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's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 03/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I is misclassified and should be classified with Group II. Applicant argues “C22B 13/045 is a sub-group within C22B 13 that specifically covers wet processes for extracting metal compounds from ores or concentrates, with a focus on multi-metal extraction (three or more metals). The process of Invention I produces lead carbonate (PbCO3), which is a compound with only a single metal, not a multi-metal compound.” This is not found persuasive because the preamble of the claim states “A process for producing ammonium sulfate, the process comprising : providing a waste material… to produce lead carbonate”. C22B 13/045 classification covers “Obtaining lead, by wet processes, recovery from waste materials” and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the restriction is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acoveno et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,883, 348) in view of (Kolakowski(U.S. Pat. No. 4,273,746).
Regarding claim 1, Acoveno et al. teaches producing a useful commercial product, ammonium sulfate which meets the limitation of process for producing ammonium sulfate (abstract). Acoveno et al. teaches the recovery of valuable materials from the lead-containing residue of certain types of storage batteries comprising lead sulfate which meets the limitation of providing an industrial waste material that includes at least lead sulfate (column 2). Acoveno et al. teaches battery waste which ultimately results from continued usage does include primarily lead sulfate, lead peroxide or oxide and a water solution of sulfuric acid in various amounts of concentration which meets the limitation of providing an industrial waste material that includes at least lead sulfate and sulfuric acid (column 1, lines 35-50). Acoveno et al. teaches reacting the lead sulfate with ammonium carbonate to produce lead carbonate (column 2, lines 40-50). Acoveno et al. teaches waste materials are first agitated in a solution of ammonium carbonate to produce ammonium sulfate and lead carbonate but does not teach adding ammonium hydroxide to the industrial waste material to raise the pH thereof and react the sulfuric acid to produce ammonium sulfate (column 2, lines 40-55).
Kolakowski teaches the battery mud being comprised of residual sulfuric acid, lead sulfate which meets the limitation of providing an industrial waste material that includes at least lead sulfate and sulfuric acid (column 1, lines 15-35). Kolakowski teaches residual sulfuric acid was then neutralized with a base such as ammonium hydroxide (column 1, lines 15-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add ammonium hydroxide to the industrial waste material to raise the pH thereof and react the sulfuric acid to produce ammonium sulfate because it neutralizes the acid.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Acoveno et al. teaches treatment of the so-called paste and mud recovered from waste batteries to firstly convert the lead sulfate therein to lead carbonate which meets the limitation wherein the industrial waste material comprises a lead paste obtained from lead batteries (column 2; lines 35-45).
Regarding claim 4, Acoveno et al. teaches wherein the lead paste comprises the sulfuric acid as an electrolyte (column 1; lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 5, Kolakowski teaches residual sulfuric acid was then neutralized with a base such as ammonium hydroxide (column 1, lines 15-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add ammonium hydroxide to the industrial waste material to raise the pH thereof and react the sulfuric acid to produce ammonium sulfate because it neutralizes the acid. It is well known in the art ammonium hydroxide, commonly called ammonia water, is a solution of ammonia gas dissolved in water.
Regarding claim 6, Acoveno et al. teaches wherein the ammonium carbonate is produced by reacting ammonia and carbon dioxide with water in the industrial waste material (Fig. 1.; Gas Recovery).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Acoveno et al. teaches ammonium sulfate is then suitably crystallized resulting in a commercial product which meets the limitation of further comprising processing the ammonium sulfate to produce solid ammonium sulfate (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Acoveno et al. teaches solids are heated to thus decompose the lead carbonate into lead oxide, the latter representing furnace feed for final reduction to metallic lead which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of further comprising processing the lead carbonate to produce lead metal (column 5, lines 55-65).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 05/30/2026
Prosecution Insights