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 .
This action is in response to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 01/20/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 19-32 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1-32 are pending. Claims 1-15 and 19-32 are being examined. Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim is missing period at the end. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foo (WO 2019/020613 A1).
Considering claims 19 and 22-23, Foo teaches a calcium-magnesium sorbent composition (Foo, abstract) comprising magnesium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide (i.e., metal hydroxide) (Foo, page 9 lines 5-7). Foo teaches the composition comprises water by teaching a moisture/water content of 5-20 wt.% (Foo, page 24, lines 12-14).
Considering claim 20, it should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition comprising a magnesium hydroxide containing material. Foo teaches a composition comprising a magnesium hydroxide containing material and the method by which the magnesium hydroxide containing material is obtained does not contribute any structural limitations to the composition/product.
Considering claim 21, Foo teaches the composition comprises 1-99% by weight magnesium hydroxide by teaching calcium-magnesium hydroxide content of greater than or equal to 80 weight% and the proportion of calcium to magnesium of 0.01 to 10 (Foo, page 8 lines 9-21).
Considering claim 24, Foo teaches the composition comprises 1-99% by weight metal (i.e., calcium) hydroxide by teaching calcium-magnesium hydroxide content of greater than or equal to 80 weight% and the proportion of calcium to magnesium of 0.01 to 10 (Foo, page 8 lines 9-21).
Considering claim 25, Foo teaches the composition comprises 1-99% by weight water by teaching a moisture/water content of 5-20 wt.% (Foo, page 24, lines 12-14).
Considering claim 26, Foo teaches the magnesium based hydrate composition is configured as a slurry (Foo, page 12 line 27 – page 13 line 10).
Considering claim 27-28, Foo teaches the composition further comprises clays (Foo, page 22, lines 1-7). Foo teaches the compound comprises calcium-magnesium hydroxide content of greater than or equal to 80 weight% (Foo, page 8 lines 9-13). Thus, it would be expected that the content of the clays would be less than 50% by weight.
Considering claim 32, it should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition. Foo teaches the claimed composition. Thus, the composition of Foo would also be configured to be exposed to CO2 wherein the composition is configured to react with said CO2 to form stable magnesium carbonates and hydrated magnesium carbonates and hence sequesters CO2.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo (WO 2019/020613 A1).
Considering claims 1 and 3, Foo teaches a calcium-magnesium sorbent composition (Foo, abstract) comprising magnesium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide (Foo, page 9 lines 5-7). Foo teaches a moisture/water content of 5-20 wt.% (Foo, page 24, lines 12-14). Foo teaches calcium-magnesium hydroxide content of greater than or equal to 80 weight% and the proportion of calcium to magnesium of 0.01 to 10 (Foo, page 8 lines 9-21). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed weight percentages of magnesium hydroxide containing material and metal hydroxide (i.e., Ca(OH)2) overlap the range taught by Foo (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
It should be noted “a magnesium hydroxide containing material” is any material that contains any non-zero amount of magnesium hydroxide; thus the composition that comprises 60-90% by weight of the magnesium hydroxide containing material can have any overall magnesium hydroxide content ranging from non-zero levels up to 90% by weight of the composition overall.
It should also be noted that the claim is directed to a composition. Foo teaches/obviates the claimed composition. Thus, the composition of Foo would also be configured to catalyze sequestration of carbon dioxide to the magnesium hydroxide containing material.
Considering claim 2, it should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition comprising a magnesium hydroxide containing material. Foo teaches a composition comprising a magnesium hydroxide containing material and the method by which the magnesium hydroxide containing material is obtained does not contribute any structural limitations to the composition/product.
Considering claims 4-5, Foo obviates the composition is configured as a granule which is 1 µm to 10 µm in size by teaching particles having d50 between 5 and 16 µm (Foo, page 11 lines 3-5).
Considering claim 6-7, Foo teaches the magnesium based hydrate composition is configured as a slurry with a solids content of 10-50% by weight (Foo, page 12 line 27 – page 13 line 10).
Considering claim 8, Foo teaches the magnesium based hydrate composition is configured as a slurry with a solids content of 10-50% by weight (Foo, page 12 line 27 – page 13 line 10). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of 5-15% solids content overlaps the range taught by Foo (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Considering claim 9-10, Foo teaches the composition further comprises clays (Foo, page 22, lines 1-7). Foo teaches the compound comprises calcium-magnesium hydroxide content of greater than or equal to 80 weight% (Foo, page 8 lines 9-13). Thus, it would be expected that the content of the clays would be less than 50% by weight.
It should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition. Foo teaches/obviates the claimed composition and teaches the composition further comprises the claimed silica containing materials. Thus, it would be expected that the silica containing materials of Foo would also be configured to increase sequestration of carbon to the magnesium hydroxide containing material.
Considering claim 11, Foo teaches the silica containing materials are selected from the claimed group by teaching kaolin, bentonite, and vermiculite (Foo, page 22, lines 1-7).
Considering claims 12-13, Foo teaches the composition further comprises inert materials such as clays (Foo, page 22, lines 1-7). Foo teaches the compound comprises calcium-magnesium hydroxide content of greater than or equal to 80 weight% (Foo, page 8 lines 9-13). Thus, it would be expected that the content of the clays would be less than 20% by weight. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of 5-20% overlaps the range taught by Foo (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
It should be noted that the claims are directed to a composition. Foo teaches/obviates the claimed composition and teaches the composition further comprises the claimed inerts such as clays. Thus, it would be expected that the inerts of Foo would also be configured to increase overall porosity of the magnesium hydroxide containing material and increase rate of sequestration of carbon to the magnesium hydroxide containing material.
Considering claims 14-15, Foo teaches the composition further comprises calcium sulfate among others (Foo, page 22 lines 1-7). Foo teaches the compound comprises calcium-magnesium hydroxide content of greater than or equal to 80 weight% (Foo, page 8 lines 9-13). Thus, it would be expected that the content of the other components (i.e., calcium sulfate) would be less than 20% by weight.
Considering claims 29-30, Foo teaches the composition further comprises inert materials such as clays (Foo, page 22, lines 1-7).
Considering claim 31, Foo teaches the composition further comprises calcium sulfate among others (Foo, page 22 lines 1-7).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foo (WO 2019/020613 A1) in view of Hio (JPH 05137950 A).
Considering claims 4-5, Foo teaches particles having d50 between 5 and 16 µm (Foo, page 11 lines 3-5), he does not explicitly teach that is configured as a pellet or granule.
However, Hio teaches the use of a powdered or granular slaked lime for treatment of an exhaust gas by injection of the treating agent (i.e., slaked lime) into the exhaust gas duct (Hio, abstract and [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the 5 and 16 µm particles of Foo to be configured as granules. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because both powder and granules are suitable forms of treatment agent for injection into an exhaust gas duct.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights