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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim 18-28, drawn to a process for recycling zinc oxide residues, without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 29-30, drawn to an apparatus, a plant for recycling zinc oxide residues, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Therefore, claims 18-28 are currently under examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: in between the reference numbers 1 (apparatus 1) and 2 (conduit 2), there is a box, as shown in Fig. 1, which is not labelled and the instant specification (Page 10, lines 28-30, and Page 11, line 1-6) does not provide any guideline what this is.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4, line 1-5, describes "0, 3 and 5 mm” and "1.200",
Page 5, and 10, line 1-10 describes "1.200",
Page 5, line 24-25 describes "1.100",
Page 6, line 10, describes "0, 3 and 5 mm”,
Page 7, line 22, describes " wt. -%", etc. to fix a typographical error.
Applicant is further requested for proofreading the instant specification to fix any other typographical error, if there is any.
Claim Objections
Claim 18-19, 21, 23 and 26-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites the limitation "0, 3 and 5 mm” in line 2, Examiner interprets this is a typographical error and need to be corrected to “0.3 and 5 mm”.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation "1.200 C" in line 4, Examiner interprets this is a typographical error and need to be corrected to “1200oC”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "particles are fed into a roaster where they are thermally treated at a temperature in the range of 500 and 1200oC in a fluidized bed to form a calcine” in line 2-3, it is not clear whether "a roaster” and “a fluidized bed” are the same or the claim required both. However, according to the page 2, line 16-19 of the instant specification of the disclosure, “Typical reactor types for a roasting process are fluidized bed reactor, rotary kiln or multiple hearth furnace. In case of a fluidized bed reactor, gases and at least small particles of the roasted concentrate (calcine) are withdrawn over the top of the roaster and fed into at least one separating device for separating solid particles.”, it seems “a fluidized bed” is a kind of roaster, therefore, is suggested to read “particles are fed into a fluidized bed where they are thermally treated at a temperature in the range of 500 and 1200oC to form a calcine” or "particles are fed into a roaster where they are thermally treated at a temperature in the range of 500 and 1200oC to form a calcine, wherein a roaster is a fluidized bed”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "1.100 C" in line 3, Examiner interprets this as a typographical error and need to be corrected to “1200oC”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "wt. -%" in line 2 and in line 3, Examiner interprets this as a typographical error, remove the “-“ (hyphen symbol) in front of “%” (percentage symbol).
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the zinc oxide residues further at least" in line 1-2, is an incomplete phrase, Examiner interprets this is a typographical error and is suggested to read "the zinc oxide residues further contain/comprise at least".
Claim 23 recites the limitation "cadmium copper" in line 2, missing a punctuation mark, there should be a comma (“,”) in between cadmium and copper, i.e. the phrase is suggested to read as “cadmium, copper”.
Claim 23 further recites the limitation "PGMs" in line 2, however, the abbreviation PGM have many different meanings, and is suggested to read “Platinum-Group Metals” which is most common in the relevant prior art, (for example in the WO2018162089A, that has been used in this office action) to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is also required in the instant specification.
Claim 26 and 27 recite the limitation "sulfuric acid come" in line 1 of each of the claims, is a grammatical error and is suggested to read " sulfuric acid comes " for both claims.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "wt. -%" in line 2, Examiner interprets this as a typographical error, remove the “-“ (hyphen symbol) in front of “%” (percentage symbol).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 18-28 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the range" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the roasting" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 contains the trademark/trade name "Waelz process", Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular process. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of process, and not the process itself. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the process associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to describe a process for gaining the other particles and, accordingly, the description is indefinite.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "a zinc content of 40 to 80 wt.-%, preferably 60 to 70 wt.-%" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite. 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). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation of a range “40 to 80 wt.%”, and the claim also recites “60 to 70 wt.%” which is the narrower statement of the range and or limitation. The claim is 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. Also the use of the word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite too as it is not clear whether this is an optional limitation or not.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "a wet gas cleaning" in line 2-3, renders the claim indefinite, because the scope of the claim is not clear, claim recites sulfuric acid comes from a zinc treatment step downward in the process, then claim recites sulfuric acid comes from a wet gas cleaning, however, as shown above, page 4, line 22-24, of instant specification of the disclosure describes “Said hydrometallurgical process typically contains the steps of neutral leaching, hot acid leaching, purification and electrowinning.”, there is no wet gas cleaning steps in the zinc treatment step downward in the process as defined by the instant specification of the disclosure, therefore, it is not clear whether wet gas cleaning is a zinc treatment step downward in the process, or a different process.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "sulfuric acid come from a zinc treatment step downward in the process, particularly from an electrowinning or a wet gas cleaning" in line 2-3, renders the claim indefinite, because claim recites "sulfuric acid come from a zinc treatment step downward in the process”, which is a broader scope of the limitation and then claim also recites “from an electrowinning or a wet gas cleaning” which is the narrower statement of the previous limitation. The claim is 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.
Claim 26 and 27 both recite the limitation "sulfuric acid come from a zinc treatment step downward in the process" in line 2, renders the claim indefinite, because it is not clear, which process and from which step sulfuric acid is coming from, claim 18 from which each of claim 26 and 27 depends from reciting a process for recycling zinc oxide, but neither claim 18 or 26 or recites any process of zinc treatment.
Claims 19-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1
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.
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 18-19, 21-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert Denoiseux, [A process for roasting zinc concentrates in fluid-bed developed by Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpert", vol. 33, no. 7/08, 1 July 1980, pages 366-371, XP002033544, ISSN: 0044-2658 ] (provided in the IDS) (Denoiseux hereafter) and further in view of Guntner, Jochen et.al. [WO2018162089A1] (Guntner hereafter).
Regarding claim 18, Denoiseux teaches a process for recycling zinc oxide residues, wherein the zinc oxide residues are granulated to particles (a process of recycling zinc oxide dust, zinc concentrates the more or less oxidized products, from a zinc concentrate fluidized bed calciner wherein a feed of concentrate and zinc oxide ash or other secondary materials comprising zinc oxide and granulated and dried, see Denoiseux’s page 366 – 367, Fig. 2, 3, 4 ), with a particle size between 0.5 to 4 mm (followed by classification to range 0.5 to 4 mm, and the charge is calibrated for 0.5 to 4 mm size supplied to a bin above the roasting furnaces by a belt conveyor while undersize <0.5 mm particle returns to the mixers, see Denoiseux’s page 366 - 368 Fig. 2, 3), and wherein these particles are fed into a roaster where they are thermally treated at a temperature 1000°C in a fluidized bed to form a calcine (The granulate is fed to a fluidized bed roaster ( see Denoiseux’s FIG. 6) and treated at temperatures, the roasting temperature is very high and often exceeds 1000 °C see Denoiseux’s page 368; Fig 2, 5 and 6),
wherein sulfuric acid is admixed to the zinc oxide residues previous and/or during granulating (In the mixers, showed on Fig; 4, the zinc concentrates the more or less oxidized products and the sulphuric acid are homogenized, the reaction of the components of the mix forms the granulation binder, zinc oxide is mixed with sulfuric acid, see Denoiseux’s page 368, Fig. 2, 4), and the roasting is a continuous process (the roasting plant is configured such a way so that there is never a complete interruption of the zinc plant supply (see Denoiseux’s page 368, section 2.1) and therefore allows a high utilization factor of the equipment with a minimum of stoppages and no accretions on the walls in contact with dusty gases, see Denoiseux’s page 371, conclusion),
Denoiseux’s zinc oxide ashes from a zinc concentrate fluidized bed calciner, dusts concentrate and calciner ash or other secondary materials comprising zinc oxide, see Denoiseux’s page 36, col. 2) and be crushed to a particle size below d80 100 µm before being granulated (be crushed to a particle size 44 to 124 µm before being granulated, see Denoiseux’s page 369, Fig. 2, 3 Table 1).
As shown above, Denoiseux’s granulated particle size, roasting temperature are within the as recited in the instant claim, and Denoiseux’s particle size of dust or zinc residue is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected granulated particle size, roasting temperature and particle size of dust or zinc residue from the teachings of Denoiseux that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside or overlaps 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Denoiseux teaches almost complete finishing of the roasting ensures very low sulfur content to be optimal and the calcine have the highest possible content in zinc oxide (see Denoiseux’s page 369, col. 1). Denoiseux further teaches the stability of fluidization, after charge prepared by granulation enables notwithstanding its very small use of power, to obtain a calcine of excellent quality, without chlorine and with a high zinc and a very low sulfur content: The process allows a high utilization factor of the equipment with a minimum of stoppages and no accretions on the walls in contact with dusty gases, (see Denoiseux’s page 371, conclusion).
While Denoiseux granulated particle size and dust particle size are lie inside or overlaps ranges as claimed, Denoiseux is silent about d80 and the granulating is done batch-wise.
Denoiseux is also silent about “the zinc oxide residues are dusts coming from an electric arc furnace and/or from a Waelz process and/or that the zinc oxide residues are coming from melting and casting of zinc and/or zinc oxide”.
However, Guntner teaches a process for roasting of metal concentrate, wherein concentrate particles are fed into a roaster, thermally treated at temperatures between 500 and 1200°C in a fluidized bed to form a calcine, and then a part is withdrawn from the roaster with a gas stream as a solid fraction (see Guntner’s page 5), wherein metal concentrate is zinc, (see Guntner’s page 7). Guntner teaches zinc oxide residues are dusts coming from an electric arc furnace or that the zinc oxide residues are coming from melting and casting of zinc and/or zinc oxide (the combined calcined streams (zinc residue dust) is directly withdrawn from the fluidized bed, from the cooler, from the cyclones and/or from the electrostatic precipitator enter eventually the leaching step of the zinc, or electric furnace unit operation (see Guntner’s page 1, line 29-30 and page 2, line 1-2). Zinc producer may use the full concentrate stream as further particles (see Guntner’s page 7).
Guntner teaches the separated small particles and/or the small calcine dust are pelletized by mixing them, with a liquid moisturizer/binder. At least 80 wt. % of the pellets feature a diameter of at least 80 % of the concentrate particles average diameter (d80) and preferably, 80 wt.% of the pellets would have a particle size (d80) of below 3 mm for a good fluidization in the roaster, (see Guntner’s page 5-6, claim 1). Guntner teaches, to pelletize the small particles and/or at least part of the small calcine particles and/or other particles to a pellet size of maximum 90 µm, preferably for zinc: 5 to 90 µm, to form a fluidized bed with very homogeneous particle sizes, (see Guntner’s page 8, line 12-17).
Guntner’s granulated particle size and particle size to be palletized, both are within the as recited in the instant claim.
Guntner teaches the particle separation is particularly important for reducing contained heating value in smelting or to allow for high metal recoveries and economical operation (see Guntner’s page 8, line 26-27).
Guntner further teaches to operate the pelletizing process in batch mode, as batch mode will lead to a higher product quality. This is justified since narrower particle size distribution (i.e. 80 % of pellets below 3 mm to ensure pellet fluidization good solid circulation and higher solid density (associated to pellet stability) of the produced pellets can be achieved in batch mode, and since during batch mode all particles remain in the pelletizing equipment the same amount of time and undergo uniform processing, whereas during continuous operation a residence time distribution exists. Thereby, continuous processing leads to some particles being processed for a too short period resulting to too small and too weak pellets as well as some oversized pellets. (page 16, line 1-9).
Guntner is directed to recycling metal concentrate from the secondary material cover and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Denoiseux.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Guntner’s teachings of particle size before granulation and pellet particle size along with granulating in a batch-wise manner to combine with Denoiseux’s processes to have high quality dense and stable pellets to form a fluidized bed with very homogeneous particle sizes for a good fluidization in the roaster, for recycling zinc oxide residues with reducing contained heating and high metal recoveries and economical operation.
Regarding claim 19, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 are applicable to claim 19, wherein Denoiseux already teaches the zinc oxide residues are granulated to particles with a size of 0.5 to 4 mm (the charge is calibrated for 0.5 to 4 mm size supplied to a bin above the roasting furnaces by a belt conveyor while undersize <0.5 mm particle returns to the mixers, see Denoiseux’s page 366 - 368 Fig. 2, 3), which is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected granulated particle size, from the teachings of Denoiseux that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside or overlaps 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
But, Denoiseux is silent about d80.
However, Guntner teaches at least 80 wt. % of the pellets feature a diameter of at least 80 % of the concentrate particles average diameter (d80) and preferably, 80 wt.% of the pellets would have a particle size (d80) of below 3 mm for a good fluidization in the roaster, (see Guntner’s page 5-6), Guntner’s granulated particle size is overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected granulated particle size from the teachings of Guntner that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside or overlaps 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
It is to be noted, claim recites “and/or” in between two limitations therefore, any limitation met by the prior art will read on the whole claim.
Denoiseux teaches these particles are thermally treated at a temperature 1000°C (the roasting temperature of 1000 °C see Denoiseux’s page 368; Fig 2, 5 and 6), which is within the as recited in the instant claim.
Guntner also teaches thermally treated at temperatures between 500 and 1200°C in a fluidized bed to form a calcine(see Guntner’s page 5), which is overlapping with the as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected roasting temperature from the teachings of Guntner that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside or overlaps 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Regarding claim 21, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 are applicable to claim 21, in addition, Denoiseux teaches a zinc content of 52 wt.% (raw) and 62 wt. % (calcine) (see Denoiseux’s page 369, Table 1), which is within the range as recited in the instant claim.
Guntner also teaches the metal concentrate contains at least 60 wt. % zinc (see Guntner’s claim 4), which is within as recited in the instant claim.
It is to be noted, claim recites “and/or” in between three limitations therefore, any limitation met by the prior art will read on the whole claim.
Regarding claim 22, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 are applicable to claim 22, in addition, Denoiseux teaches the zinc oxide residues contain halogens, sulfides and/or sulfates and/or that the zinc oxide residues contain lead (halogens (Cl, F) sulfides, sulfates, lead, see Denoiseux’s page 369, Table 1 and Table 2).
Guntner also teaches the zinc oxide residues contain halogens, carbonates, sulfides and/or sulfates and/or that the zinc oxide residues contain lead (sulfides and/or sulfates, (see Guntner’s page 5, line 23-30) and solids from a device gas-solid-separation device, i.e. an evaporative cooler, or a waste heat boiler or an electrostatic precipitator, exhibit typically high sulfate sulfur content, see Guntner’s page 18, line 6-7 ).
Regarding claim 23, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 and 22 are applicable to claim 23, in addition, Denoiseux teaches the zinc oxide residues further comprises at least one element from a list comprising cadmium, copper, Pb and silica (lead, see Denoiseux’s page 369, Table 1, cadmium, copper, Pb, and silica, see Denoiseux’s page 369, and Table 2).
Guntner also teaches the zinc oxide residues further comprises at least one element from a list comprising copper, arsenic, silver, PGMs, Pb (copper, Platinum-Group Metals containing ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum, (see Guntner’s page 7, claim 3, 4), lead, silver, arsenic, (see Guntner’s page 9)).
Regarding claim 24, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 are applicable to claim 24, in addition, Denoiseux teaches the zinc concentrate, zinc dust, zinc oxide, sulfur containing residues dust from an electrostatic precipitator and/or dust from cyclone is admixed to the zinc oxide residues previous and/or during and/or after granulating (SO2 gas and dust after roasting step is passing through the boiler to the electrostatic precipitator, after separation, dust is returned to the previous of granulating step, as shown in the flowchart of Denoiseux Fig. 2), then granulated and dried, the binder of the granulation, since it decomposes during roasting, maximum elimination of sulfur, leaving only traces of zinc sulfide and sulfate in the calcine and ensuring the best zinc recovery, see Denoiseux Fig. 2, page 367).
Guntner also teaches the zinc concentrate, zinc dust, zinc oxide, sulfur containing residues dust from an electrostatic precipitator and/or dust from cyclone is admixed to the zinc oxide residues previous and/or during and/or after granulating (the small calcine particles are separated in a waste heat boiler, and/or an evaporative cooler, and/or a cyclone, an electrostatic precipitator to separate the small calcine particles in a steady and reliable manner, see Guntner’s page 7, line 6-7, claim 2).
Regarding claim 25, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 are applicable to claim 25, in addition, Denoiseux teaches water is admixed to the zinc oxide residues previous and/or during granulating (pelletized roast was very is suitable for the chosen wet way, (see Denoiseux’s page 367, col. 1), the charge preparation yields an extremely homogeneous and calibrated feed freeing the roasting process of any constraints with regard to moisture requirements, (see Denoiseux’s page 368, col. 2. Fig. 3)). Denoiseux teaches each kg of water introduced at the roasting should be vaporized and the corresponding steam will leave the boiler at a cost of an energy by drying the charge and by recovering the sensible beat of the calcine in the finishing. This recovery is the more important in that 80% of the calcine is extracted in this way, (see Denoiseux’s page 369, col. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Denoiseux’s teachings of controlling moisture content to have an extremely homogeneous and calibrated feed freeing the roasting process, for recycling zinc oxide residues with high metal recoveries and economical operation along with higher recovery of the sensible heat generated from the water vapor during roasting.
Guntner also teaches water is admixed to the zinc oxide residues previous and/or during granulating (pelletized by mixing with a liquid binder comprising water or an aqueous solution containing sulfates and/or a low acid concentration see Guntner’s page 42, claim 10). Guntner teaches stable pellet formation is achieved through a preferred moisture range, is more easily achieved in case of re-pulping of tailings existing as semi-dried solids, since the end moisture can be controlled during the re-pulping process through water addition (see Guntner’s page 13, line 19-24 ). Guntner furhter teaches to feed the pellets into the roaster as wet solids of below 20 wt. % moisture and without a slurry, because slurry feeding of pellets to the roaster would be detrimental for their stability since they would partially decompose to their primary grain (see Guntner’s page 18, line 22-25 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Guntner’s teachings of controlling moisture content to combine with Denoiseux process for recycling zinc oxide residues, for having better stability control of the palletization, that ensures high metal recoveries and economical operation.
Regarding claim 26, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 and 25 are applicable to claim 26, in addition, Denoiseux teaches sulfuric acid come from a zinc treatment step downward in the process, particularly from an electrowinning or a wet gas cleaning (behind the boilers and the dry electrofilters, roast gases are first washed with sulfuric acid, the washing cleans the gases from particles and also traps the SO3 and the so produced acid is recycled to the granulation, see Denoiseux’s page 369, col. 1).
Guntner also teaches sulfuric acid come from a zinc treatment step downward in the process, particularly from an electrowinning or a wet gas cleaning (line 34 into a further (not shown) gas cleaning and potentially sulfuric acid plant production section, see Guntner’s page 24, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have either Denoiseux’s or Guntner’s teachings of sulfuric acid come from a zinc treatment step downward in the process for recycling sulfuric acid for recycling zinc oxide residues with high metal recoveries and economical operation.
Regarding claim 28, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 and 26 are applicable to claim 28, in addition, Denoiseux teaches sulfur content of the particles resulting from the granulating is between 0 and 35 wt. % (the zinc concentrates, oxidized products and the sulfuric acid are homogenized, the reaction of the 2 latter components of the mix forms the granulation binder. When leaving the mixers, a paste containing some 3% of sulfate sulfur is fed into rotary furnaces, to be pelletized (sulfur content of the particles resulting from the granulating) and dried at the same time, see Denoiseux’s page 368, col. 1 and 2).
Denoiseux’s sulfur content of the particles resulting from the granulating is within as recited in the instant claim.
Guntner also teaches sulfur content of the particles resulting from the granulating is between 0 and 35 wt-% (a solid binder can be added includes solids from a gas-solid-separation, these solids exhibit typically high sulfate sulfur content in the range of 1-5 wt.% being formed due to favorable process conditions in separation equipment in terms of oxygen partial pressure and temperature. These small calcine particle processing proposed here, increases pellet stability since the processed solid is a binder itself, see Guntner’s page 18, line 6-7 ). Guntner further teaches unseparated concentrate particles can be used for better distributing the sulfur contained in other particles and thus avoiding uncontrolled sulfur oxidation as described above (see Guntner’s page 18, line 13-17 ).
Guntner’s sulfur content of the particles resulting from the granulating is within as recited in the instant claim.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert Denoiseux, [A process for roasting zinc concentrates in fluid-bed developed by Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpert", vol. 33, no. 7/08, 1 July 1980, pages 366-371, XP002033544, ISSN: 0044-2658 ] (provided in the IDS) (Denoiseux hereafter), in view of Guntner, Jochen et.al. [WO2018162089A1] (Guntner hereafter) as applied to claim 18 and further in view of Paul B et.al. [Recycling Lead and Zinc in the United States, World of Metallurgy – ERZMETALL 68 (2015) No. 3] (Paul hereafter).
Regarding claim 20, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 are applicable to claim 20, wherein Denoiseux already teaches crushed to a particle size of 44 to 124 µm (be crushed to a particle size 44 to 124 µm, see Denoiseux’s page 369, Fig. 2, 3 Table 1), which is overlapping with as recited in the instant claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the present invention, to have selected crushed particle size, from the teachings of Denoiseux that falls within the instantly-claimed ranges, because “In the case where the claimed ranges lie inside or overlaps 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)” [See MPEP § 2144.05.I].
Denoiseux is silent about d80 and the zinc oxide residues are coming from melting and casting of zinc and/or zinc oxide.
Guntner also teaches crushed particle size of d80 for zinc concentrate the concentrate particle’s average diameter is between 5 and 40 µm (see Guntner’s claim 4), which is within the as recited in the instant claim.
But Guntner is also silent about the zinc oxide residues are coming from melting and casting of zinc and/or zinc oxide.
However, Paul teaches the secondary zinc industry continues its efforts to minimize the quantity of solid waste generated, including brass mill and brass ingot-plant flue dusts, skimmings, ZnO fines, retort bottoms, electrogalvanizer water-treatment sludge, and alkaline battery anode rejects are beneficially utilized by the fertilizer and zinc chemical industries. Zinc-rich flue dusts, skimmings, and ZnO fines containing 60 % or more Zn are leached to produce zinc sulfate monohydrate, zinc sulfate solution, and zinc chloride (see Paul’s page 156).
Paul teaches wide varieties of the secondary zinc oxide, including zinc oxide residues are coming from melting and casting of zinc and/or zinc oxide (for example, secondary zinc coming from the leaching and ZINCEX solvent extraction and electrowinning, melting and casting technology (see Paul’s page 159, 3.15), the classical secondary zinc plants melt selected and prepared secondaries, followed by selective drossing and/or upgrading by zinc vaporization, which is most efficient when processing zinc metallics, particularly those derived from galvanizer dross (see Paul’s page 159, 3.2). Another source is free zinc metal from mixtures generated during the zinc casting, galvanizing and other molten metal processes and free zinc in the skimmings is then recovered (see Paul’s page 159, 3.2.2).
Paul is directed to recycling of zinc oxide residue from zinc production and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Denoiseux as well as Guntner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Paul’s teachings of using of different types of secondary zinc material produced in the zinc industry to combine with Denoiseux’s processes in view of Guntner for recycling high purity of zinc oxide powder from the secondary zinc residues to minimize the quantity of solid waste generated as well as recycling of zinc residue to utilize for high and efficient zinc recovery.
Claims 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert Denoiseux, [A process for roasting zinc concentrates in fluid-bed developed by Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpert", vol. 33, no. 7/08, 1 July 1980, pages 366-371, XP002033544, ISSN: 0044-2658 ] (provided in the IDS) (Denoiseux hereafter), in view of Guntner, Jochen et.al. [WO2018162089A1] (Guntner hereafter) as applied to claim 18, and further in view of Haiguo Wu [CN101649396A] (machine translation) (Wu hereafter).
Regarding claim 27, all the above discussions regarding claim 18 and 25 are applicable to claim 27, but both Denoiseux and Guntner are silent about the sulfuric acid come from a zinc treatment step downward in the process from an electrowinning.
However, Wu teaches a method for efficiently removing F and Cl from zinc oxide flue dust and producing electrolytic zinc (see Wu’s [0007]), wherein in step (1), the secondary zinc oxide flue dust mixed with sulfuric acid and granulated, (see Wu’s [0008]), roasted to obtain clacine (see Wu’s [00010]), and then a zinc treatment step is performed downward in the process (see Wu’s [00010]).
Wu teaches sulfuric acid come from a zinc treatment step downward in the process, particularly from an electrowinning (the solution containing sulfuric acid in step (1) is the waste electrolyte after a conventional zinc electrowinning process containing Zn2+ and H2SO4, see Wu’s claim 2). Wu teaches electrowinning waste liquid is returned to zinc oxide granulation and leaching of roasted materials (see Wu’s [0037]) and the process effectively improves the quality of the new electrowinning solution, enhances the quality of electrolytic zinc, and improves the electrolysis operating environment, a new and efficient method for producing electrolytic zinc (see Wu’s [0037]).
Wu is directed to recycling metal zinc from the metal concentrate from the secondary material and thus, analogous to the claimed invention and Denoiseux as well as Guntner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Wu’s teachings of sulfuric acid comes from electrowinning waste liquid is returned to zinc oxide granulation and leaching of roasted materials to combine with Denoiseux’s processes in view of Guntner to improve the quality of the new electrowinning solution, for recycling zinc oxide residues with reducing contained heating and high metal recoveries and economical operation and effectively produces and enhances the quality of electrolytic zinc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
S. Ramachandra Rao [RESOURCE RECOVERY AND RECYCLING FROM METALLURGICAL WASTES, 1st Edition, Volume 7, August 29, 2011] (provided in the IDS), (Rao hereafter) teaches slags, dust and fumes are common products in almost all extractive metallurgical operations and are a potential secondary source of many metals and also can be converted into useful by-products of practical value (see rao’s page 269, 1st para). Rao teaches the zinc oxide residues are coming from melting and casting of zinc and/or zinc oxide (The Waelz Kiln process so-called designed by Horsehead Resource Development Co. Inc. (HRD) and Zinc Corporation of America (ZCA), zinc producer process, wherein the Waelz kiln in which an iron-rich slag is produced when heated, after cooling, crushing and screening, is sold as aggregate. The volatile metal oxides are reduced and fumed in the kiln. The metal vapors are reoxidized by introducing induced air as they are drawn out of the kiln. A baghouse collects the crude zinc oxide containing cadmium, lead and halides. The zinc oxide is subsequently refined in a second rotary kiln to selectively volatilize cadmium, lead, chlorine and fluorine. The calcined zinc oxide sold as a feedstock to a zinc pyrometallurgical plant. The condensed lead and cadmium fume is collected in a baghouse and is used as a feedstock by a zinc hydrometallurgical plant. The impure oxide is then fed to a briqueting plant, which consists of preheating kilns and briqueting rolls. The briquettes are then fed into a smelting shaft furnace, which nomially operates on 100 percent sinter feed but can also process 100 percent Waelz oxide or other secondary material briquettes. Typical Waelz oxides consist of zinc (56 to 60 %) (see rao’s page 288, 8.2.1.2.2., page 290, 8.2.1.3.2.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5421. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 7:00PM (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, Merkling Sally can be reached on (571)2726297. 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.
/NAZMUN NAHAR SHAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights