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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 21 January 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-18 and 20.
Status of Rejections
All previous prior art rejections are herein maintained.
The rejections of claims 3, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112 are herein maintained.
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 3, 10, and 11 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.
The term “hard” in claim 3 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” 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. In the instant case, it is not clear what structure or hardness is required to read on the instant claim limitation of “hard sulfate”. For examination on the merits, generic disclosure of lead sulfate will be interpreted to be a hard sulfate since it is provided in the examples and claim 3 where the metal comprises lead.
The term “hard” in claim 10 line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” 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. In the instant case, it is not clear what structure or hardness is required to read on the instant claim limitation of “hard sulfate”. For examination on the merits, generic disclosure of lead sulfate will be interpreted to be a hard sulfate since it is provided in the examples and claim 3 where the metal comprises lead.
The term “hard” in claim 11 line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” 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. In the instant case, it is not clear what structure or hardness is required to read on the instant claim limitation of “hard sulfate”. For examination on the merits, generic disclosure of lead sulfate will be interpreted to be a hard sulfate since it is provided in the examples and claim 3 where the metal comprises lead.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the hard sulfate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination on the merits, “the hard sulfate” will be interpreted to be dependent upon the more generic “the sulfate” of instant claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gossage et al (Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2020 167 120537).
As to claims 1 and 4, Gossage discloses a method for removing sulfate from a battery electrode, comprising:
placing the battery electrode in a chelate solution to solubilize the sulfate and remove sulfate deposits from the battery electrode (pg. 2 section “Removing lead sulfate from electrode via chelation therapy” “To evaluate hard sulfate removal through chelation, we cut the electrode plates into small pieces and soaked them in either: (1) 100 mM EDTA,”…” as required by instant claim 4) and
performing electrodeposition of a metal film (pg. 2 “Electrodepostion of Pb from Pb-Chelator complexes”) on the battery electrode to obtain a film on said battery electrode (Abstract “Thereafter, we explored electrodeposition of the Pb-EDTA complex as fresh electrode material and found reduction of Pb-EDTA required lower deposition overpotentials with decreasing pH” , Scheme 1, Conclusions “further using the resulting chelate-metal solutions for an electrodeposition step to refurbish the electrode.”)
wherein placing the battery electrode in a chelate solution involves soaking and the soaking results in a chelate-metal solution (see citation above);
wherein the electrodeposition comprising electrolysis of the chelate-metal solution (Conclusion “further using the resulting chelate-metal solutions for an electrodeposition step to refurbish the electrode.” Scheme 1).
As to claim 2, Gossage further discloses wherein the battery electrode comprises lead (Pb) and the sulfate comprises a hard sulfate, and placing the battery electrode in a solution comprises soaking the battery electrode in an alkaline EDTA solution to reshape a surface of the electrode by solubilizing PbSO4 to Pb-EDTA while avoiding underlying Pb phases. (See Scheme 1, section “Removing lead sulfates from electrodes via chelation therapy”, Abstract “Soaking the hard sulfate negative electrode in an alkaline EDTA solution reshaped the surface by solubilizing PbSO4 to Pb-EDTA while avoiding underlying Pb phases.”).
As to claims 8 and 9, Gossage further discloses treating the battery with a strong acid of sulfuric acid (Section “Testing of Pb deposits as negative electrode material”. “After electrodepositing Pb films onto a Au electrode, we rinsed the electrodes with fresh water and refilled the cell with 4.2 M H2SO4. We cycled the deposited films using cyclic voltammetry or constant…” where the “Treating” as claimed to be generic and thus the testing with sulfuric acid is interpreted to be “treating” as claimed).
As to claim 10, Gossage further discloses the sulfate is hard sulfate (Abstract “hard sulfate negative electrode).
As to claim 11, Gossage further discloses wherein the hard sulfate comprises PbSO4 crystals having a size in the range of about 20 – 100 micrometers (Section “Interactions between chelators and sulfates on battery electrodes” : “large PbSO4 crystals of various sizes (20–100 μm)”).
As to claims 12-15, Gossage discloses the pH to be 6.3 or 4.1 (Fig. 1) thus falling within the instantly claimed ranges.
As to claim 16, Gossage further discloses after soaking the battery electrode, washing the battery electrode in water. (Section “Removing lead sulfates from electrodes via chelation therapy” “Thereafter, we washed the electrodes with DI water and stored until further measurements.”).
As to claim 17, Gossage further discloses wherein placing the battery electrode in a chelate solution comprising soaking the battery electrode in the chelate solution for at least 12 hours (Fig. 1 “approximately 12 hours” “soaked for 12 h” “Interactions between chelators and sulfates on battery electrodes” section).
As to claims 18, Gossage further discloses wherein the performing electrodeposition of a metal film on the battery electrode comprises growth of the metal film through electrolysis of chelate-metal and reusing chelate molecules for further chelation reactions. (Section “Electrodeposition of Pb films from Pb-chelator complexes” “complexes.—In this section, we explored electrodeposition of fresh active electrode material from electrochemical reduction of Pb-EDTA solutions. Previous reports indicated the growth of high purity Pb films through electrolysis of Pb-EDTA, and capacity for reusing the EDTA molecules for further chelation reactions.”).
As to claim 20, Gossage further discloses a battery refurbished by the method of claim 1 (See Scheme 1 “refurbished”).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gossage in view of Gaumann et al (US 4,107,007).
As to claims 3 and 5, Gossage discloses wherein the battery electrode comprises lead (Pb) and the sulfate comprises a hard sulfate (Abstract “hard sulfate negative electrode), and placing the battery electrode in a solution comprises soaking the battery electrode in an solution to reshape the surface of the electrode by solubilizing PbSO4 while avoiding underlying Pb phases (See Scheme 1, section “Removing lead sulfates from electrodes via chelation therapy”, Abstract “Soaking the hard sulfate negative electrode in an alkaline EDTA solution reshaped the surface by solubilizing PbSO4 to Pb-EDTA while avoiding underlying Pb phases.”) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the solution comprises an ammonium salt, specifically ammonium carbonate as required by instant claim 5.
Gaumann discloses recovery of lead from scrapped lead acid batteries (Title) comprising using a solution comprising an ammonium salt, specifically ammonium carbonate (claim 1, col. 4 lines 1-2). Gaumann discloses the ammonium carbonate dissolved the lead oxides and lead sulfate upon soaking in the solution (claim 1 “…thereby dissolving said lead oxides and lead sulphate in said aqueous solution to provide lead ions in said aqueous solution;”) and subsequently using the solution to deposit lead onto a cathode to enable recover via an electrodeposition process (claim 1 “subjecting said aqueous solution in said electrolysis cell to electrolysis to form particles of lead metal at the cathode thereof and removing said particles of lead metal from said electrolysis cell.”, col. 9 lines 15-25”).
Thus, the prior art Gossage provides a method which both strips and deposits lead from a battery electrode but differs by the specific chemical used to remove the lead and electrodeposit the lead. Gaumann discloses that ammonium carbonate is a suitable chemical which is both capable of removing lead sulfates from a battery electrode and then electrodepositing the lead from the same solution.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have used ammonium carbonate as the chelate as taught by Gaumann in the chelate solution of Gossage because ammonium carbonate’s function in the prior art is known to both recover lead from a sulfated lead battery electrode and then subsequently electroplate lead from the same solution thus providing a predicable result of still enabling the recovery of lead as required in Gossage. See MPEP 2143 B and 2144.07.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gossage in view of Pan et al (CN 107779603 A with citations drawn to the provided translation).
As to claims 3 and 6, Gossage discloses wherein the battery electrode comprises lead (Pb) and the sulfate comprises a hard sulfate (Abstract “hard sulfate negative electrode), and placing the battery electrode in a solution comprises soaking the battery electrode in an solution to reshape the surface of the electrode by solubilizing PbSO4 while avoiding underlying Pb phases (See Scheme 1, section “Removing lead sulfates from electrodes via chelation therapy”, Abstract “Soaking the hard sulfate negative electrode in an alkaline EDTA solution reshaped the surface by solubilizing PbSO4 to Pb-EDTA while avoiding underlying Pb phases.”) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the solution comprises an ammonium salt, specifically ammonium phosphate as required by instant claim 6.
Pan discloses using ammonium phosphate as a conjugate in solution with EDTA to increase the leaching effect of lead sulfate (pg. 4 “adding sufficient X-Y conjugate solution; the
X-Y conjugated solution in the step, preferably is one or two of ammonia, thylenediamine, propylene diamine, ethylenediamine diacetic acid, ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid, propylene diamine diacetic acid, diethanol amine, triethanolamine, Y preferably ammonium bisulfate, ammonium sulphate, wherein X, ammonium nitrate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium hydrogen phosphate, ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, ammonium in the one kind of or two kinds. In order to better realize the leaching effect of lead sulphate, the concentration of X in the conjugate solution is 2-15 mol/L, controlling the concentration of Y is 0.2-5.0 mol/L, and continuously stirring under the condition of 20-120 degrees centigrade” emphasis added).
Thus, the prior art Gossage provides a method which both strips and deposits lead from a battery electrode but differs by the specific chemical used to remove the lead and electrodeposit the lead. Pan discloses that ammonium phosphate is a suitable chemical which is both capable of removing lead sulfates in conjunction with the EDTA.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have used ammonium phosphate as the chelate as taught by Pan in the chelate solution of Gossage because ammonium phosphate function in the prior art that leads to high leaching efficiency is known to both recover lead from a sulfated lead battery electrode and then subsequently electroplate lead from the same solution thus providing a predicable result of still enabling the recovery of lead as required in Gossage. See MPEP 2143 B and 2144.07.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gossage in view of Yang et al (CN 108715936 A).
As to claims 3 and 7, Gossage discloses wherein the battery electrode comprises lead (Pb) and the sulfate comprises a hard sulfate (Abstract “hard sulfate negative electrode), and placing the battery electrode in a solution comprises soaking the battery electrode in an solution to reshape the surface of the electrode by solubilizing PbSO4 while avoiding underlying Pb phases (See Scheme 1, section “Removing lead sulfates from electrodes via chelation therapy”, Abstract “Soaking the hard sulfate negative electrode in an alkaline EDTA solution reshaped the surface by solubilizing PbSO4 to Pb-EDTA while avoiding underlying Pb phases.”) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the solution comprises an ammonium salt, specifically ammonium acetate or an ammonium salt of a weak acid as required by instant claim 7.
Yang discloses recovery of lead from scrapped lead acid batteries (Abstract) comprising using a solution comprising an ammonium salt, specifically ammonium acetate (pg. 2 of the translation “the step one acetate solution in the solute is at least one mixture of ammonium Acetate” ). Yang discloses the ammonium carbonate dissolved the lead oxides and lead sulfate upon soaking in the solution leads to high leaching efficiency (pg. 2 “The inventor first creation discovery of acetate greatly improves the effect of leaching efficiency, and found that while participating in coordination leaching PbSO4, plays an important role not only is an acetate ion (AC -), more important it needs with NH4 + ions. discovery attempt by acetate, barium acetate, sodium acetate, calcium acetate and so on when extracting the PbSO4, it is found that the leaching rate are low, but when in the leaching process is adding ammonia water or acetate solution containing ammonium acetate to obtain the high leaching efficiency”) and subsequently using the solution to deposit lead onto a cathode to enable recover via an electrodeposition process (pg. 2 step 2 “step two: leaching diaphragm electrodeposition extracting lead” claim 1 “step two: leaching diaphragm electrodeposition extracting lead the lead-containing complex of step a”).
Thus, the prior art Gossage provides a method which both strips and deposits lead from a battery electrode but differs by the specific chemical used to remove the lead and electrodeposit the lead. Yang discloses that ammonium acetate is a suitable chemical which is both capable of removing lead sulfates from a battery electrode and then electrodepositing the lead from the same solution.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have used ammonium acetate as the chelate as taught by Yang in the chelate solution of Gossage because ammonium carbonate’s function in the prior art that leads to high leaching efficiency is known to both recover lead from a sulfated lead battery electrode and then subsequently electroplate lead from the same solution thus providing a predicable result of still enabling the recovery of lead as required in Gossage. See MPEP 2143 B and 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “hard sulfation” is a well known term in the arts and defined at [0005] of the as filed specification, this argument is not persuasive because “hard sulfation” is not the term used in the instant claims. The claims recite “hard sulfate” . Further, the definition provided is indefinite by itself because it does not provide any particular degree or the like as to when sulfation becomes “hard”. The term itself is not objectively tied to any specific value of a parameter, thus left to the subjective interpretation. [0005] recites “hard sulfation occurs when the PbSO4 crystals…become too large…reduce surface area…” (emphasis added). The term thusly is relied upon being defined by either a surface area, crystal size, or relative increase in cell resistance, all of which are not defined. Thus, it maintains to be indefinite when normal sulfation crosses over to “hard sulfation” since any amount of sulfation results in the claimed loss of capacity or increase in cell resistance.
Applicant argues that Gossage does not disclose performing electrodepostion, or that “electrodepostion was not achieved”. This argument is not persuasive because clearly Gossage discloses performing an electrodeposition step via lead recover using the chelate solution to regenerate battery electrodes. – See Scheme 1. Gossage explicitly discloses within the proposed process that the resultant electrodeposition results in a film on the electrode. Gossage anticipates the claimed process. A prior art reference provides an enabling disclosure and thus anticipates a claimed invention if the reference describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention; "proof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation." Impax Labs. Inc. v. Aventis Pharm. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1383, 81 USPQ2d 1001, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326, 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). See MPEP 2121 III, 2122, 2152.02(b). There is no requirement that the prior art either be absolutely successful in establishing the process or even being enabled. “However, in order for a prior art document to describe a claimed invention under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2), the prior art document need only describe and enable one skilled in the art to make a single species or embodiment of the claimed invention. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 1991)” See MPEP 2152.02(b).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response that Gaumann does not disclose electrodepostion of a film onto an electrode, this argument is not persuasive as Gaumann expressly discloses forming particles of lead metal at a cathode, thus resulting in a particle film on the electrode (Gaumann col. 9 lines 15-25).
In response that Pan does not disclose removing sulfate from an electrode, this argument is not persuasive because Pan expressly discloses the leaching, i.e. removal, of lead sulfate. Further, Pan is not relied upon for the teaching of electrodeposition of a film thus the argument is moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Yang does not disclose removing lead sulfate from a batter electrode, thus argument is not persuasive because Yang is expressly concerned with removing lead from battery scrap. Yang further discloses electrodepositing lead from the solution in order for extraction.
No further arguments are presented.
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 LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights