Document yrGGpB6xRvJ4nemMe5rOeNweX

AREA B. Ma RVIR . RCTtREO De a n S Ed mo n d s Fr a n k E. Ba r r o w s w Bb o ^ Mo r t o n Me r t o n W. Sa o e Wx l l j s H. Ta y l o r . Jr . Er n e s t H.Me r c h a n t Ge o r o e E-Mid d l et o n Mo r r is D. Ja c k s o n R.Mo r t o n Ad a ms Ra y mo n d F. Ad a ms Le s l ie B.Yo o n o Da n ie l V. Ma b o n e y D4947 Co u n s e l l o r s a t La w 165 Br o a d w a y Ne w Yo r k Wa s b in o t o n Omcis Na t io n a l Pr e s s Bu il d in o October 16, Ra t MONO B Ca k t ib l d Ba l d w in Gu il d Amb r o s e A. Ar n o l d S.Ho w e l l Br o w n . Jr . Lo u is D. Fo s w a b d H St a n l e t Ma n s me l d Ge o r o e E- Fa it r f u l l Do n a l F. M'Ca r t h y Ha l E. Se a o h a v e s Jo h n Ho x ie Jo h n T. Fa r l ey Cu r t Vo n Bo e t t ic b e r . Jr . Ja me s B. Ch r is t ie Ja me s W. La is t Ct r u s S Ha p o o o d Ro o er T. Mc Le a n Ra r o l b A Tr a v h Ke n n e t h H. Mu r r a y Ha r r y E. Do w n er Ca r l E. Rin o 1939 Mr. Frederick Laist, Vice-President International Smelting & Refining Co, 25 Broadway, (Room 1720) Hew York, H. Y. Dear Sir: Re: Johnson et al. Application Ser. No, 178,352, For: Method of Producing White Lead Enclosed are copies of an amendment just filed in the above-mentioned application in response to the Office action of April 22, 1939, Very truly yours, Enc. cor.y sent to ^r-. Case - 17 Oct. 193 9 r PNYCC0008488 70 ;AJ IN TII3 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE In re application of ) ) GUtJ?7AHn E. JOHNSON and ) REGINALD G. BOWMAN and j WILLIAM J. KNOX, JR. J METHOD OF PRODUCING WHITE LEAD Ser**! No. 178,353 } Filed December 6, 1937 ) Dlv. 56 - Room 4725 ) New York, N. Y., Ootobor 13, 1939 Honorable Commissioner of Patents WashlnRton, D. C. sir: This Is In response to the Office action of April 22, 1939. This communication Is being filed following an interview with the Examiner In charge of the application, at whioh interview tho communication was proaonted informally and disounsod. Applicants* attorneys wish to thank the Examiner for his oourteous consideration of the case at the interview. Claims 2, 4, 5 and 11 have been rcjooted as based on an insufficient disclosure. The Examiner Questions what is meant by the term "exoess oarbonation". The word "excess" is used in this application in ita usual chemical eignifioanqe to mean oarbonation in a greater amount than is required to introduoe only enough carbonate for complete reaction with the material with which the carbonate reacts. In the oase of the particular prooess described and claimed, exoess oarbona tion means oarbonation in exoess of that required to maintain the bicarbonato concentration of the anolyte at the value desired for the production of a white load product of desired PNYCOOOOa^d 7 N11449.01 composition. It is submitted that tho meaning of the term "excess carbonation" is readily apparent from tho specifica tion. In view of the common usage in chemioal parlanoe of tho term "excess", it is believed that no definition is required in the specification of the moaning of this term. It is therefore believed tht claims 2, 4, 5 and 11 are based on an ample disclosure. Claims 2, 4, 5 and 11 have been rejeoted as unpatentable over Johnson et al. The olaimed prooess is an improvement on the Johnson et al. prooess. The olaimed prooess involves excess carbonation of the catholyte followed by controlled addition of an alkali to the anolyte to establish the desired bicarbonate ion concentration in the anolyte. The prooess of Johnson et al. Involves controlling the carbonation of the anolyte so as to introduce only the amount of CO2 desired. Precise control of the carbonation step is very difficult to achieve in practice. Applicants have greatly simplified the procedure by incorporating an j exoess of COg in the anolyte and then adjusting the bicarbonate ion concentration by adding an alkali to the anolyte. This method of controlling the bicarbonate ion concentration in the anolyte is muoh easier to carry out than the Johnson et al. method of controlling the carbonation operation olosely, and it is a more precise method than that of Johnson et al. The other methods suggested in the Johnson et al. reference for controlling carbonate ion concentration involve deficient oarbonation followed by the addition of oarbonate salts. This procedure la the opposite of the olaimed method. Accordingly, it is believed that claims 2, 4, 5 and 11 are patentable over Johnson et al. and should be allowed. The Rosenatein patent does not appear to have any bearing on this application. Roaenstein describes a process -2- PNYC00008486 for removing hydrogen sulphide from petroleum products. He disoloses nothing of the slightest pertinence to this application except the hare statement that sodium hydroxide ' will react with sodium carbonate to produce bloarbonate, and that this reaction may be UBed to prevent a solution from becoming Thera is no disclosure of any method for controlling bloarbonate ion concentration. It is believed that the claims appearing in this application are patentable over the references and should be allowed. Favorable reconsideration is therefore respectfully requested. nospeotfully submitted, Attorneys for Applicants -3- p n v c 00006489