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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US Patent no. 7,166,145) in view of Kang et al. (CN 111549231).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a method for recovering noble metals of and/or from a heterogeneous catalyst comprising a solid carrier material (the source can be automobile catalytic converters or chemical catalysts that can be crushed to increase the amount of surface area, reaction sites and metal recovery – col. 2, lines 46-50 and 62-65; col. 3, lines 3-7), and at least one noble metal which is selected from the group consisting of palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and rhodium (Rh – Examples I and II in columns 5-6), and is present at least partially in elemental form, comprising the successive steps of:
(a) converting the at least one noble metal present at least partially in elemental form into an oxidation state > 0 by treating the heterogeneous catalyst with oxidizing agent (an oxidant with a high oxidation potential is added to the solution; col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 10) in the presence of hydrochloric acid (col. 4, lines 4-10; tables in Examples I-VI) to form a two-phase system A comprising a hydrochloric aqueous phase Al and a solid phase comprising the carrier material that is insoluble therein (figure 1; the resulting product is a slurry that can be separated into a solution and a solid – col. 4, lines 40-46); and
(c) cathodically electro-depositing/electrowinning the at least one noble metal from the hydrochloric aqueous phase Al of the two-phase system A (the precious metal is recovered from the solution by electrowinning – col. 4, lines 46-49; col. 5, lines 4-8).
Han fails to teach, in step (c), cathodically electro-depositing the at least one noble metal in the presence of the solid phase comprising the carrier metal.
Kang teaches a method for recovering noble metals from a heterogeneous catalyst comprising a solid carrier material, i.e. waste aluminum-based platinum palladium catalyst, wherein a final electrodepositing step is performed in the presence of the catalyst particles to deposit platinum and palladium on the cathode (abstract; steps a-e on page 3; see example 2 on page 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the electrodeposition step of Han in the presence of the solid phase comprising the carrier metal, i.e. catalyst particles, because as taught by Kang, this is well-known in the art to be effective to effectively deposit platinum and palladium on the cathode, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
It is important to note that steps (b) and (b’) are optional, and have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3, Han discloses the successive steps (a) and (c) in variant (c1) without steps (b) and (b'), as discussed in detail in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, the heterogeneous catalyst of Han is a spent heterogeneous catalyst (the source can be automobile catalytic converters or chemical catalysts that can be crushed to increase the amount of surface area, reaction sites and metal recovery – col. 2, lines 46-50 and 62-65; col. 3, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 8, the heterogeneous catalyst of Han may be subjected to one or more pretreatment steps before step (a - the source can be automobile catalytic converters or chemical catalysts that can be crushed and passed through a US standard screen of 60 mesh per inch to increase the amount of surface area, reaction sites and metal recovery – col. 2, lines 46-50 and 62-65; col. 3, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 9, the oxidizing agent of Han is selected from various nitrogen oxides and ozone, among others (col. 4, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 10, Han further teaches wherein the noble metal recovery takes place in the sense of an almost complete removal from the carrier material (the source is crushed to increase the amount of surface area, reaction sites and metal recovery – col. 2, lines 46-50 and 62-65; col. 3, lines 3-7. The recovery values of platinum, palladium and rhodium were found to be up to 99% - Examples I-VI).
Regarding claim 11, the cathodic electro-deposition/electrowinning of Han is carried out with spatial separation of the partial reactions (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Han discloses wherein the cathodic electro-deposition/electrowinning takes place until a desired noble metal concentration in the hydrochloric aqueous phase is reached (the remaining solution is recycled back in order to reduce the consumption of lixiviants and enhance the extraction process – col. 5, lines 9-25).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US Patent no. 7,166,145) in view of Chen et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0254311) and Kang (CN 111549231).
Regarding claim 6, Han teaches a method for recovering palladium of and/or from a heterogeneous catalyst comprising a solid carrier material (the source can be automobile catalytic converters or chemical catalysts that can be crushed to increase the amount of surface area, reaction sites and metal recovery – col. 2, lines 46-50 and 62-65; col. 3, lines 3-7), and palladium present at least partially in elemental form (Examples I and II in columns 5-6), comprising the successive steps of:
(a) converting the at least one noble metal present at least partially in elemental form into an oxidation state > 0 by treating the heterogeneous catalyst with oxidizing agent (an oxidant with a high oxidation potential is added to the solution; col. 3, line 65 to col. 4, line 10) in the presence of hydrochloric acid (col. 4, lines 4-10; tables in Examples I-VI) to form a two-phase system A comprising a hydrochloric aqueous phase Al and a solid phase comprising the carrier material that is insoluble therein (figure 1; the resulting product is a slurry that can be separated into a solution and a solid – col. 4, lines 40-46),
(c') adding a first and a second liquid reagents to the slurry before electrowinning (claims 1; 31; figure 1; col. 4, lines 40-49), and
(c) cathodically electro-depositing the palladium from the hydrochloric aqueous phase of the two-phase system treated in step (c'; cathodic electro-deposition/electrowinning of the at least one noble metal from the hydrochloric aqueous phase Al of the two-phase system A (the precious metal is recovered from the solution by electrowinning – col. 4, lines 46-49; col. 5, lines 4-8).
Han fails to teach wherein step (c’) comprises adjusting a basic pH of the hydrochloric aqueous phase Al of the two-phase system A in the range of > 8 to 14 using ammonium hydroxide.
Chen discloses a method for electroplating palladium comprising a step of adding enough buffering agent, i.e. ammonium hydroxide, to render the electroplating solution to have a pH of about 9 to about 12 (paragraphs 24, 36, Table 3; claims 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add ammonium hydroxide to the solution of Han before the electrowinning step because as taught by Chen, adding enough of this buffering agent to render the solution to have an alkaline pH is well-known in the art to be effective for electroplating palladium, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Hans in view of Chen fails to teach, in step (c), cathodically electro-depositing the at least one noble metal in the presence of the solid phase comprising the carrier metal.
Kang teaches a method for recovering noble metals from a heterogeneous catalyst comprising a solid carrier material, i.e. waste aluminum-based platinum palladium catalyst, wherein a final electrodepositing step is performed in the presence of the catalyst particles to deposit platinum and palladium on the cathode (abstract; steps a-e on page 3; see example 2 on page 8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the electrodeposition step of Han in the presence of the solid phase comprising the carrier metal, i.e. catalyst particles, because as taught by Kang, this is well-known in the art to be effective to effectively deposit platinum and palladium on the cathode, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
It is important to note that steps (b) and (b’) are optional, and have not been given patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art made of record fails to teach steps (b) and (b’), as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues that the prior art made of record fails to teach, in step (c), cathodically electro-depositing the at least one noble metal in the presence of the solid phase comprising the carrier metal. Therefore, after further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Kang.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights