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 Interpretation
Claim 23 recites “a desulfurized lead-containing waste”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of desulfurization is a process of reducing the amount of sulfur in the lead-containing waste. However, the structure of claim 23 will be considered when assessing patentability of claim 23. The process of desulfurization of the lead-containing waste does not mean the structure of claim 23 has near zero lead sulfate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that Tyagi is describing a “pre-sulfated” lead oxide, which would inherently require at least some sulfate to be present. Applicant further argues on pg. 7 that Tyagi describes this “pre-sulfated” material as being useful for producing positive and/or negative battery plates more efficiently, therefore the sulfate component is of clear importance to this material. The material of instant claim 23 are desulfurized lead-containing waste which can be used to allow for more efficient smelting into lead ingot, as a consequence of the low levels of lead sulfate. These properties would not be shared or made obvious by the lead oxide material of Tyagi’s disclosure because it would be expected the lead oxide would comprise lead sulfates as the materials are pre-sulfated.
However, regardless of Tyagi’s use of the term “pre-sulfated”, Tyagi discloses a lead-containing waste in which the percentage of free lead, lead monoxide, lead dioxide and lead sulfate can be accurately controlled ([0016]). The percentages of the individual components could be zero as well ([0016]). Tyagi further discloses an embodiment described herein can be used to accurately control the percentage of sulfate (SO42-) ions in the form of lead sulfate (PbSO4) in the mixture of lead oxides obtained after treatment of the paste, obtained from used lead acid batteries, with the preferred alkali solution ([0019]). Another embodiment described herein provides a method of controlling the de-sulfurization of the paste using an alkali solution, preferably hydroxides or carbonates of sodium or potassium, by optimizing the reaction time, reaction temperature and alkali concentration ([0022]). With this multi-stage alkali treatment process, de-sulfurization in the range of 85%-99.99% may be achieved ([0059]). This may be used in preparing a "pre-sulfated” oxide ([0059]). Therefore, Tyagi discloses a desulfurized lead-containing waste as claimed. While the desulfurized lead-containing waste may be used in preparing a “pre-sulfated” oxide, it is not relevant since Tyagi discloses the claimed subject matter.
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.
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi et al (US 20160308261 A1).
Tyagi discloses the recycling of spent lead-acid batteries without smelting and recovering lead in metal and oxide form ([0002], meeting limitation “a lead-containing waste”). Tyagi further discloses high purity lead oxide aPb.xPbO.yPbO2.zPbSO4 in which the percentage of free lead (Pb) (“a”, up-to 35%), lead monoxide (PbO) (“x”, up-to 80%), lead dioxide (PbO2) (“y”, up-to 34%), and lead sulfate (PbSO4) (“z”, up-to 15%) can be accurately controlled… the percentages of the individual components (Pb, PbO, PbO2, and PbSO4) could be zero as well ([0016]).
Regarding the claim limitation “a desulfurized lead-containing waste”, Tyagi discloses another embodiment described herein provides a method of controlling the de-sulfurization of the paste using an alkali solution, preferably hydroxides or carbonates of sodium or potassium, by optimizing the reaction time, reaction temperature and alkali concentration ([0022]). With this multi-stage alkali treatment process, de-sulfurization in the range of 85%-99.99% may be achieved ([0059]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the range taught by Tyagi (“a”, up-to 35%) overlaps with the claimed range (Pb in an amount of at least 1 %). Therefore, the range in Tyagi renders obvious the claimed range.
In the instant case, the range taught by Tyagi (“x”, up-to 80%) overlaps with the claimed range (PbO in an amount of at least 40 %). Therefore, the range in Tyagi renders obvious the claimed range.
In the instant case, the range taught by Tyagi (“y”, up-to 34%) overlaps with the claimed range (PbO2 in an amount of at least 10 %). Therefore, the range in Tyagi renders obvious the claimed range.
Tyagi further discloses a high purity (99.99%) lead oxide as discussed above. Thus, the amount of lead hydroxide is necessarily equal to or less than 0.01%, which falls within the claimed range of less than 5 %.
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 NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738