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 .
Applicant amended Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 17, and 18. Applicant added Claim 20. Support for the amendments and new claim are found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Olper et al. EP 2215277 B1 was inadvertently cited as “EP 3762519 B1” once at Section 9 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/16/2025. Any inconvenience to applicant is sincerely regretted. Reference to Olper et al. ‘277 (EP 2215277 B1) is herein corrected.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 05/19/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over NPL Queneau et al. are maintained under additional grounds necessitated by amendment.
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 12 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.
Claim 12 newly recites “processing with a slurry thickener” in Lines 2-3. While this claim amendment attempts to resolve an issue of clarity, it remains unclear the tangible and repeatable method step that is literally taken by the act of “processing.” Additionally, it remains that “the thickener overflow” in Line 3 and “the thickener underflow” in Line 4 have not been properly introduced as part of the method and lack literal antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required to establish concrete actionable and repeatable method steps, as well as properly introduce each element of the claims. Applicant argues the “thickener underflow” and “thickener overflow” “are inherent structures in a thickener.” However, Applicant provided no support for this assertation or explanation that these terms of art, “thickener underflow” and “thickener overflow” are inherent properties of the “slurry thickener.” Applicant is encouraged to tie a sufficient nexus between the presence of a slurry thickener and the instantly claimed method steps.
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 2215277 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, 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. 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. 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, (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. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited primary reference NPL Quenneau et al. does not teach leaching reverberatory furnace slag and teaches differences in chemistry between lead and zinc. Regardless of differences in chemistry between lead and zinc mentioned as part of a discussion on secondary zinc formation at (Section 3) of NPL Quenneau et al., the document as a whole teaches important similarities in the recycling of both lead and zinc which do share material characteristics. One of the unique differences between lead and zinc, detailed at Page 154, (Section 3) of NPL Quenneau et al. is that PbSO4 remains insoluble in sulfuric acid. However, Olper et al. ‘277 expressly teaches recovering lead from a lead pastel by leaching in a solution comprising ammonium chloride and maintaining the pH by varying the addition of ammonia.
Reverberatory furnaces may be used for a wide variety of applications. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recover lead from a reverberatory furnace slag at the leaching conditions taught in Olper et al. ‘277 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 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 3762519 B1 recovering lead from lead pastel by leaching in a solution of chloride and ammonium ions.
GB 2048307 A teaches recovering lead from slag recovered from a reverberatory furnace.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights