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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Species 1 Fractionating and Species 2 contacting with acid in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant indicates claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 15, 20,22-23, 29, 33, 43-44, and 51 read on the elected Groups and Species. However, claim 51 is directed to a non-elected Species 1 and non-elected species 2 where the residue is contacted with base. The inclusion of this claim as reading on the elected species appears to be in the nature of a clerical error.
Claims 51 and 62 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions and non-elected species. There being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 15, 20,22-23, 29, 33, 43-44, are below examined.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/2/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 51 and 62 are objected to because of the following informalities: the status indicators should say (Withdrawn). Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/16/2024 and 3/22/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6, 8-10, 15, 20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 43-44, 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.
The term “alkaline rich mineral material” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “alkaline rich” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 23 and 29 recites the limitations "wherein the ratio of Ca(OH)2/CaCO3” and wherein the ratio of Ca (OH)2/CaSO4" lack antecedent basis (these claims depend from claim 1 which has not previously recited/required Ca(OH)2 or CaSO3 or CaSO4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The core and shell of claim 1 et seq. can be the same materials i.e. an oxide of calcium rendering the structure indefinite as a solid sphere of calcium oxide has an outer shell of calcium oxide and an inner material of calcium oxide vs. a core of calcium oxide with a coating of another material chemically/mechanically affixed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-10, 15, 20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 43-44, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheelock et al (US 2002/0103074)
Regarding Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 15, 20, 22, 23, 29, 33, 43-44,
Claim Interpretation:
Claim 1 recites “either (a) (b) or (c) by virtue of the election as above set forth for contacting with acid the elected variant is (b)
Claim 22 requires fractionating only when the mineral residue has carbonate of 50% or less by weight. As such this step is not required. The below prior art teachings encompass this limitation where the carbonate is less than 50 % and also provides for fractionating thereby overlapping when the carbonate is more than 50 %.
Regarding Regenerable/Reactivated Core Shell Mineral Residue:
Wheelock et al (US 2002/0103074) discloses a core shell sorbent for hot coal gas desulfurization. (Abstract) the sorbent is regenerable [0018] (meeting the limitation for reactivating a mineral residue) and can used for absorbing sulfurous gases such as H2S from hot coal gas from combustion products of coal fired boilers and the like [0024] (this includes desulfurizing flue gas [0004]) The sorbents solve previous problems for treating flue gas produced by coal combustion which is a mixture of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, (meeting claims 9) water vapor oxygen and sulfur dioxide and may be used to desulfurize flue gas [0003-0004] including making them regenerable. [0012-0016](meeting the limitations of claims 6 and 8-9)
The sorbent can be regenerated (Abstract) Lime CaO from decomposition of limestone is an excellent sorbent for hot gas cleanup and is regenerable [0008] (i.e. mineral residue of claims 1 and 33)
The core shell sorbent includes a reactive core and porous protective shell [0024] which made from limestone and may include cement. The coating includes a mixture of cement and/or cement limestone particles [0026] (meeting the limitation for a mineral residue of claims 1 and 10)
The shell may include various refractory materials including calcium aluminate cement and aluminum oxide as well as aluminates and silicate or various clay. The pellets are heat treated forming a shell structure. Sintering can be controlled through control of particles size [0104]
The sorbent may be manganese based core shell with various forms of manganese oxide or carbonate [0106] (meeting claims 1 and 4)
The core shell includes
PNG
media_image1.png
456
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(meeting the limitation for the residue to comprise and for a core with lime CaO of claims 1- 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
122
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(meeting the limitation of claims 1 and 4 for the shell to include oxide/hydroxide/carbonate/silicate/sulfite/sulfate, chloride, nitrate or nitrate of a Ca or Mg of claim 1 and for fly ash of claim 10 which is silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide iron oxide and calcium oxide)
(zeolite is a crystalline hydrated aluminosilicate comprised of silicon aluminum and oxygen)
(bentonite is aluminum phyllosilicate clay including sodium calcium or aluminum and attapulgite is hydrated magnesium aluminum phyllosilicate clay (MgAl)2 Si4O10(OH )4(HS2O))
(Portland cement calcium silicates and aluminates)
The reference teaches hydration of quicklime [0138] (meeting the limitation for hydrated lime of claims 8 and 10)
One of ordinary skill in the art can determine the additional core or shell materials appropriate to their particular application [0045]
Regarding Milling/Grinding and Fractionating:
Pulverized limestone core and cement are tumbled forming a core in shell pellet to desired size and separated by size and some are returned to the pelletized drum [0057] (milling/grinding and fractionated)
The material is ground and screened [0078][0106] (meeting the limitation for grinding and fractionating)
The shell may include various refractory materials including calcium aluminate cement and aluminum oxide as well as aluminates and silicate or various clay. The pellets are heat treated forming a shell structure. Sintering can be controlled through control of particles size [0104]
PNG
media_image3.png
958
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The sorbent can be regenerated by a proven cyclic oxidation and reduction method (see Wheelock, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,433,939 and 5,653,955). Other methods will be within the scope of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. [0055]
The sorbent can be regenerated (Abstract) Lime CaO from decomposition of limestone is an excellent sorbent for hot gas cleanup and is regenerable [0008] (i.e. mineral residue of claim 1) Sorbent regeneration can be done by a process such s one that converts CaS to CaO by alternatively oxidizing and reducing materials [0012](meeting and rendering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use sorbent residue obtained from mineral residue with a flue gas and hydrated lime used in flue gas treatment process)
[0055] The sorbents of the present invention have better mechanical properties than the prior art methods/sorbents, are regenerable, and are inexpensive. [0016] [0018]
The core shell structure is not limited to calcium based sorbents and provides strength and durability to withstand repeated loading and regeneration such as when the sorbent is converted from one chemical species to another during loading and converted back to original species during regeneration [0103][0104]
The sorbents have surface area such as 8.2 m2/g (rendering obvious and/or overlapping the claimed range of claims 15 and 20) (Tables 6 and 7)
Further Regarding fractionating the mineral residue by grinding or milling to expose the core and contacting with acid;
Goldberg et al (US 2011/0230334), like Wheelock, discloses sorbent particles for flue gases absorption (Abstract) [0035 0039]
The sorbent base can comprise calcium oxide and pulverized calcium carbonate [0019] the sorbent clay can comprise smectite [0020] and can be used for capture of flue gas contaminates. The sorbent base with dry mix 64-95% and clay with dry mix 4-30 % [0023]
The sorbent includes a lime core and a clay shell [0057]
The sorbent particles may be pulverized to reduce the size [0033] agglomeration of sorbent particles reduces efficiency: higher efficiency is obtained by pulverizing the sorbent particles prior to injection into a furnace close in time to injection to reduce agglomeration [0188] [0267] Size reduction of materials involves pulverization, grinding, milling or other such mechanical action. (meeting the limitation for grinding and milling and for exposing the core)
Ca(OS).sub.2 hydrated lime reacts with So.sub.2 greater than either calcium carbonate/limestone or calcium oxide during furnace injection due to higher chemical reactivates [0052]
Calcium carbonate is reacted with carbonic acid to form calcium bicarbonate to form a more basic sorbent [0220]
The sorbents form alkaline earth metal oxides such as from calcium carbonate [0235] (meeting claim 9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to grind/mill the sorbent for improved sizing properties to reduce agglomeration improve efficiency etc. and to treat with carbonic acid to form a more basic sorbent as taught by Goldberg in the process of Wheelock
Since the claimed process steps are performed on the claimed materials the resulting ratios of mineral residue will increase after the elected step and the product will possess a higher specific surface area and overlap the claimed ranges thereof. (rendering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention the limitations of instant claims 9, 15, 20 and 22-23, 29, 33) 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
See MPEP 2144.05(I): "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)"
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 accompanying this office action. Manovic et al WO 2013/003948 discloses a reusable sorbent for carbon dioxide capture having a core and shell construction (See claim 9 reference and claim 1 reference)The core comprises at least 25 pbw calcium oxide and cupric oxide at 1:1 ratio by weight and the shell comprises calcium oxide. See reference claims 10-12)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights