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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 1/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/26/2026.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 5, and 7-9. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending. Claims 19 and 21 are withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. However, following further consideration, new claim objections are set forth below.
The amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 112(b) rejections of record. However, several 112(b) rejections are maintained from the previous Office Action. See 112(b) rejections below for details.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new 103 rejections over previously relied upon Brandhorst et al. (US 2017/0190977) in view of newly cited Danz et al. (“Experimental Study on Fluorine Release from Photovoltaic Backsheet Materials Containing PVF and PVDF during Pyrolysis and Incineration in a Technical Lab-Scale Reactor at Various Temperatures”; doi: 10.3390/toxics7030047). See 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section III of Remarks, filed 1/26/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant has argued that the amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections of record. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new claim objections are set forth below. See claim objections below for details.
Applicant’s arguments, see section IV of Remarks, filed 1/26/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant has made amendments to the claims and submitted arguments to overcome the 112(b) rejections of record.
Aside from the particular arguments addressed below, Applicant’s arguments concerning the 112(b) rejections of record have been found persuasive.
With respect to claim 12, Applicant has argued that “the methods refer to the methods as described in the claims themselves.” Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
The claim in question, claim 12, is drawn to a method, not multiple methods. Thus, “the methods” lacks antecedent basis. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 over “the methods” is maintained.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 12 to recite --the method-- in place of “the methods”.
Claim 12 was rejected because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the process of converting waste sources to the Clean Fuel Gas and Char source”. Applicant’s arguments do not contain any clearly stated argument against this rejection. However, because Applicant has not made any amendment to address this rejection, it is presumed that Applicant believes that this limitation does have antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are drawn a “method for recycling solar panels and/or cells into a Clean Fuel Gas and Char source”. The claims do not recite any “process of converting waste sources to the Clean Fuel Gas and Char source”. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the process of converting waste sources to the Clean Fuel Gas and Char source”.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend claim 12 to correct the lack of antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 13 was rejected because there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the form of a metallic state that is fine, flake and/or chip". Applicant’s arguments do not contain any clearly stated argument against this rejection. However, because Applicant has not made any amendment to address this rejection, it is presumed that Applicant believes that this limitation does have antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation in question.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 13 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the Char is in
With respect to claim 14 Applicant has argued that “the claim language "the metals, photovoltaic materials and silicon" reasonably refers to those materials present in the char as recited in claim 13, which states "metal(s), photovoltaic materials and/or silicon." The claim structure makes clear that separation occurs for whatever materials are present in the char.” Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
As described in the 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action, “the metals, photovoltaic materials and silicon” is unclear because prior to this point the claims have recited merely “metal(s), photovoltaic materials and/or silicon” (claim 13; emphasis added).
Claim 14 does not clearly indicate that the char is now required to comprise all of metal(s), photovoltaic materials, and silicon. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 14 should be treated as requiring the char to comprise all of metals, photovoltaic materials and silicon, or if it should be treated as requiring only metals, photovoltaic materials and/or silicon.
Applicant’s response does not correct the inconsistency between claims 13 and 14. Thus, it remains unclear in the claims whether or not claim 14 should be treated as requiring all of metals, pv materials, and silicon to be present.
Furthermore, Applicant’s remarks do not include any clarifying statement on the matter. Instead, Applicant has merely argued that “The claim structure makes clear that separation occurs for whatever materials are present in the char” without specifying which materials are present in the char.
While Examiner is uncertain, he believes Applicant’s intent is for claim 14 to require that metal(s), photovoltaic materials, and/or silicon are present in the char. If such is the case, Applicant should amend claim 14 to recite --the metal(s), photovoltaic materials and/or silicon-- in place of “the metals, photovoltaic materials and silicon”.
Claim 16 was rejected because it “expressly requires that the fuel gas comprise a process step” and “It is not clear how a substance can be limited to include a process step.”
With respect to this rejection, Applicant has argued that “while the current language may benefit from clarification, the intent to describe a method step rather than a product limitation is apparent from the context and would be understood by one skilled in the art.”
Examiner appreciates that it is Applicant’s intent to claim a method step as opposed to a product limitation (the 112(b) rejection in question explicitly presumes this intent). However, it remains that claim 16 does recite a product limitation rather than a method step. Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 16.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 16 to recite a process step in accordance with Applciant’s intent behind said claim.
Claim 16 was rejected because there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the separation of oil-soluble substances". Applicant’s arguments do not contain any clearly stated argument against this rejection. However, because Applicant has not made any amendment to address this rejection, it is presumed that Applicant believes that this limitation does have antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation in question.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 16 by replacing “the separation of oil-soluble substances” with --separation of oil soluble substances--.
Claim 16 was rejected because there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the thermolytic conversion of hydrocarbons in the waste source". Applicant’s arguments do not contain any clearly stated argument against this rejection. However, because Applicant has not made any amendment to address this rejection, it is presumed that Applicant believes that this limitation does have antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no antecedent basis in the claims for the limitation in question.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant should amend claim 16 to recite --the cracking reaction of hydrocarbons in the waste source-- in place of “the thermolytic conversion of hydrocarbons in the waste source”.
Claim 17 was rejected because there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the method for converting waste sources". Applicant’s arguments do not contain any clearly stated argument against this rejection. However, because Applicant has not made any amendment to address this rejection, it is presumed that Applicant believes that this limitation does have antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are drawn a “method for recycling solar panels and/or cells into a Clean Fuel Gas and Char source”. The claims do not recite a “method for converting waste sources”. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the method for converting waste sources”.
Applicant’s arguments, see section V of Remarks, filed 1/26/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections over Brandhorst in view of Chen have been fully considered, but they are rendered moot by the new 103 rejections over Brandhorst in view of Danz set forth below.
See 103 rejections below for details.
Nevertheless, Examiner feels it is necessary to comment on several of Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 as amended requires breaking carbon-fluorine bonds having a bond strength of at least about 115 kcal/mole, which is nearly twice the strength of the C-Br bonds that are the focus in processing certain e-waste disclosed in Brandhorst. This represents a fundamentally different technical challenge requiring different processing conditions,” (page 10 of Remarks).
With this argument, Applicant is ostensibly alleging that the process conditions required by the claimed method are fundamentally different than those taught in Brandhorst. However, Examiner respectfully contends that this is not the case.
The claimed method requires operating temperature of 450-800 °C. Brandhorst teaches, or at least suggests, an operating temperature of 400-800 °C (paragraph [0089] and [0090]). Thus, the temperature conditions required by the claimed method lie entirely within the range taught/suggested by Brandhorst. With this in mind, there is little basis to assert that the claimed method requires conditions which are “fundamentally different” than those of Brandhorst.
Applicant’s arguments focus heavily on Brandhorst’s concern with the thermolysis of brominated flame retardants and the breaking of carbon-bromine bonds, but fail to acknowledge that Brandhorst is also concerned with the thermolysis of chlorinated organic polymers, i.e. PVC, and the breaking of carbon-chlorine bonds (paragraphs [0015], [0063], [0096], [0140]-[0144]).
Applicant argues that “Scientific literature confirms that temperatures of at least 420-450°C are required to decompose poly(vinylfluoride) (PVF), which is the fluoropolymer present in solar panels. Chatfield teaches that ‘[i]nitial stages of degradation begin at 420°C with the evolution of HF and benzene and rapidly reach a maximum in sample weight loss by 450°C.’”
Examiner acknowledges that Chatfield contains the cited teaching in the abstract thereof. But this teaching on its own is not sufficient to confirm that temperature of 420-450 °C are absolutely necessary to decompose PVF.
A review of Chatfield’s Figures 2 and 3 on pages 1686 and 1687 at least suggests that PVF begins to thermally decompose under a non-oxidative (helium) atmosphere at temperatures below 400 °C, seemingly contradicting what is stated in the abstract.
Teachings of Chatfield aside, the teachings of Danz et al. (“Experimental Study on Fluorine Release from Photovoltaic Backsheet Materials Containing PVF and PVDF during Pyrolysis and Incineration in a Technical Lab-Scale Reactor at Various Temperatures”; doi: 10.3390/toxics7030047) show that thermal decomposition of PFV will occur at temperatures as low as 300 °C (Section 3.2, Figures 3, 4, and 6).
Applicant argues that “Chen's maximum temperature of 350- 370°C in the second stage thermal cracking reaction does not reach the temperatures required to decompose PVF. Therefore, Chen's process would be incapable of thermally cleaving fluorine from the poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds as required by claim 1.”
This argument fails to consider the use of a catalyst in the pyrolysis process carried out by Chen, which apparently lowers the pyrolysis temperature required (see Abstract, paragraphs [0001] and [0010]). Therefore, Examiner does not concede to Applicant’s assertion that Chen is incapable of thermally cleaving fluorine from poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 10 recites “wherein the poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds and optionally additional polymeric materials comprise up to 10% of the mass of the solar panel and/or cell waste source.”
This limitation is interpreted as being substantially identical in scope to a requirement that -- the poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds and optionally additional polymeric materials make up 10 wt% or less of the solar panel and/or cell waste source--. In other words, Examiner treats this limitation as being satisfied by the processing of solar panels comprising 10 wt% or less poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds.
The language to “and optionally additional polymeric materials” is not particularly limiting. A solar panel comprising 5 wt% poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds and 5 wt% additional polymeric materials would clearly satisfy the requirements of claim 10. However, it must be recognized that a solar panel comprising 5 wt% poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds and, for example, 20 wt% additional polymeric materials would also fairly satisfy claim 10, as such a solar panel still comprises less than 10 wt% of specifically the poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds.
The following are new claim objections.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are objected to because it contains/they contain informalities.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the formation of an HF gas" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To overcome this objection, Applicant should replace "the formation of an HF gas" with --formation of an HF gas--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the gas fuel" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To overcome this objection, Applicant should replace "the gas fuel" with --the fuel gas--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office Action.
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 12-13, 16, and 17 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 12 recites the limitation "the methods" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: There is sufficient antecedent basis for --the method--, but not for “the methods”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the process of converting waste sources to the Clean Fuel Gas and Char source" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the form of a metallic state that is fine, flake and/or chip" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the metals, photovoltaic materials and silicon” in lines 1-2.
However, prior to this point the claims have recited merely “metal(s), photovoltaic materials and/or silicon” (claim 13; emphasis added). Said metal(s), photovoltaic materials and/or silicon are required components of the Char.
Claim 14 does not clearly indicate that the char is now required to comprise all of metal(s), photovoltaic materials, and silicon. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 14 should be treated as requiring the char to comprise all of metals, photovoltaic materials and silicon, or if it should be treated as requiring only metals, photovoltaic materials and/or silicon.
Applicant should amend claim 14 to clarify as appropriate.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the Clean Fuel Gas source further comprise the separation of oil-soluble substances from a gas/vapor mixture following the thermolytic conversion of hydrocarbons in the waste source.”
As presently presented, this limitation expressly requires that the fuel gas comprise a process step. It is not clear how a substance can be limited to include a process step.
Presumably, Applicant intended for claim 16 to capture that the method further comprises separation of oil-soluble substances from a gas/vapor mixture following thermolytic conversion of hydrocarbons in the waste source.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the separation of oil-soluble substances" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the thermolytic conversion of hydrocarbons in the waste source" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the method for converting waste sources" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandhorst et al. (US 2017/0190977), hereafter referred to as Brandhorst, in view of Danz et al. (“Experimental Study on Fluorine Release from Photovoltaic Backsheet Materials Containing PVF and PVDF during Pyrolysis and Incineration in a Technical Lab-Scale Reactor at Various Temperatures”; doi: 10.3390/toxics7030047), hereafter referred to as Danz.
With regard to claim 1: Brandhorst teaches a method for recycling E waste into a Clean Fuel Gas and Char source (abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0002], [0021]-[0023], [0027], [0051]-[0052], [0072]-[0078]), the method comprising:
Inputting an e-waste source comprising at least one halogenated organic compound into a thermolysis system comprising at least one reactor, an oil/water separator, an oil/tar cracker, and a plurality of gas scrubbers (Abstract, Figure 1, paragraphs [0002], [0021]-[0023], [0027], [0072]-[0078]); wherein the least one reactor has a process temperature from about 400-800 °C for the waste source to undergo gasification (Brandhorst: paragraphs [0088]-[0091]).
Wherein said halogenated organic compound may include a halogenated organic polymer, i.e. PVC (paragraphs [0063], [0096], [0140]-[0144]).
Undergoing a depolymerization and a cracking of hydrocarbons in the e-waste source (paragraphs [0022], [0023], [0072]-[0078], claim 1).
Thermally cleaving at least one halogen from the at least one halogenated organic compound in the waste source, wherein said thermally cleaving comprises breaking halogen carbon bonds, such as C-Cl bonds (abstract, paragraphs [0017]-[0019], [0021], [0073]-[0074], [0099], and [0145]). Note: Because the thermally cleaving results in the production of a hydrogen halide (paragraphs [0099] and [0145]), It is understood that, in embodiments wherein the halogenated organic compound(s) is or includes a halogenated organic polymer, i.e. PVC, said thermally cleaving comprises breaking halogen carbon bonds (e.g. C-Cl bonds) which make up the halogenated organic polymer.
Capturing the at least one halogen in the scrubbers as a hydrogen halide gas and converting the at least one halogen to halogen salts for removal or disposal (paragraphs [0072]-[0078], [0098]-[0103]).
Destroying and/or removing toxic compounds present in the waste sources (paragraphs [0022], [0023], [0072]-[0078], claim 1).
Generating the Clean Fuel Gas and Char source that are substantially-free of halogenated organic compounds and do not include tars and/or oils (paragraphs [0022], [0023], [0048], [0072]-[0078], [0096], [0105], claim 15).
Wherein the char source contains at least recoverable metals (abstract, paragraphs [0002], [0021]-[0023], [0048], [0072]-[0078], claims 1 and 11).
Brandhorst does not explicitly teach that the e-waste can be or otherwise include solar panels and/or solar cells, wherein the solar panels and/or solar cells include at least one poly fluoro-aliphatic compound, and wherein the thermally cleaving results in the breaking of carbon-fluorine bonds.
However, regarding the identity of the e-waste to be processed, Brandhorst discloses the following:
The methods, systems, and/or processes of the present invention relate to of novel process using thermolysis methods too safely and efficiently convert various electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), including e-waste sources. As referred to herein, “e-waste” sources include, but are not limited to: (i) printed wiring boards (PWB), including electronic circuit boards (ECBs), including the electronic components and wiring attached to the PWB, as well as glass fibers held together with epoxies that contain brominated flame and/or fire retardants (FR), (ii) the e-plastic materials employed along with the PWB, include plastic housings, cases, bases, supports, frames, enclosure, terminals connectors and other polymeric parts, (iii) flat panel displays (FPDs), including steel, e-plastics, aluminum, glass, PWBs and mercury lamps contained therein, and (iv) printer cartridges and/or cassettes, toner cartridges, solvents, and ink-containing modules.
(paragraph [0050]; emphasis added).
Said disclosure at least suggests that the method of Brandhorst is broadly applicable to a wide array of different WEEE/e-waste sources, including WEEE/e-waste sources not explicitly named in said disclosure.
Furthermore, Brandhorst teaches that solar panels (photovoltaic panels) are a type of WEEE/e-waste (paragraph [0004]).
The forgoing teachings/disclosures of Brandhorst, when taken in combination with one another, would at least suggest that the method of Brandhorst can be used to process e-waste sources that include solar panels.
Furthermore, Danz describes an experimental study on fluorine release from photovoltaic backing sheets containing polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) during the pyrolysis thereof (abstract, Sections 1, 2.1, 2.4, and 3.2). Danz’s expressly acknowledges “the thermal treatment of fluoropolymers is challenging due to their high thermal stability derived from the carbon–fluorine bond which is 490 kJ/mol, compared to the carbon–hydrogen bond at 420 kJ/mol or carbon–carbon bond at 340 kJ/mol” (Section 1, fourth paragraph). Nevertheless, Danz demonstrates that it is possible to pyrolyze solar panel backing sheet materials, i.e. TPT and KPK, at temperatures of 400 °C, 500 °C, and 900 °C in a manner which causes fluorine to be released in the gas phase products of the pyrolysis reaction (section 3.2, Table 3, 4, and 6). Note: TPT contains PVF, i.e. “Tedlar”, and KPK contains PVDF, i.e. “Kynar” (section 2.1, first paragraph).
It is understood that the fluorine atoms in PFV and PVDF are bonded to carbon atoms. Thus, when pyrolysis of PFV and/or PVDF results in the release of fluorine in the form of HF, said pyrolysis reactions involve the breaking of carbon-fluorine bonds.
Danz teaches that the pyrolysis of hydrofluorocarbon polymers such as PVF and PVDF yield volatiles fractions with high amounts of HF (section 1, fifth paragraph). Thus, it is understood that the release of fluorine into the gas phase products during the pyrolysis reactions at 400 °C, 500 °C, and 900 °C includes the release of fluorine as HF. At the very least, Danz disclosure at least suggests that said pyrolysis reactions release fluorine as HF.
Accordingly, Danz disclosure provides a clear showing, or at least a clear suggestion, that it is possible to pyrolyze solar panel backing materials comprising poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds (PVF and PVDF) at temperatures of 400 °C, 500 °C, and 900 °C so as to cause the breaking of carbon fluorine bonds in said compounds.
Brandhorst teaches that the at least one reactor therein may be operated at a process temperature of about 400-800 °C for the waste source to undergo gasification (Brandhorst: paragraphs [0088]-[0091]).
In view of the forgoing, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that: 1) the process of Brandhorst can be used to process e-waste in the form of solar panels comprising at least one fluoropolymer (e.g. PVF or PVDF) to result in the pyrolysis of said at least one fluoropolymer, 2) that Brandhorst could be, without deviating from the temperature ranges disclosed by Brandhorst, configured to operate at a temperature which results in cleaving (breaking) of carbon-fluorine bonds in the at least one fluoropolymer and subsequent formation of HF.
Furthermore, considering that Brandhorst teaches that the scrubber recovers hydrogen halide gas and converts the halogen therein to halogen salts for removal or disposal (paragraphs [0072]-[0078], [0098]-[0103]), a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the scrubber in Brandhorst could be configured to successfully capture specifically HF (which is a hydrogen halide) and convert the fluorine therein to fluoride salt(s) for removal or disposal.
Brandhorst acknowledges that accumulation of e-waste is a problem (paragraph [0004]), and states a goal of providing a method for processing various e-waste sources into clean fuel gas and char (paragraphs [0014]-[0016]) while destroying halogenated organic compounds present therein (paragraph [0017]). As discussed above, Brandhorst’s disclosure (e.g. at paragraph [0050]) suggests that the method thereof is broadly applicable to e-wastes. Again, Brandhorst teaches that solar panels (photovoltaic panels) are a type of WEEE/e-waste (paragraph [0004]). Thus, the disclosure of Danz and Brandhorst agree that PV wastes fall under the category of e-waste.
Danz notably characterizes PV waste (photovoltaic waste) as e-waste (abstract, section 1 first paragraph). It is understood that waste solar panels, i.e. waste photovoltaic panels, fall into the category of PV waste. Like Brandhorst, the Danz acknowledges that accumulation of e-waste is a problem (Section 1, first paragraph), and teaches or at least suggests that the accumulation of e-waste in the form of PV waste is becoming a problem (Section 1, first paragraph). As discussed above, the disclosure of Danz indicates that PV waste can contain PVF and PVDF, which are halogenated, i.e. fluorinated, organic polymers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brandhorst in view of Danz by processing e-waste that is or otherwise includes solar panels, wherein the solar panels include at least one poly fluoro-aliphatic compound (PVF or PVDF), and wherein processing said solar panels includes thermally cleaving fluorine from the at least one poly fluoro-aliphatic compound (polyvinyl fluoride) by breaking carbon-fluorine bonds, and capturing the fluorine in the scrubbers as HF gas and converting the fluorine to fluoride salts for removal and disposal, in order to obtain a predictably functional method for disposing of waste solar panels, thereby mitigating accumulation of PV wastes.
As Applicant’s specification admits, C-F bonds necessarily have a bond strength of at least about 115 kcal/mol, (“the C-F bond strength is 115.8 kcal/mole,” (Page 2 of 6/19/2023 Specification at lines 27-28). This inherent property of C-F bonds is further evidenced by Danz, which teaches that carbon-fluorine bonds have a bond energy of 490 kJ/mol (about 117 kcal/mol) (Section 1, fourth paragraph). Accordingly, the thermally cleaving fluorine includes breaking bonds having a strength of at least about 115 kcal/mole.
Brandhorst teaches that the at least one reactor has a process temperature from about 400-800 °C for the waste source to undergo gasification (Brandhorst: paragraphs [0088]-[0091]).
Brandhorst is silent to the reactor having a process temperature in the specific range of about 450-800 °C.
However, the claimed range lies entirely within the taught range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It is well understood that temperature is a result effective variable in all pyrolysis and gasification reactions. Nevertheless, the teachings of Danz show that temperature is a result effective variable specifically in the pyrolysis of fluoropolymers (section 3.2, Figures 3, 4, and 6). "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Furthermore, Danz teachings indicate that temperature of 400, 500, and 900 °C are suitable for pyrolyzing PVF and PVDF to release fluorine therefrom (section 3.2, Figures 3, 4, and 6). Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that temperatures in the claimed range of 450-800 °C would be expected to be suitable for pyrolyzing/gasifying PVF and/or PVDF contained in solar panels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Brandhorst by optimizing the process temperature of the at least one reactor, i.e. such that it is in the range of about 450-800 °C, in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis process that is: i) congruent with the teachings of Brandhorst, and ii) predictably functional for pyrolyzing PVF and/or PVDF contained in solar panels to release fluorine therefrom.
Modified Brandhorst is silent to the at least one poly fluoro-aliphatic compound comprising at least about 1% of the mass of the solar panel and/or cell waste source.
However, Danz teaches that solar panels “typically contain 0.4 kg backsheet/m2 panel or about 3 wt. % (weight percent) of backsheet material per PV panel,” (section 1, second paragraph). As taught by Danz, such backsheet material often includes PVDF and PVF, i.e. in the case of KPK and TPT backsheets (section 1, third paragraph). A solar panel waste source having at least 1 wt% poly fluoro-aliphatic compound content is consistent with what one of ordinary skill in the art would expect based on the teachings of Danz.
Furthermore, the amount of poly fluoro-aliphatic compound by mass in any given waste source is largely dependent on the degree to which a solar panel and/or cell waste source has been disassembled or remains whole. For example, solar array that has reach the end of its life can be reasonably considered to be, in its entirety, “a solar panel and/or cell waste source”. Hypothetically, such a solar panel waste source could contain less than 1 wt% of a poly fluoro-aliphatic compound but also mountings (e.g. metal mountings) which contain no poly fluoro-aliphatic compound while accounting for a large percentage of the overall mass of the array. It would also be fair to characterize one or more solar panels removed from such an array as “a solar panel and/or cell waste source”. It is clear that such removed solar panels would possess a higher poly fluoro-aliphatic compound content than the array. Such solar panels could be further disassembled into to yield component having an even higher poly fluoro-aliphatic compound content that the panels while still qualifying as “a solar panel and/or cell waste source”.
Given that the poly fluoro-aliphatic compound content is easily increased by removing non-polymer components from a solar panel waste source (see discussion above), a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that it is possible to attain and subsequently further process, e.g. by pyrolysis, a solar panel waste source having at least 1 wt% poly fluoro-aliphatic compound(s).
In addition, it is noted that “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical,” (MPEP 2144.05(II)A). There is nothing in the record which suggests that the claimed poly fluoro-aliphatic compound content range is critical. On the contrary, the evidence of record points to poly fluoro-aliphatic compound content being merely a function of the degree to which a particular solar panel/cell waste source has been removed from other components of a solar array and/or a solar panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of modified Brandhorst to the processing of solar panel and/or cell waste sources comprising at least 1% poly fluoro-aliphatic compound by mass, in order to obtain a predictably functional method for disposing of solar panel and/or cell waste sources to mitigate accumulation of PV wastes.
With regard to claim 2: Modified Brandhorst is silent to a first step of separating metal frames and/or glass from the solar panel waste source.
However, Brandhorst teaches removing valuable materials in an initial step (paragraph [0080]). For example, Brandhorst teaches removing circuit boards from the devices housing them (paragraph [0080]) and PWBs from thermoplastic housings (paragraph [0079]). To one of ordinary skill in the art, these teachings would suggest removing electronic waste of any type from its housing as an initial step of the process. More particularly, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, contemplating the application of Brandhorst’s method to the treatment of a solar panel waste source, said teachings would suggest removing solar panels from their housing as an initial step, including housings made of materials such as metal or glass.
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that removing the solar panel waste source from a housing prior to thermolysis will reduce the amount of material which the thermolysis reactor must heat, thereby reducing the amount of energy consumed by the process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Brandhorst by adding an initial step of removing the solar panel waste source from a metal and/or glass housing (frame) prior to thermolyzing the waste source in order to reduce the amount of material which the thermolysis reactor must heat, thereby reducing the amount of energy consumed by the process.
With regard to claim 3: Modified Brandhorst comprises an initial step of shredding the e-waste source to provide a substantially uniform waste source (Brandhorst: paragraphs [0023] and [0081]). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the e-waste source in modified Brandhorst is or otherwise includes solar panels.
With regard to claim 4: Following shredding, the e-waste has an average diameter of less than about 2 inches before it is inputted into the thermolysis system (Brandhorst: Paragraph [0081]). As discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 3 above, the e-waste source in modified Brandhorst is or otherwise includes solar panels.
With regard to claim 5: Modified Brandhorst teaches that the at least one reactor has a process temperature from about 400-650 °C for the waste source to undergo gasification (Brandhorst: paragraphs [0088]-[0091]).
Modified Brandhorst is silent to the reactor having a process temperature in the specific range of about 450-800 °C.
However, the claimed range lies entirely within the taught range. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art will recognize that temperature is a result effective variable in pyrolysis and gasification reactions "[When] the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Brandhorst by optimizing the process temperature of the at least one reactor, i.e. such that it is in the range of about 450-650 °C in order to obtain a predictably functional pyrolysis process that is congruent with the teachings of Brandhorst.
With regard to claim 6: In modified Brandhorst, the thermolysis system may provide indirect heat in a system that is free of oxygen (Brandhorst: paragraph [0089]).
With regard to claim 7: The thermolysis system may have a pressure range from about 10 to about 100 millibar (Brandhorst: paragraph [0087]).
With regard to claim 8: In modified Brandhorst, the thermolysis involves partial gasification of the waste source (Brandhorst: Paragraph [0091]). Though it is not explicitly taught, it is understood that gasification involves the production of hydrogen. Accordingly, it is understood that the method of modified Brandhorst will produce hydrogen, thereby adding hydrogen to the atmosphere of the reactor during the step of thermolysis. Said hydrogen will necessarily drive formation of HG gas following the thermal cleaving of the fluorine from the poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds.
With regard to claim 9: The toxic compounds destroyed and/or removed comprise aromatics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, halogenated dibenzodioxins, halogenated dibenzofurans, biphenyls, pyrenes, cadmium, lead, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chlorofluorocarbons, mercury, nickel and other organic compounds present in the waste source, (Brandhorst: paragraph [0088]).
The Clean Fuel Gas and Char source generated contains less than about 10 ppb of toxins, including halogenated organic compounds (Brandhorst: Paragraph [0042], Claim 7).
With regard to claim 10: Modified Brandhorst does not explicitly teach that the solar panel waste source comprise 10 wt% or less poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds (and optionally additional polymeric materials).
However, Danz teaches that solar panels “typically contain 0.4 kg backsheet/m2 panel or about 3 wt. % (weight percent) of backsheet material per PV panel,” (section 1, second paragraph). As taught by Danz, such backsheet material often includes PVDF and PVF, i.e. in the case of KPK and TPT backsheets (section 1, third paragraph). Thus, Danz would give a person having ordinary skill in the art that it is at least workable to process/recycle solar panel waste sources comprising 10 wt% or less poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Brandhorst in view of Danz by processing a solar panel waste source comprising less than 10 wt% poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds (e.g. PVDF and/or PVF) in order to obtain a predictably functional method of recycling solar panels, wherein the solar panels recycled are solar panels known in the art.
With regard to claim 11: The poly fluoro-aliphatic compounds include at least PVF and PVD (Danz: abstract, Sections 1, 2.1, 2.4, and 3.2; see rejections of claims 1 and 10 above).
With regard to claim 12: The method does not generate any toxic halogenated organic compounds in the process of converting the waste sources to the Clean Fuel Gas and Char source (Brandhorst: Paragraphs [0015], [0048], [0074], [0127], [0129]).
With regard to Claim 13: The method the Char is in a metallic state that is fines, flakes and/or chips comprising at least metals, wherein the method further comprises an additional step of removing at least the metals from the char (Brandhorst: paragraphs [0023], [0055], [0073], [0074], Claim 11).
With regard to claim 14: At least the metals are separated from the char using solid-solid separation equipment and/or techniques (Brandhorst: paragraphs [0023], [0055], [0073], [0074], Claim 11). Said separation equipment and/or techniques are implicitly traditional, i.e. known in the art since at least the publication date of Brandhorst.
Brandhorst does not explicitly teach that the char also comprises photovoltaic materials that are separated from the char using the traditional solid-solid separation equipment and/or techniques.
However, it is implicit, that the solar panel waste source will comprise photovoltaic materials. Because the solar panel waste source comprises photovoltaic materials, it is further implicit or at least expected that the solar panel waste source, when processed by pyrolysis (thermolysis), will produce char which comprises said photovoltaic materials. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it desirable to separate said photovoltaic materials from the Char for the purpose of recycling said materials.
Assuming that it is not implicit in the method of modified Brandhorst, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Brandhorst by performing the method such that the produced chars contain photovoltaic materials, and such that said photovoltaic materials are separated from the char using the traditional solid-solid separation equipment and/or techniques, in order to recycle the photovoltaic materials.
Brandhorst does not explicitly teach that the char also comprises silicon that is separated from the char using the traditional solid-solid separation equipment and/or techniques.
However, it is well understood that many solar panels comprise silicon components. It is understood that pyrolyzing (thermolyzing) such solar panels will produce char comprising silicon. The teachings of Brandhorst indicate that the method therein is applicable to the pyrolysis of waste sources comprising inorganic components, e.g. metals and glass fibers, and that such applications will yield char which contains said inorganic components (Brandhorst: paragraph [0126]). It is well understood that the silicon components of solar panels are inorganic in nature. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art that it is at least workable to apply the method of Brandhorst to the treatment of treat solar panel waste sources comprising silicon, thus producing char comprising silicon. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it desirable to separate said silicon from the Char for the purpose of recycling said silicon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Brandhorst by performing the method on a photovoltaic waste source containing silicon such that the produced chars contain silicon, and such that said silicon is separated from the char using the traditional solid-solid separation equipment and/or techniques, in order to recycle the silicon.
With regard to claim 15: The clean fuel gas is processed through at least one gas scrubber step wherein the clean fuel gas is scrubbed and vapor components undergo fractional condensation (Brandhorst: Figure 1, claim 13).
With regard to claim 16: The method further comprises separation of oil-soluble substances from a gas/vapor mixture following thermolytic conversion of hydrocarbons in the waste source (Brandhorst: Figure 1, paragraph [0096], claim 19).
With regard to claim 17: The Char and the fuel gas source are free of halogenated organic compounds (Brandhorst: paragraphs [0021], [0074] and [0129]).
At least a portion of the fuel gas source generated is provided back to the method for converting waste sources to provide an energy source for such method and/or provided as a fuel source for an alternative application of use (Brandhorst: Figure 1, Paragraphs [0129] and [0130]).
With regard to claim 18: Brandhorst teaches that the thermolysis system, i.e. the reactor(s) thereof, may be indirectly heated (Brandhorst: Figure 1, Paragraphs [0076], [0089], [0092]-[0093]).
Though it is not expressly taught that the indirect heating is provided specifically by the fuel gas source, Brandhorst does teach that “In an embodiment, the fuel gas generated is utilized for heating the reactor(s) for the system and methods of the thermolysis methods of the invention,” (paragraph [0130]). This teaching, when taken in combination with the teaching that the thermolysis system can be indirectly heated, at least suggests that the fuel gas source can provide indirect heating to the thermolysis system in Brandhorst.
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 JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights