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 Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “valuable metal”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “valuable metal ions” for consistent recitation of the claim limitation.
Claim 5 recites “impurity metal”. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “impurity metal ions” for consistent recitation of the claim limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 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 11 recites the limitation "ultrafiltration membrane in each of steps (2) and (4)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for “ultrafiltration membrane”. It is also unclear where in steps (2) and (4) of claim 1 the ultrafiltration membrane is in and whether it is the same as the diafiltration membrane. For the purposes of examination and in view of the specification (paragraph 3 of pg. 7), the claim will be interpreted to mean that the ultrafiltration membrane is used in diafiltration.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the same aqueous acid solution". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear whether the aqueous acid solution is the same as the acid added in step (3) of claim 1 because “aqueous acid solution” in claim 17 is understood to mean that the acid is dissolved in a solution of water, whereas the acid in step (3) of claim 1 is understood to mean that the acid could be dissolved in any solvent and not solely water. For the purposes of examination and in view of the specification, the claim will be interpreted to mean that the aqueous acid solution added in claim 17 is the same as the acid that is added in the form of an aqueous solution in step (3) (paragraph 2 of pg. 8).
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.
Claim 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US-5766478-A, hereinafter “Smith”) and Green (US-5476591-A).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10, Smith is directed to a process of separating selected metal ions from aqueous stream, and the metal ions can further be concentrated and removed or recovered (col. 1, lines 8-10) (i.e., method for selectively recovering and concentrating valuable metal ions) and discloses a process comprising:
Water-soluble polymers in contact with an aqueous solution, comprising of target metals and competing ions (col. 1, lines 51-53) (i.e., adding a water-soluble polymer to a solution containing valuable metal ions and impurity metal ions). Smith further discloses in Example 11 and 13 that using the water-soluble polymer PEI (which meets the recited water-soluble polymer in claim 7) at a pH of 6-7 (which is within the recited pH range of 6-11 in claim 10) will allow the selective recovery of copper, nickel, iron, zinc, and cadmium metals (which meets the valuable metals in claim 3) over sodium, potassium, lithium, calcium, and magnesium (which meets the impurity metals in claim 5) (col. 40, lines 27-29 and col. 46, lines 5-14). After a sufficient amount time, a water-soluble polymer metal-complex is formed (col. 2, lines 1-4) (i.e., to form a polymer-ion complex in which the valuable metal ions and the polymer are combined);
After a water-soluble polymer metal complex is formed, ultrafiltration, which may be done with a diafiltration mode, is done to prevent the water-soluble polymer-metal complex from passing through the membrane as permeate while the solvent and unbound materials is passed through the membrane as permeate (col. 15, lines 16-20, 50-54 and col. 16, lines 12-16) (i.e., conducting diafiltration on the solution containing the polymer-ion complex and the impurity metal ions to have the impurity metal ions selectively penetrated and removed);
After membrane separation, contacting an acid with the water-soluble polymer-metal complex to release the selected metal ions from the water-soluble polymer-metal complex (col. 2, lines 10-23) (i.e., adding an acid to the polymer-ion complex solution from which the impurity metal ions have been removed to decomplex the water-soluble polymer and the valuable metal ions);
After releasing the selected metal ions from the water-soluble polymer-metal complex with an acid, removing the released selected metal ions by a secondary membrane separation from the water-soluble polymer (col. 2, lines 19-28). A diafiltration process is used to recover the polymer-free metal ion (col. 13, lines 13-14) (i.e., conducting diafiltration on the solution containing the water-soluble polymer and the valuable metal ions that have been decomplexed to have the valuable metal ions selectively penetrated and recovered).
Smith does not disclose a step (5) of concentrating the recovered valuable metal ions through a nanofiltration process.
Green is directed to liquid treatment systems designed to remove dissolved metals from liquid compositions, which includes industrial waste water containing dissolved transition metal ions, including nickel, copper, cobalt, zinc, cadmium, iron, and manganese (i.e., valuable metals) (col. 1, lines 10-22). Green discloses that these dissolved metals can be passed through at least one nanofiltration membrane filter unit and can produce a concentrated metal ion-rich retentate (col. 3, lines 10-20 and 49-51) (i.e., concentrating the recovered valuable metal ions through a nanofiltration process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the valuable metal ion recovery process disclosed by Smith by incorporating a nanofiltration membrane to further concentrate and purify the recovered valuable metal ions as disclosed by Green because Smith teaches that PEI homopolymer P have broad molecular weight ranges and may pass through ultrafiltration membranes that have molecular weight cutoffs as low as 10,000 (Smith; col. 18, lines 64 to col. 19, line 5). Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that some water-soluble polymers may still be left over in the recovered valuable metal ions stream after undergoing ultrafiltration and to use the nanofiltration membrane disclosed by Green to further purify the stream because Green teaches that nanofiltration membranes can further restrict the passage of materials that would normally pass through ultrafiltration membranes (Green; col. 10, lines 10-22).
Regarding claim 2, Smith does not explicitly disclose that the solution in step (1) is a waste solution discharged from a manufacturing process of cathode material for secondary batteries. Smith discloses a process for selective separation of various precious metal ions from aqueous streams that can come from electronics industry waste waters (col. 2, lines 47-49 and col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the source of the aqueous feed solution could be from waste solutions discharged from a manufacturing process of cathode material for secondary batteries because (1) electronic industry waste water and electroplating process streams disclosed by Smith is analogous to waste solutions from manufacturing processes of cathode materials (col. 2, lines 47-49 and col. 2, line 66 to col. 3, line 4); and (2) Smith discloses an embodiment of the invention that target the same valuable metal ions as claimed by the applicant (as described in the discussion about claims 1 and 3 above).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses, in Example 13, a process of recovering zinc and nickel from electroplating rinse baths, wherein the zinc concentration in the initial feed solution is 69.8 ppm (col. 45, lines 66-67; Table 12 in col. 46) (i.e., the concentration of the valuable metal ions in the solution of step 1 is 50 ppm to 10,000 ppm).
Regarding claim 6, Smith is silent on the concentration of the impurity metal ions in the feed solution and that the concentration is within the recited range of 200ppm to 100,000ppm. However, Smith discloses a process of recovering the recited valuable metal ions within the recited range of the valuable metal ions concentration in the feed solution, using the recited water-soluble polymer to selectively form a polymer-ion complex over the recited impurity metal ions, as described above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the concentration of the impurity metal ions in the feed solution is not critical to the process of recovering the valuable metal ions because Smith discloses a similar valuable metal ions recovery process with similar parameters compared to the recited valuable metal ions recovery process, wherein the water-soluble polymer readily and selectively forms a polymer-ion complex with the recited valuable metal ions over the impurity metal ions (col. 46, lines 7-14). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect the concentration of impurity metal ions in the feed solution disclosed by Smith to fall within or overlap with the recited concentration range of the impurity metal ions.
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses that the PEI homopolymer P has a molecular weight range of 70,000 to 750,000. Smith does not disclose the recited kDa units, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to expect Smith to use atomic mass units, wherein one atomic mass unit is equivalent to one Da. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that Smith disclosed a PEI homopolymer P with a molecular weight of 70 kDa to 750 kDa, which overlaps with the recited water-soluble polymer molecular weight range.
Regarding claim 9, Smith does not disclose that the amount of water-soluble polymer added per 1g of the valuable metal ions in step (1) is 5g to 20g. Smith does disclose that a water-soluble polymer is added to recover valuable metal ions from an aqueous solution by forming a water-soluble polymer-metal complex (col. 2, lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the result-effective variable of the ratio between the amount of water-soluble polymer added to the amount of valuable metal ions present in the solution is important because Smith discloses that it is the water-soluble polymer that forms a water-soluble polymer metal-complex with the valuable metal ions (col. 2, lines 1-6), which is later recovered. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to conduct routine experimentation to determine the mass ratio of the added water-soluble polymer and valuable metal ions that would optimize this complexing reaction and eventually come to the recited mass ratio without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses an ultrafiltration unit, wherein the ultrafiltration unit can be used with a diafiltration mode, consists of ultrafiltration membranes that can be polysulfone (col. 16, lines 38-44 and 58-61) (i.e., wherein the ultrafiltration membrane in each of steps (2) and (4) comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyethersulfone, polyvinylidene fluoride, and polysulfone).
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses an ultrafiltration membrane, used in diafiltration, having a molecular weight cutoff less than the molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer (col. 16, lines 14-24) (i.e., the molecular weight cutoff of the ultrafiltration membrane in each of steps 2 and 4 is 1% to 100% of the molecular weight of the polymer).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses during diafiltration that water can be added to the retentate at the same rate as the permeate is generated to maintain constant volume (col. 16, lines 32-35) (i.e., neutral distilled water is used as a buffer during diafiltration in step 2).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Smith discloses recovering zinc and nickel from electroplating rinse baths, in Example 12, wherein concentrated hydrochloric acid is added to a final pH of 2.0 (which meets the recited pH range in claim 16) in order to release the metals from the polymer (col. 43, line 39 and col. 45, lines 39-41) (i.e., acid in step 3 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, and nitric acid).
Regarding claim 15, Smith does not disclose the concentration of the acid added to be 0.1 M to 1 M in step (3). However, Smith discloses adding the recited hydrochloric acid to release the valuable metal ions from the water-soluble polymer, and to add the right amount of acid to lower the pH to within the recited pH range, as described above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the importance of the result-effective variable of the concentration of the added acid and to conduct routine experimentation to determine the optimal concentration of the added acid because Smith discloses that an appropriate amount hydrochloric acid is needed to decomplex the valuable metal ions from the water-soluble polymer at an optimal pH (col. 43, line 39 and col. 45, lines 39-41).
Regarding claim 18, Smith does not disclose a nanofiltration process step of concentrating the recovered metal valuable ions, wherein the operating pressure is 10 bar to 30 bar.
Green discloses a nanofiltration membrane used to produce a metal ion-rich retentate that can operate at low fluid pressures of 75-200psi, or approximately 5.2-13.8 bar (col. 10, lines 21-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the valuable metal ions recovery process of Smith by incorporating a nanofiltration step, wherein the operating step is 10 bar to 30 bar because Green discloses a nanofiltration membrane operating at approximately 5.2-13.8 bar (Green; col. 10, lines 21-24).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Green as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sauer et al. (US-5928517-A, hereinafter “Sauer”).
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses recovering zinc and nickel, wherein the optimum release of nickel and zinc from the water-soluble polymer metal-complex occurs at or below a pH of 3 and diafiltration at this pH will reduce the number of volume equivalents needed to recover greater than 95% of nickel and zinc in concentrated rinse waters (col. 48, lines 9-14).
However, Smith does not disclose that the same aqueous acid solution used in step (3) is used as a buffer during diafiltration in step (4), and the pH of the buffer is the same as the pH of the solution containing the water-soluble polymer and the valuable metal ions that have been decomplexed in step (3).
Sauer is directed to recovering target metals contained in a solid matrix by contacting the solid matrix with an aqueous solution containing a water-soluble polymer to form a water-soluble polymer-target metal complex (Abstract). Sauer discloses that during diafiltration, dilute mineral acid can be added to the retentate at the same rate as the permeate is being generated (col. 5, lines 44-47) (i.e., an aqueous acid solution can be used as a buffer during diafiltration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the valuable metal ions recovery process of Smith and Green by adding the same aqueous acid solution used to decomplex the water-soluble polymer metal-complex and to keep the pH of the buffer the same as the pH of the solution containing the decomplexed water-soluble polymer and valuable metal ions. Smith discloses that diafiltrating the released valuable metal ions from the water-soluble polymer at the same pH as the optimal pH used to decomplex the water-soluble polymer metal-complex is ideal for the recovery of valuable metal ions (Smith; col. 48, lines 9-14) and Sauer discloses that an acid can be used as a buffer during diafiltration (Sauer; col. 5, lines 44-47). Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reuse the aqueous acid solution in step (3) as the diafiltration buffer and to maintain the pH of the diafiltration buffer to be equivalent to the pH of the solution (containing the decomplexed water-soluble polymer and valuable metal ions) that is undergoing diafiltration. As a result, the optimal pH condition for de-complexing the valuable metal ions from the water-soluble polymer is sustained while separation of valuable metal ions from the decomplexed water-soluble polymer occurs via diafiltration, thereby maximizing the recovery of the valuable metal ions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-4pm; Fri 7-11am.
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 (571) 272-5954. 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.
/NATHAN NGOC-NGOC HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights