DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 04/20/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and elected species A, claims 1-8, and withdrew claims 9-10, without traverse on 04/20/2026.
Claims 1-10 are pending, and claims 9-10 are withdrawn.
Claims 3-4 are rejected.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 8 are allowed.
Claim 7 is objected to.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/20/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 2, it is suggested to amend “Nm3/hr” to “Nm3/hr” for proper expression of unit of cubic meter.
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 3 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 3, lines 2-3, recites phrase “ the leaching process includes a neutral leaching process, a weak acid leaching process, a hot acid leaching process, and a super hot acid leaching process”.
However, it is unclear what the phrase refers to, i.e., the leaching process includes the four different types of leaching processes, or the leaching process includes one of the four different types of leaching processes, etc. The examiner interprets that the leaching process includes one of the four different types of leaching processes, according to specification [0031].
If the interpretation is correct, applicants are advised to amend the phrase to “the leaching process includes a neutral leaching process, a weak acid leaching process, a hot acid leaching process, or a super hot acid leaching process” (emphasis added).
Furthermore, it is unclear what “super hot acid leaching process” is, i.e., what is considered “super hot”. The examiner interprets any hot acid leaching process. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Further regarding claim 3, it recites a limitation “wherein the process solution is supernatant of a precipitation tank of the super hot acid leaching process”. However, it is unclear if “super hot acid leaching process” is required or only optional.
If this limitation is required, there is a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation, i.e., the leaching process a neutral leaching process, a weak acid leaching process, a hot acid leaching process, or a super hot acid leaching process (i.e., a super hot acid leaching process is one option from a list); and wherein the process solution is supernatant of a precipitation tank of the super hot acid leaching process (i.e., a super hot acid leaching process is required). It is unclear if the super hot acid leaching process is only optional or actually required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets that the limitation “super hot acid leaching process” is optional. If the interpretation is correct, applicants are advised to amend claim 2 to recite “wherein when the leaching process includes a super hot acid leaching process, wherein the process solution is supernatant of a precipitation tank of the super hot acid leaching process”.
Regarding dependent claim 4, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 3 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 8 are allowed.
Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter. However, claim 7 cannot be passed to issue because the formal matter requiring resolution as set forth above on item 3.
The present claims are allowable over the “the closest prior art Information technology handbook on best available technologies, Production of lead, zinc and cadmium, Bureau NDT, 2020 (Bureau NDT).
Bureau NDT discloses hydrometallurgical method for obtaining zinc, including the RCE process (roasting – leaching – electrowinning) (Bureau NDT, page 2, section 2.2.2);
Pb-Ag concentration is produced (Bureau NDT, page 2, Figure 2.1).
However, Bureau NDT does not disclose or suggest a step for introducing the process solution to a reactor and introducing a lead concentrate into the reactor while blowing-in oxygen; a step for solid-liquid separating of a slurry in a filtration tank, the slurry being produced in the reactor; and a step for post-processing a filtrate and a lead concentrate residue separated in the step for solid-liquid separating, wherein chlorine ions in the process solution and silver contained in the lead concentrate react with each other in the reactor to precipitate a silver chloride, as the presently claimed.
Thus, it is clear that Bureau NDT does not disclose or suggest the present invention.
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights