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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 8 & 22 are amended and Claims 8-12 and 16-24 are pending examination, as discussed below.
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 22 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.
The limitation of “said further fragmentation” is unclear because there are multiple “further fragmentation” steps in claim 8 and it isn’t clear where this new step points back to and fits in with the process.
Regarding the limitation of “said further brass chips have a lead content between 0.1% and 1.5% by weight”, this range is narrower than the parent claim 8, which is allowed to be 0%. So, it is unclear how this limitation works with and fits into the process of claim 8. Is lead supposed to be added back in to meet the new minimum amount?
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.
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 8, 11-12, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp et al. (US-2825644-A), hereinafter Kemp, in view of Bonomi et al. (US-6284053-B1), hereinafter Bonomi, in view of Guo et al. (CN-106350689-A), hereinafter Guo, wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein, and in view of Chen et al. (CA-3012592-A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 8, Kemp teaches a process for removing lead from turnings and grindings of copper base alloys (Col. 1 L. 15-21) specifically brass (Col. 1 L. 71 – Col. 2 L. 3), reducing the lead content by 70-80% on average and up to 95% when the grindings are fine (Col. 2 L. 65-70). Examples having a final lead content of 1.0 % and 2.3% (Col. 3 L. 47-53) which constitutes the claimed method for obtaining a brass billet.
Kemp further teaches the process of treating turnings and/or grindings (Col. 1 L. 18-21, Col. 2 L. 50-69) which constitutes the claimed performing mechanical machining by chip removal on a finished or semi-finished product of traditional brass to obtain traditional brass chips; performing on said traditional brass chips a fragmentation treatment to obtain traditional brass fragments.
Kemp further teaches a treatment on the grindings or turnings of nitric acid (Col. 2 L. 17-20), but is silent to using an organic acid.
Bonomi teaches a deleading process (Col. 1 L. 6-12) including a treatment bath including at least one of acids including acrylic and propionic acid (Col. 3 L. 4-11) in order to beneficially dissolve lead selectively while not dissolving copper (Col. 3 L. 65-44) which constitutes the claimed performing on said brass fragments a lead removal treatment to obtain brass fragments with reduced lead content, wherein the lead removal treatment consists of lead removal bathing in a solution of water and one or more organic acids.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the one or more acids including acrylic and propionic acid according to Bonomi to the process according to Kemp in order to beneficially dissolve lead selectively while not dissolving copper as taught by Bonomi.
As discussed above, Kemp teaches reducing the lead content by 70-80% and upwards of 95% (Col. 2 L. 65-70) and teaches in Example II, having an end lead content of 2.3% (Col. 3 L. 47-53). Kemp further teaches in Example I, a lower initial lead content which results in a final lead content of 1%, after starting at a lower lead content than that of example II (Col. 3 L. 7-25, 32-53).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would therefore find it obvious to conduct a second lead removal process, or more as needed, to produce ingots which are relatively low in lead as desired by Kemp (Col. 1 L. 18-21). This constitutes the claimed performing a further fragmentation treatment and a further lead removal treatment on said pressed brass fragments with reduced lead content, and obtaining pressed brass fragments with reduced lead content less than 1.5% by weight since a second lead removal process according to Kemp with a starting lead content of 2.3% would be expected to have a final lead content of 0.46-0.69% based on the 70-80% reduction and 0.12% for a 95% reduction. In the same manner, another treatment of Example I with a starting point of 1% lead, would end up being only 0.05% lead.
Guo teaches a pretreatment of processing chips including pressing and heating in order to beneficially result in no more than 0.2 wt% of oil and water while producing non-toxic discharge ([0067]) which constitutes the claimed pressing said brass fragments with reduced lead content and performing a further fragmentation treatment on said pressed brass fragments with reduced lead content.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the pretreatment according to Guo to the process of modified Kemp prior to the second lead removal process in order to beneficially result in no more than 0.2 wt% of oil and water while producing non-toxic discharge as taught by Guo.
Kemp further teaches the brass being remelted and used to produce ingots (Col. 1 L. 18-21) which constitutes the claimed melting, in a furnace, a charge comprising said pressed brass fragments with reduced lead content less than 1.5% by weight.
Kemp does not explicitly disclose the charge comprising pure copper and pure zinc.
Chen teaches that in a casting process of brass, turning scraps may be used as a raw material ([0038]-[0041]) and pure copper and pure zinc may also be added in order to beneficially obtain a desired composition ([0069]) which constitutes the claimed charge comprising pure copper and pure zinc.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the pure copper and pure zinc according to Chen to the method according to modified Kemp in order to beneficially obtain a desired composition as taught by Chen.
Kemp does not explicitly disclose a processing following casting of an ingot.
Guo teaches that an ingot should be extruded to form a billet as part of a processing of copper alloys in order to produce finished products ([0013], [0079]-[0084]) which constitutes the claimed obtaining a billet by direct or inverted extrusion of a cast of a molten product. The bar, formed from the billet, is machined via turning to produce parts. The machining process would make more chips from the turning process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the extrusion to form a billet according to Guo to the process according to modified Kemp in order to prepare to produce a finished product and since Kemp does not teach processing following casting of an ingot.
Regarding the amended limitation of obtaining a billet to form a bar, to then process the bar to form brass chips, to then process the brass chips for lead removal, this limitation is simply a duplication of the previous limitations of claim 8. As mentioned above, it would be obvious to repeat this process during normal manufacturing steps. In other words, using the bar formed to make a product and then recycling and processing the chips and fragments from the process of making the product as disclosed above is shown as being known and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 8.
As discussed above, Kemp teaches the treatment being performed upon grindings (Col. 1 L. 18-21, Col. 2 L. 50-69) which constitutes the claimed the fragmentation treatment consists of grinding.
Regarding claim 12, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 8.
As discussed above, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches treatment with acrylic and/or propionic acid (Bonomi Col. 3 L. 4-11) which overlaps the claimed the one or more organic acids are selected from the group consisting of butyric acid, propionic acid, and acrylic acid.
Regarding claim 16, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 8.
As discussed above, modified Kemp teaches treatment with acrylic and/or propionic acid (Bonomi Col. 3 L. 4-11) which overlaps the claimed one or more organic acids comprises acrylic acid.
Regarding claim 17, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 8.
As discussed above, Kemp teaches the process reducing the lead content by 70-80% on average (Col. 2 L. 65-67) and Kemp desires to produce ingots which are relatively low in lead (Col. 1 L. 18-21) with an example I having a final lead content of 1% (Col. 3 L. 7-25) and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would find it obvious to repeat the lead removal process in order to achieve a desired low lead content which overlaps the claimed said pressing, said further fragmentation treatment, and said further lead removal treatment are performed multiple times to obtain said pressed brass fragments with reduced lead content less than 1.5% by weight.
Regarding claim 18, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 17.
As discussed above, modified Kemp teaches a treatment bath including at least one of acids including acrylic and propionic acid (Bonomi Col. 3 L. 4-11) which is within the claimed said further lead removal treatment consists of lead removal bathing in a solution of water and one or more organic acids.
Regarding claim 19, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 8.
As discussed above, modified Kemp teaches a treatment bath including at least one of acids including acrylic and propionic acid (Bonomi Col. 3 L. 4-11) and Bonomi further teaches the acid being used in concentration of 0.01-1 mol/l (Col. 3 L. 20-25) which is within the claimed said further lead removal treatment consists of lead removal bathing in a solution of water and one or more organic acids.
Regarding claim 20, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 8.
As discussed above, Kemp teaches in Example I and II, an end lead content of 1.0% and 2.3% respectively (Col. 3 L. 47-53) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to repeat the lead removal process in order to achieve a desired low lead content which overlaps the claimed prior to said pressing, testing a lead content of said brass fragments with reduced lead content and determining said lead content to be 1.5% or more by weight.
Regarding claim 21, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 8.
Kemp further teaches that that more lead may be eliminated from grindings and very fine turnings compared to ordinary turnings (Col. 2 L. 63-69) and therefore it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to repeat the pressing and turning and/or grinding of Kemp as modified by Bonomi and Guo in order to beneficially improve lead elimination, which constitutes the claimed plurality of said pressing steps and a plurality of said further fragmentation treatments prior to performing said further lead removal treatment, in order to increase the external surface area of said pressed brass fragments with reduced lead content prior to said further fragmentation treatment.
Regarding claim 22, Kemp is silent to repeating the processing of the brass fragments and chips until a desired lead content is obtained.
Kemp does teach processing the brass such that at the end of the process, a lead content of 1% is obtained (Example I), which is within the claimed 0.1% and 1.5%. Kemp also teaches that the elimination of lead from the brass is improved by the size of the turnings and grindings (Col. 2, ln 1-20).
As discussed above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to repeat the lead removal process in order to achieve a desired low lead content. Repeating the same process to further purify the same material by the known methods, for known reasons and with expected results is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Kemp as modified by Bonomi, Guo, and Chen teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 22.
It would additionally be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the teachings of Chen in any subsequent melting processes since Chen teaches the beneficial effects as discussed above, which constitutes the claimed after said further chip removal, said another further fragmentation treatment, and said another further lead removal treatment, melting, in a furnace, a second charge comprising additional pure coper, additional pure zinc, and said further brass chips, and obtaining a billet therefrom.
Regarding claim 24, Bonomi teaches using butyric acid (3:1-10).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp (US-2825644-A), Bonomi (US-6284053-B1), Guo (CN-106350689-A), and Chen (CA-3012592-A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Myerson et al. (US-6197210-B1), hereinafter Myerson.
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Kemp teaches the claim elements as discussed above regarding claim 8.
Kemp teaches the treatment including agitation (Col. 1 L. 33-34).
Myerson teaches a treatment of brass components to reduce leachable lead therefrom (Col. 1 L. 5-9) with the treatment including ultrasonic agitation to beneficially ensure maximum contact between the solution and the brass (Col. 5 L. 33-54, Col. 7 L. 8-20) which constitutes the claimed the lead removal bathing is agitated of claim 9 and the claimed the lead removal bathing is agitated by ultrasound of claim 10.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the ultrasonic agitation according to Myerson to the process according to modified Kemp in order to beneficially ensure maximum contact between the solution and the brass as taught by Myerson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the references and common recycling practice does not teach the claimed limitations of claim 8 because “A standard recycling process would simply proceed with using the obtained brass chips to form another billet and/or bar, without the additional steps”. This argument is not persuasive since as discussed in the interview of 11/10/25, once the billet is formed and then the bar is formed, as taught by the prior art, the bar can be used for making a product. The process of making the product would produce chips and fragmentations and so read on the “subjecting said bar to further chip removal to obtain further brass chips”. Now that the brass chips and fragments are made, the process as discussed above in the prior art would be done again. This reads on the claimed process, which amounts to recycling the unused chips and fragments of brass that are created by making a product.
Applicant argues Claim 22 is not taught by the prior art. This argument is not persuasive since, as discussed above, the claim has 112 indefinite issues. Beside those issues, the process of
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regelbrugge (US 5958257) also teaches reducing the amount of lead in brass and teaches using many different carboxylic acids including all those claimed (4:12-20).
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 KEITH WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735