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
Applicant’s election of the remaining pending claims 1-10 and 20-25 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 26 is not numbered in the 27 August 2025 claim set. Due to Applicant’s amendments to the claims to cancel the nonelected invention, the Examiner will consider claim 26 to be canceled. Appropriate correction is required (i.e., Applicant is respectfully asked to list claim 26 as a cancelled claim).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, it is rendered indefinite, as it is unclear to the Examiner how magnesium oxide could be “part of a slurry” in a composition which comprises only 1-10% water. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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 1-10 are 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 1, Bailey teaches lime pellet (“prilled lime”) compositions (Abstract; Paragraph [0046]) comprising:
0.5-69 wt% of binder which can be embodied as lignosulphonates, starches (Paragraphs [0068, 0071, 0073], or beet molasses (Paragraph [0076]), and also teaches that the binder can comprise 1.25 to 10 wt% binder (Paragraph [0072]) for certain embodiments including lignosulfonates;
45-75wt% of hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide; Ca(OH)2) (Paragraphs [0032, 0054]), which includes trace amounts of magnesium oxide (considered to be consistent with “no more than 30%)” (Paragraph [0053]), especially in view of Example 10 in Paragraph [0184], which teaches a magnesium oxide content of 5%;
and water (see claims 1, 10; Paragraphs [0081, 0083-0085, 0184]).
Bailey teaches a range of embodiments for the binder content which overlap with or corresponds to range within the recited range, but does not specifically teach a water/solvent content; 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 likely absorbed water from the air (see last paragraph of Section 6.2), 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.
Regarding claims 2-4, Pellet 16 of Bailey comprises 61% calcium hydroxide, 21% calcium oxide, lignosulfonate binder at 7%, and magnesium oxide at 4 %, each of which is a discrete embodiment or very close to the recited ranges for these components (see also Paragraph [0072] which teaches preferably 1.25 to about 10% binder). It would have been obvious to look to the Example embodiments of Bailey to determine the constituent amounts within the lime pellets.
Regarding the limitations “magnesium oxide provided as a slurry” of claim 3, the Examiner notes that magnesium oxide is part of the calcium oxide form of lime that is added in some embodiments of Bailey, which is slurried with water to hydrate the quicklime (see Bailey: Paragraphs [0014, 0018, 0053-0055]), wherein for example, Pellet 16 comprises magnesium oxide at 4 %
With respect to claims 5-8 and 10, the recited pH, acid neutralizing value, crush strength, and abrasion resistance are considered to be inherent properties of the disclosed lime pellets of Bailey in view of Veverka, especially since Bailey teaches an average particle size that cannot pass through 4 mesh (Paragraph [0045]), which would make the particles bigger than 5.1 mm in diameter (“at least two millimeters”), and because all limitations of claim 1 were rendered obvious by Bailey in view of Veverka. It has been held that "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." (MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] (I)). Where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied upon. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to claim 9, Bailey in view of Veverka teaches that the lime pellets can be manufactured to be any size that is reasonable for the application, with particles sizes larger than about 14 mesh (1.41 mm) (see Bailey: Paragraph [0045], see also Paragraph [0119] for example particle size ranges), which overlaps the recited range in particle sizes.
Bailey in view of Veverka and the claims differ in that Bailey does not teach the exact same proportions for particle sizes as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range in particle size taught by Bailey overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “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 percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
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.
Conclusion
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 09 January 2026