however, this amounts to a difference in order of mixing ingredients. It has been held that the order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Additionally, it is noted that Bailey teaches that lime fines can include calcium hydroxide and calcium oxide, each of which comprises a trace or small amount of magnesium oxide (see Paragraphs [0053-0056]), wherein calcium hydroxide is then mixed with the magnesium oxide content of the calcium oxide, when combinations of calcium hydroxide and calcium oxide are used (see Pellet 16 in Table 2; and see Paragraphs [0053-0055]), which describe that the calcium oxide includes traces or small amount of magnesium oxide (see paragraphs [0055], [0104]).
With respect to claim 21, Bailey teaches that the binder is provided as a solvent which can be embodied as water (Paragraphs [0081, 0083, 0084]), especially considering that the binders can be prepared into binder liquids, emulsions, and/or suspension with water (see Paragraph [0081]), and further that the aqueous binder solution can be prepared as an emulsion comprising 30-90% by weight binder, the balance being a solvent which can be aqueous solution or water), wherein 40-70% water overlaps with “at least 40% by weight water”).
Bailey does not specifically teach that the binder is prehydrated for 4 hours to obtain a slurry; however, Bailey does teach that the binder liquids can be prepared by any process to liquefy the binder (Paragraph [0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a 4 hour or, for example, overnight (“at least 4 hours”) prehydration time when dealing with binders of varying hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity (as discussed in Paragraphs [0067-0069]). The Examiner further notes that simply storing the binder solution for a few hours or overnight would render obvious the recited pre-hydration time.
With respect to claim 22, Bailey teaches that the pellets include calcium oxide having primary constituents CaO·MgO, a 1:1 mixture of lime and magnesium oxide (see Paragraph [0055]).
With respect to claims 23 and 24, Bailey teaches that the third mixture can be heated during mixing (implies a time period) (Paragraphs [0124, 0142]), but does not specifically teach the recited heating temperature and time or mixing speed.
It has been held that differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum combination of values (MPEP 2144.05.II.A.). This decision is clearly analogous to other process parameters, including heating time and mixing speed. The Examiner further notes that Bailey teaches a drying temperature of at least 100 °C (see Paragraph [0117]), and also teaches that the mixer can be a variable speed mixer configured for variable speed at elevated temperatures (Paragraphs [0124, 0142]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2008/0216712) in view of Veverka et al. (Institute for Briquetting and Agglomeration, 27th Biennial Conference, November 2001, Pages 1-12), hereinafter “Bailey” and “Veverka”.
With respect to claim 25, Bailey teaches the product composition recited in claim 25 (see rejection of claim 1 above), including water but not the recited amount of water; however, there is no evidence indicating such water contents are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, Veverka teaches that lime pellets comprising molasses binder absorbed water from the air, and additionally teaches that a target moisture content from lime pellets comprising lignin and molasses binders was 8% (see Section 4.4.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consult the art of lime pelletization with similar binders in order to determine appropriate residual moisture content after drying, or the water content of each pellet, in order to gain the advantage of stable pellets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed pending resolution of the 112(a) rejection set forth above, as none of the prior art teaches or suggests the prilled lime composition recited in claim 1, wherein magnesium oxide/hydroxide encapsulates at least a portion of the calcium hydroxide.
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable pending resolution of the 112(a) rejection set forth above, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as none of the prior art teaches or suggests that magnesium (hydr)oxide encapsulates at least a portion of the calcium hydroxide/lime.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 15 June 2026
Prosecution Insights