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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 12, “maintaining voltage” should read “maintaining a voltage”.
In claim 5, line 2, “that water” should read “that a water”.
In claim 6, line 12, “maintaining voltage” should read “maintaining a voltage”.
In claim 10, line 2, “that water” should read “that a water”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanulik (U.S. Patent No. 4,874,486) in view of Jensen et al. (U.S. 2022/0205121), and further in view of Matsushita et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,356,076).
Regarding claim 1, Hanulik teaches a metal recovery method (see e.g. Col. 3, lines 31-40, electrolysis process in which metals are recovered) comprising
causing a metal recovery device (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolysis cell 10; Col. 3, lines 47-48) that includes
a power source (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 50-54, source of applied voltage),
an electrolytic solution (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolysis solution 13; Col. 3, lines 51-52),
a first tank that includes an anode, a first supply port for H2O and a first discharge port, and that is immersed in the electrolytic solution, the anode being connected to the power source (see e.g. Fig. 2, plastic cylinder 14, i.e. tank, immersed in solution 13 and containing anode plate 16 connected to positive terminal in contact with pyrolysis slag S with grid 15 through which the aqueous solution may enter/exit, i.e. via supply and discharge ports; Col. 3, lines 51-63) and containing at least Co (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 1-19, Co being one of exemplary metals decomposed at the anode and redeposited at the cathode), and
a cathode immersed in the electrolytic solution, the cathode being connected to the power source (see e.g. Fig. 2, cathode 19 with connection to negative terminal immersed in solution 13; Col. 4, lines 16-17),
to recover Co eluted from the anode by maintaining voltage by the power source such that a potential of the anode is higher than a potential of the cathode (see e.g. Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 1-19 and 50-54, electrolytic decomposition of metal such as Co at the anode with the applied electrolysis voltage, the anode receiving the positive voltage, i.e. higher potential).
Hanulik does not explicitly teach the device also comprising an electronic load connected to the anode and cathode that maintains the voltage along with the power source, but does teach that a variety of voltages may be applied for electrolysis with the device (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 50-54).
Jensen teaches a system comprising an electrolysis cell (see e.g. Abstract), wherein a power electronic unit is connected to electrodes of the cell to supply the cell with a fluctuating voltage (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2B, power electronic unit 16 connected to first electrode 11 and second electrode 13; Paragraph 0001 and Paragraph 0041, lines 4-9 and 14-17), and the power electronic unit may comprise a power supply combined with an electronic load (see e.g. Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hanulik to comprise an electronic load combined with the power source connected to the electrodes as taught by Jensen as a suitable power electronic unit for providing a variety of voltages to an electrolysis cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Hanulik does not teach the cathode being included in a second tank including a second supply port for H2O and a second discharge port, and that is immersed in the electrolytic solution, but does teach hydrogen and other gases generated at the cathode being extracted from the cell so that no explosive gas mixture is produced (see e.g. Hanulik Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 28-32).
Matsushita teaches an electrolytic apparatus in which hydrogen is generated at a cathode (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the cathode is positioned within a tubular partition member immersed in the electrolytic solution of the apparatus to form a closed cathode chamber, i.e. tank (see e.g. Fig. 1, cathode member 5 in partition member 8 immersed in electrolytic solution 2; Col. 2, lines 15-17 and 29-31), the partition member being provided with small openings, i.e. ports, sized to allow entry of electrolytic solution but to prevent generated hydrogen from passing therethrough out of the cathode chamber (see e.g. Fig. 1, openings 10 in partition member 8; Col. 2, lines 31-42), such that the hydrogen may be collected in an upper space of the partition member and discharged therefrom through a discharge conduit opening, i.e. port (see e.g. Fig. 1, discharge conduit 1 open to upper space 11 in which hydrogen gas collected; Col. 2, lines 47-50), this configuration providing a high recovery rate of the generated hydrogen (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 48-58, and Table of Col. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Hanulik to comprise the cathode positioned within a closed chamber, i.e. tank, formed by a tubular partition member immersed in the solution with supply openings for said solution and a discharge conduit opening in an upper space as taught by Matsushita as a suitable arrangement for extracting generated hydrogen from around the cathode of an electrolysis cell that provides a high hydrogen recovery rate and further prevents it from escaping the cathode chamber, facilitating the desired prevention of explosive gas mixture formation. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hanulik teaches the anode containing Ni, and the method further comprising recovering residual Ni in the anode by maintaining the voltage by the power source and the electronic load such that the potential of the anode is higher than the potential of the cathode (see e.g. Hanulik Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 1-19 and 50-54, electrolytic decomposition of other metal such as Ni at the anode with the applied electrolysis voltage, the anode receiving the positive voltage, i.e. higher potential).
Regarding claim 5, Hanulik as modified by Matsushita teaches maintaining the voltage such that water electrolysis reaction occurs, extracting O2 gas from the first tank, and extracting H2 gas from the second tank (see e.g. Hanulik Fig. 2, O2 and H2 released respectively at anode 16, and thereby out of plastic cylinder 14, and cathode 19 from water electrolysis, Col. 4, lines 1-12 and 28-29; see e.g. Matsushita Fig. 1, hydrogen recovered via discharge conduit 12 of tubular member 8, Col. 2, lines 37-39 and 47-50).
Regarding claim 6, Hanulik teaches a metal recovery device (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolysis cell 10 for electrolysis process in which metals are recovered; Col. 3, lines 31-40 and 47-48), comprising:
a power source (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 50-54, source of applied voltage),
an electrolytic solution (see e.g. Fig. 2, electrolysis solution 13; Col. 3, lines 51-52),
a first tank that includes an anode, a first supply port for H2O and a first discharge port, and that is immersed in the electrolytic solution, the anode being connected to the power source (see e.g. Fig. 2, plastic cylinder 14, i.e. tank, immersed in solution 13 and containing anode plate 16 connected to positive terminal in contact with pyrolysis slag S with grid 15 through which the aqueous solution may enter/exit, i.e. via supply and discharge ports; Col. 3, lines 51-63) and containing at least Co (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 1-19, Co being one of exemplary metals decomposed at the anode and redeposited at the cathode), and
a cathode immersed in the electrolytic solution, the cathode being connected to the power source (see e.g. Fig. 2, cathode 19 with connection to negative terminal immersed in solution 13; Col. 4, lines 16-17), wherein
the metal recovery device is configured to recover Co eluted from the anode by maintaining voltage by the power source such that a potential of the anode is higher than a potential of the cathode (see e.g. Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 1-19 and 50-54, electrolytic decomposition of metal such as Co at the anode with the applied electrolysis voltage, the anode receiving the positive voltage, i.e. higher potential).
Hanulik does not explicitly teach the device also comprising an electronic load connected to the anode and cathode that maintains the voltage along with the power source, but does teach that a variety of voltages may be applied for electrolysis with the device (see e.g. Col. 4, lines 50-54).
Jensen teaches a system comprising an electrolysis cell (see e.g. Abstract), wherein a power electronic unit is connected to electrodes of the cell to supply the cell with a fluctuating voltage (see e.g. Figs. 2A-2B, power electronic unit 16 connected to first electrode 11 and second electrode 13; Paragraph 0001 and Paragraph 0041, lines 4-9 and 14-17), and the power electronic unit may comprise a power supply combined with an electronic load (see e.g. Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hanulik to comprise an electronic load combined with the power source connected to the electrodes as taught by Jensen as a suitable power electronic unit for providing a variety of voltages to an electrolysis cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Modified Hanulik does not teach the cathode being included in a second tank including a second supply port for H2O and a second discharge port, and that is immersed in the electrolytic solution, but does teach hydrogen and other gases generated at the cathode being extracted from the cell so that no explosive gas mixture is produced (see e.g. Hanulik Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 28-32).
Matsushita teaches an electrolytic apparatus in which hydrogen is generated at a cathode (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the cathode is positioned within a tubular partition member immersed in the electrolytic solution of the apparatus to form a closed cathode chamber, i.e. tank (see e.g. Fig. 1, cathode member 5 in partition member 8 immersed in electrolytic solution 2; Col. 2, lines 15-17 and 29-31), the partition member being provided with small openings, i.e. ports, sized to allow entry of electrolytic solution but to prevent generated hydrogen from passing therethrough out of the cathode chamber (see e.g. Fig. 1, openings 10 in partition member 8; Col. 2, lines 31-42), such that the hydrogen may be collected in an upper space of the partition member and discharged therefrom through a discharge conduit opening, i.e. port (see e.g. Fig. 1, discharge conduit 1 open to upper space 11 in which hydrogen gas collected; Col. 2, lines 47-50), this configuration providing a high recovery rate of the generated hydrogen (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 48-58, and Table of Col. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Hanulik to comprise the cathode positioned within a closed chamber, i.e. tank, formed by a tubular partition member immersed in the solution with supply openings for said solution and a discharge conduit opening in an upper space as taught by Matsushita as a suitable arrangement for extracting generated hydrogen from around the cathode of an electrolysis cell that provides a high hydrogen recovery rate and further prevents it from escaping the cathode chamber, facilitating the desired prevention of explosive gas mixture formation. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hanulik teaches the anode containing Ni, and the metal recovery device being configured to recover residual Ni in the anode by maintaining the voltage by the power source and the electronic load such that the potential of the anode is higher than the potential of the cathode (see e.g. Hanulik Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 1-19 and 50-54, electrolytic decomposition of other metal such as Ni at the anode with the applied electrolysis voltage, the anode receiving the positive voltage, i.e. higher potential).
Regarding claim 10, Hanulik as modified by Matsushita teaches the metal recovery device being configured to maintain the voltage such that water electrolysis reaction occurs, extract O2 gas from the first tank, and extract H2 gas from the second tank (see e.g. Hanulik Fig. 2, O2 and H2 released respectively at anode 16, and thereby out of plastic cylinder 14, and cathode 19 from water electrolysis, Col. 4, lines 1-12 and 28-29; see e.g. Matsushita Fig. 1, hydrogen recovered via discharge conduit 12 of tubular member 8, Col. 2, lines 37-39 and 47-50).
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanulik, Jensen and Matsushita, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Ginatta (U.S. Patent No. 4,098,658) and Pradhan et al. (“A review on the recovery of metal values from spent nickel metal hydride and lithium-ion batteries”, Int J Environ Sci Tech, 2021).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, modified Hanulik teaches all the elements of the method of claim 1 and device of claim 6 as stated above. Modified Hanulik does not teach at least one of the first tank and the second tank being a storage battery, but does teach the first tank containing materials derived from electrical batteries to recover metals therein (see e.g. Hanulik Fig. 2, cylinder 14 containing pyrolysis slag S in the form of batteries from which metals to be recovered; Col. 1, lines 8-9, and Col. 3, lines 31-40 and 56-60), the batteries being first subjected to a pyrolysis process that produces gaseous products that end up escaping through a chimney (see e.g. Hanulik Col. 2, lines 22-36, and Col. 3, lines 10-15).
Ginatta teaches a process for recovering metals from the electrodes and connections of spent electric storage batteries (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the batteries are opened and pre-treated (see e.g. Abstract and Col. 5, lines 36-57), their negative pole is connected to the positive, i.e. anodic, terminal of a power supply (see e.g. Abstract and Col. 5, lines 58-61), the batteries are immersed in an electrolyte which is allowed to circulate therethrough via openings, i.e. supply and discharge ports (see e.g. Abstract, Col. 3, lines 14-20, and Col. 5, line 62-Col. 6, line 2), and the power supply conducts electrolysis with the batteries as well as cathodes in the electrolyte such that metals of the batteries as anodic electrodes electrochemically dissolve, i.e. elute, into the electrolyte and deposit on the cathodes (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 13-27, and Col. 3, lines 49-62), this process enabling recovery of the metals without destruction of the battery case so it can be reused and without generation of the large quantity of air quality-affecting fumes associated with combustion of battery containers and separators in pyrometallurgical processes (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 18-33 and 46-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Hanulik to have an electrical storage battery directly serve as the first tank comprising the anode through which the electrolyte is circulated via respective openings, i.e. supply and discharge ports, as taught by Ginatta to allow for recovery of metals from the battery without destruction of the battery case so it can be reused and without the generation of a large quantity of air quality-affecting fumes associated with combustion of battery containers and separators in pyrometallurgical processes.
Modified Hanulik does not explicitly teach the storage battery being a nickel-metal hydride storage battery, but does teach it generally being a high powered battery for equipment of any construction, size and chemical composition for which recycling is desired to prevent environmental pollution (see e.g. Hanulik Col. 1, lines 8-15), as well as Ni and Co being exemplary metals to be recovered therefrom (see e.g. Hanulik Col. 3, lines 36-40, and Col. 4, lines 1-19).
Pradhan relates to the recycling of batteries of electronic devices (see e.g. Abstract) and teaches nickel metal hydride (NiMH) storage batteries being particular batteries the recovery of which offers protection against pollution and from which valuable metals like Ni and Co can be recovered (see e.g. connecting paragraph of Pages 4538-4539, lines 7-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage battery of modified Hanulik to particularly be a nickel metal hydride storage battery as taught by Pradhan as an exemplary suitable battery from which metals such as Ni and Co can be recovered and whose recovery offers protection against pollution. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Hanulik as modified by Pradhan teaches the nickel-metal hydride storage battery being a used storage battery (see e.g. Hanulik Col. 1, lines 13-14, and Col. 5, line 39; see e.g. Pradhan Page 4538, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 13-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ni et al. (“Recycling the cathode materials of spent Li-ion batteries in a H-Shaped neutral water electrolysis cell”, Separation and Purification Technology, 2021) teaches a method for recycling cathode materials of Li-ion batteries in a water electrolysis cell, in which metals such as Co and Ni may be eluted from the battery materials in an anode chamber simultaneously with water electrolysis to generate H2 and O2 at the respective cathode and anode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights