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 Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “reverb furnace” in Line 3 and “reverb slag” in Line 5. Claim 7 recites “reverb furnace” in Line 2. The word “reverb” is a shortened term without support in the instant Specification. Applicant is encouraged to fully spell out the word “reverberatory” to correspond to the disclosed subject matter.
Separately, the word “reverbatory” appears to be a misspelling of “reverberatory” in Claim 15 Line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites “the lead bearing materials” in Line 3 and “other lead bearing materials” in Line 2. There is a literal antecedent basis for “the lead bearing materials” because previous mention of “other lead bearing” materials is part of the claim preamble and is part of an intended use of the method. The presence of “the lead bearing materials” has not been properly introduced. Additionally, it is unclear whether the battery paste and metal scrap are present. None of the materials have been properly introduced in the method. Appropriate correction is required to establish concrete actionable and repeatable method steps, as well as properly introduce each element of the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a reverb furnace” in Line 3, and Claim 15 recites “the same reverbatory furnace with the battery paste and scrap metal” in Lines 2 and 3. It is unclear the following:
It is unclear whether “the same reverbatory furnace with the battery paste and scrap metal” and “a reverb furnace” are referencing the same apparatus. Applicant is encouraged to be consistent in terminology throughout the claims.
The recitation “the same reverberatory furnace with the battery paste and scrap metal” lacks antecedent basis because it is not set forth in Claim 1 that “battery paste and scrap metal” are in the “reverb furnace.”
It is further unclear whether “other lead bearing materials” includes “battery paste and scrap metal” because these elements have not been set forth as included in the method claims.
Claim 1 recites “the slurry” in Line 8. The presence of “slurry” has not been properly introduced and lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, it is unclear in the claim language from what material the slurry derives or from which process slurry forms or results from. For instance, it could have derived from an outside source or be added in from a separate leaching step or process. Appropriate correction is required to establish concrete actionable and repeatable method steps, as well as properly introduce each element of the claims.
Claim 1 recites the term “processing” in Line 13. It is unclear what is meant by “processing” and what tangible repeatable method step “processing” entails. The term “processing” 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. Appropriate correction is required to make clear what actionable method step is taken regarding the precipitated lead carbonate.
Claim 7 recites “the precipitated lead carbonate (PbCO3) is dewatered,” however there is no previous mention of water being present in the claimed components. Therefore, it is unclear whether “dewatered” is intended to have the meaning of removing water from, solid-liquid separation, or some other meaning entirely. Applicant’s Specification at [00020] references a “precipitation filter.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “a pregnant leach solution” in Lines 1-2 and “the pregnant leach solution in Line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same leach solution or a different leach solution from the “pregnant leach solution” in Claim 1 Line 9. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is encouraged to be consistent in their terminology and to clearly set forth the source of each element of the method claims.
Claim 12 recites the term “processing” in Line 2. It is unclear what is meant by “processing” and what tangible repeatable method step “processing” entails. The term “processing” 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. Appropriate correction is required to make clear what actionable method step is taken regarding the slurry thickener.
Claim 12 recites “the slurry thickener” in Line 2, “the thickener overflow” in Line 3 and “the thickener underflow” in Line 4. These terms have not been properly introduced and lack antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to establish concrete actionable and repeatable method steps, as well as properly introduce each element of the claims.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, and 13-16 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Queneau et al. in view of Olper et al. EP 3762519 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Quenneau et al. teaches a method of recovering lead and antimony from battery paste, metal scrap, and other lead bearing materials comprising smelting the lead bearing metals in a reverberatory furnace to recover metallic lead (Pages 153-154) and leaching the resultant reverb slag with ammonium chloride solution (Page 160), precipitating antimony from the slurry separating a pregnant leach solution from the slurry (Page 150), precipitating lead carbonate from the pregnant leach solution with carbon dioxide, separating the precipitated lead carbonate; and processing the precipitated lead carbonate to recover metallic lead (Page 150).
NPL Quenneau et al. expressly teaches combining pyrometallurgical with hydrometallurgical processes in lead recovery from spent batteries at (Page 150) and teaches lead recovery is a function of pH and temperature at (Page 157) but NPL Quenneau et al. does not expressly teach the temperature range or pH of leaching.
However, Olper et al. ‘277 teaches recovering lead with ammonium chloride leaching of lead paste in a solution comprising 100-600 g/L NH4Cl at a temperature of 50 °C to 110 °C [0033], overlapping the ranges of the instant Claim. The concentration of ammonium chloride and reaction temperature are controlled to reduce the potential for secondary reactions [0047]. Olper et al. further teaches electrolytic lead recovery with ammonium chloride leaching is maintained at a pH of 6 to 7 [0047], overlapping the ranges of the instant Claim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recover lead in the process taught in NPL Quenneau et al. at the conditions taught in Olper et al. in order to prevent corrosion, avoid secondary reactions, and reduce the formation of dangerous products based on the teachings of Olper et al. ‘277 at [0047].
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 2-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Queneau et al. in view of Olper et al. EP 2215277 B1 as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Hideto et al. JPH 1110170 A.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above.
NPL Quenneau et al. does not expressly teach precipitating antimony from the slurry with ferric chloride.
However, Hideto et al. ‘170 teaches the conventional removal of antimony from antimony-containing solutions is achieved with an iron compound as a coagulation aid [0002] and the process of removal is increased in efficiency with the use of ferric chloride [0010].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to precipitate antimony with ferric chloride in the process taught in NPL Quenneau et al. in order to increase the efficiency of antimony removal based on the teachings of Hideto et al. ‘170 at [0010].
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. As set forth above, NPL Quenneau et al. teaches lead recovery is a function of pH and temperature at (Page 157) but does not expressly teach the temperature range or pH of leaching.
However, Olper et al. ‘277 teaches electrolytic lead recovery with ammonium chloride leaching is maintained at a pH of 6 to 7 [0047], overlapping the ranges of the instant Claims of a pH between 5.5 and 7 and between 6 and 6.8.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. As set forth above, NPL Quenneau et al. teaches lead recovery is a function of pH and temperature at (Page 157) but does not expressly teach the temperature range or pH of leaching.
However, Olper et al. ‘277 teaches ammonium chloride leaching of lead paste in a solution comprising 100-600 g/L NH4Cl at a temperature of 50 °C to 110 °C [0033], overlapping the ranges of the instant Claims of a temperature between 40 °C and 70 °C and between 50 °C to 60 °C.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Quenneau et al. teaches lead carbonate is filtered prior to processing in a reverberatory furnace (Pages 154-155), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. As set forth above, NPL Quenneau et al. teaches lead recovery is a function of pH and temperature at (Page 157) but does not expressly teach the temperature range or pH of leaching.
However, Olper et al. ‘277 teaches ammonium chloride leaching of lead paste in a solution comprising 100-600 g/L NH4Cl at a temperature of 50 °C to 110 °C [0029], overlapping the ranges of the instant Claims of an ammonium chloride concentration between 300 g/L and 380 g/L and between 330 g/L and 360 g/L.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Quenneau et al. further teaches precipitating lead carbonate either in the same reverberatory furnace as the spent lead acid battery or in a blast furnace, a separate furnace to recover soft lead, (meeting the limitation for high purity lead) (Pages 150-151, 157), meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Queneau et al. in view of Olper et al. EP 2215277 B1 further in view of Hideto et al. JPH 1110170 A as applied to Claims 2-9 and 15-16 above, further in view of Lan CN 106967884 A.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. NPL Quenneau et al. and Olper et al. ‘277 do not expressly teach the solids concentration during leaching.
However, Lan ‘884 teaches ammonium chloride leaching of a lead-containing material with a liquid-solid ratio during leaching of 1:1 to 20:1 [0017].
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to leach with a solids concentration between 5 and 50%, overlapping the ranges of the instant Claims of between 3 a% and 8% and between 4% and 6%, in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of leaching based on the teachings of Lan ‘884 at [0017], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Queneau et al. in view of Olper et al. EP 2215277 B1 further in view of Hideto et al. JPH 1110170 A as applied to Claims 2-9 and 15-16 above, further in view of NPL Sandoval et al.
Regarding Claim 12, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Quenneau et al. does not expressly teach the slurry thickener overflow is part of the pregnant leach solution and the slurry thickener underflow is subjected to filtering and the resulting filtrate is also part of the pregnant leach solution.
However, NPL Sandoval et al. teaches recovering metal with electrowinning after separating a pregnant leach solution from slurry wherein the slurry thickener overflow is part of the pregnant leach solution and the slurry thickener underflow is subjected to filtering and the resulting filtrate is also part of the pregnant leach solution (Pages 497-498).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to cycle both the slurry thickener overflow and the filtered slurry thickener underflow to the pregnant leach solution in order to reduce processing waste and increase the amount of lead recovered, based on the teachings of NPL Sandoval et al. at (Pages 497-498), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Queneau et al. in view of Olper et al. EP 2215277 B1 further in view of Hideto et al. JPH 1110170 A as applied to Claims 2-9 and 15-16 above, further in view of Jun-qing et al. CN 110857454 A.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Modified NPL Quenneau et al. teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, NPL Quenneau et al. does not expressly teach at least some of the liquid remaining after the separation of the precipitated lead carbonate contains ammonium chloride and is reused in the leaching step.
However, Jun-qing et al. ‘454 teaches a lead recovery process wherein lead carbonate is precipitated and at least some of the liquid remaining after the separation of the precipitated lead carbonate is ammonium chloride [0037, 0053-0054]. Jun-qing et al. ‘454 further teaches at least some of the liquid remaining after the separation of the precipitated lead carbonate is reused in the leaching step [0054].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recycle at least some of the liquid remaining after the separation of the precipitated lead carbonate back into the leaching step in order to reduce processing waste and increase the amount of lead recovered, based on the teachings of Jun-qing et al. ‘454 at [0054], meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11667990 B2 teaches recovering lead from lead paste by leaching with 100-600 g/L aluminum chloride at 50 to 110 °C.
US 4704260 A teaches lead removal with acid leaching in aqueous solution.
Fan, Yangyang, et al. "High purity metal lead recovery from zinc direct leaching residue via chloride leaching and direct electrolysis." Separation and Purification Technology 263 (2021): 118329 teaches the benefits of electrolytic reaching at a neutral pH.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733