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 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1, in line 6, the word “reactor” is omitted after the word “electrolytic”; and
claim 17, in line 7, “for a ball mill” appears to be improperly included here since this claim relates to a Barton pot process.
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.
Claim 16 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 16 recites the limitation "the ball mill" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 16 depends from “any one of the preceding claims”. While claims 10-14 do provide antecedent basis for “the ball mill”, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-9 do not provide a proper antecedent basis. It is suggested to amend the dependency of claim 16 to rely on only claim 10 instead of “any one of the preceding claims”.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke et al (US 2018/0127888) in view of Dix (“Comparison of Barton-pot and ball-mill processes for making leady oxide”).
Regarding claim 1, Clarke et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0028]-[0031], [0041], [0046], and claims 1-10) a process of forming high-purity lead comprising producing metallic lead at a cathode of an electrolytic reactor from an aqueous lead ion-containing electrolyte (e.g. methane sulfonic acid), wherein the lead is formed in the form of a nanocrystalline lead matrix containing at least some of the electrolyte entrapped therein, harvesting the metallic lead from the electrolytic reactor, removing a portion of the electrolyte from the metallic lead to form a lead feedstock that contained a residual amount of the electrolyte and recovering the lead feedstock as a high-purity lead. Note that the electrolyte of Clarke et al included methanesulfonic acid, which meets the claim limitation of the “electrolyte comprises an impurity, and optionally wherein the impurity comprises a sulfurous compound”.
Thus, Clarke et al fail to teach a step of feeding the high-purity lead into an oxidation device and operating the oxidation device under conditions that form lead suboxide in particulate form.
Dix teaches (see Introduction and Process operation sections) that high-purity lead may be treated for conversion to “leady oxide” (i.e. lead suboxide as claimed) by feeding a high-purity lead to an oxidation device and operating the oxidation device under conditions that for the leady oxide in particulate form. Lastly, the method included recovery of the leady oxide from the oxidation device.
Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the high-purity lead product taught by Clarke et al as the high-purity lead in the process taught by Dix. The prior art included each claimed element, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Note that the residual amounts of electrolyte comprising methanesulfonic acid in the high-purity lead of Clarke et al would have also been subjected to the oxidizing conditions in the oxidation device and would have inherently been oxidized to an amount of less than 0.01 wt% as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0051]) using a rotating disk cathode where lead was removed from the cathode at another portion of the cathode from the portion where lead was deposited.
Regarding claim 4, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0040]) that the residual electrolyte could be removed from the high-purity lead by washing with an intermediate solvent. Although Clarke et al do not teach the identity of the intermediate solvent, water would have been immediately envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art as being suitable for the intermediate solvent since the high-purity lead was compatible with water and a relatively pure water would have reduced the impurity content of the lead.
Regarding claim 5, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0019]) that the step of removing the electrolyte could include a step of compression.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Dix teaches the oxidation device being either a ball mill or a Barton pot.
Regarding claim 8, Dix et al teach (see Process operation section) that the leady oxide material comprised either 65-80 wt% lead monoxide with the remainder being metallic lead or 60-65 wt% lead monoxide with the remainder being metallic lead.
Regarding claim 10, Clarke et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0028]-[0031], [0041], [0046], and claims 1-10) a process of forming high-purity lead comprising producing metallic lead at a cathode of an electrolytic reactor from an aqueous lead ion-containing electrolyte (e.g. methane sulfonic acid), wherein the lead is formed in the form of a nanocrystalline lead matrix containing at least some of the electrolyte entrapped therein and removing a portion of the electrolyte from the metallic lead to form a lead feedstock that contained a residual amount of the electrolyte and recovering the lead feedstock as a high-purity lead. Note that the electrolyte of Clarke et al included methanesulfonic acid, which meets the claim limitation of the “electrolyte comprises an impurity, and optionally wherein the impurity comprises a sulfurous compound”.
Thus, Clarke et al fail to teach a step of feeding the high-purity lead into a ball mill and operating the ball mill under conditions that form lead suboxide in particulate form.
Dix teaches (see Introduction and Process operation sections) that high-purity lead may be treated for conversion to “leady oxide” (i.e. lead suboxide as claimed) by feeding a high-purity lead to a ball mill and operating the ball mill under conditions that for the leady oxide in particulate form. Lastly, the method included recovery of the leady oxide from the oxidation device.
Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the high-purity lead product taught by Clarke et al as the high-purity lead in the process taught by Dix. The prior art included each claimed element, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Note that the residual amounts of electrolyte comprising methanesulfonic acid in the high-purity lead of Clarke et al would have also been subjected to the oxidizing conditions in the ball mill and would have inherently been oxidized to an amount of less than 0.01 wt% as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0051]) using a rotating disk cathode where lead was removed from the cathode at another portion of the cathode from the portion where lead was deposited.
Regarding claim 12, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0019]) that the step of removing the electrolyte could include a step of compression.
Regarding claim 13, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0042]) the electrolyte comprising methane sulfonic acid (i.e. an organic acid).
Regarding claim 14, Dix et al teach (see Process operation section) that the leady oxide material comprised either 65-80 wt% lead monoxide with the remainder being metallic lead or 60-65 wt% lead monoxide with the remainder being metallic lead.
Regarding claim 16, the high-purity lead produced by Clarke et al included residual electrolyte.
Regarding claim 17, Clarke et al teach (see abstract, paragraphs [0028]-[0031], [0041], [0046], and claims 1-10) a process of forming high-purity lead comprising producing metallic lead at a cathode of an electrolytic reactor from an aqueous lead ion-containing electrolyte (e.g. methane sulfonic acid), wherein the lead is formed in the form of a nanocrystalline lead matrix containing at least some of the electrolyte entrapped therein and removing a portion of the electrolyte from the metallic lead to form a lead feedstock that contained a residual amount of the electrolyte and recovering the lead feedstock as a high-purity lead. Note that the electrolyte of Clarke et al included methanesulfonic acid, which meets the claim limitation of the “electrolyte comprises an impurity, and optionally wherein the impurity comprises a sulfurous compound”.
Thus, Clarke et al fail to teach a step of feeding the high-purity lead into a ball mill and operating the ball mill under conditions that form lead suboxide in particulate form.
Dix teaches (see Introduction and Process operation sections) that high-purity lead may be treated for conversion to “leady oxide” (i.e. lead suboxide as claimed) by feeding a high-purity lead to a Barton pot process and operating the Barton pot under conditions that for the leady oxide in particulate form. The Barton pot process involved melting the high-purity lead and feeding the liquid lead into the Barton pot while stirring under a forced flow of air. Lastly, the method included recovery of the leady oxide from the Barton pot.
Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have utilized the high-purity lead product taught by Clarke et al as the high-purity lead in the process taught by Dix. The prior art included each claimed element, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. See MPEP 2143.I.A.
Note that the residual amounts of electrolyte comprising methanesulfonic acid in the high-purity lead of Clarke et al would have also been subjected to the oxidizing conditions in the Barton pot and would have inherently been oxidized to an amount of less than 0.01 wt% as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0051]) using a rotating disk cathode where lead was removed from the cathode at another portion of the cathode from the portion where lead was deposited.
Regarding claim 19, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0019]) that the step of removing the electrolyte could include a step of compression.
Regarding claim 20, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0042]) the electrolyte comprising methane sulfonic acid (i.e. an organic acid).
Regarding claim 21, Dix et al teach (see Process operation section) that the leady oxide material comprised either 65-80 wt% lead monoxide with the remainder being metallic lead or 60-65 wt% lead monoxide with the remainder being metallic lead.
Regarding claim 23, Clarke et al teach (see paragraph [0046]) the compressed lead contained about 10% or less of the solvent.
Regarding claim 24, Dix teaches melting of the lead, which occurs at a temperature of 621°F, but also teaches (see Process variables section) keeping the molten lead below 488°C (~910°F). It would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art to have determined a suitable temperature within the range from above the melting point of lead and to below the temperature of b-PbO formation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Spence (US 2017/0170531) is made of record as reciting a method of recovery of lead from spent lead-acid batteries, wherein after the lead is recovered via electrowinning, it was suggested (see last sentence of paragraph [0032]) to feed the metallic lead to a ball mill for oxidation. However, by terminology, Spence discloses recovery of the lead on the anode of the electrowinning cell (e.g. claim 10) despite showing connecting the electrode (128) to the negative pole of the voltage source. By convention, the negative-biased electrode in an electrolysis process is a cathode and the positive-biased electrode is the anode, which is opposite of what Spence shows. Spence fails to expressly recite that the metallic lead contains some of the aqueous lead ion-containing electrolyte. Arguably the process of Spence may meet the limitations of the claimed invention, but due to the ambiguity of the cathode/anode labels in Spence and the lack of recitation of the metallic lead containing some of the electrolyte as compared to the clear discussion of the cathode electrowinning process in Clarke et al the Office holds any such potential rejection ground in abeyance since Clarke et al forms a more complete basis for rejection than Spence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY D WILKINS III whose telephone number is (571)272-1251. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am -6:00pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/HARRY D WILKINS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794