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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gates (US2005/0061713) in view of Rarufu (JPH09150136A) and further view of Inoue (EP1219355).
Referring to claim 1. Gates discloses an “Apparatus For The Electrostatic Separation of Particulate Mixtures”. See Figs. 1-8 and respective portions of the specification. Gates discloses a high-tension roll (HTR) electrostatic separator for separating particulate mixtures that differ in electrical conductivity (See Sect. 0001, 0070), wherein the separator comprises a grounded rotating roll electrode with a horizontal rotation axis that transports the feed material through the ionizing field (Sect. 0006, 0072) and wherein the apparatus includes a corona electrode (corona wire) and a first static electrode both connected to high-voltage power supplies, and more where the potential difference between these electrodes and the grounded roll drives particle charging and separation. Moreover, Gates discloses splitter that divides the separated stream into a conductor-rich fraction and a non-conductor fraction, with splitter positioned and angled and independently adjusted at each stage (See Sect. 0010, 0013-0014). Additionally, Gates discloses a mineral wiping brush for dislodging particles from the surface of the grounded rotating roll electrode (See Sect. 0047, 0076) and further discloses that high-tension roll separators standardly incorporate up to three identical stages with material cascading from stage to stage, including non-conductor retreat configurations (Sect. 0012, 006) and further feeding the mixed debris from the first corona drum stages to a second stage for re-separation, with the option of returning it to the process again (See Sect. 0022). Furthermore, Gates discloses roll speed, electrode position, and splitter position as parameters adjusted to achieve effective separation (See Sect. 0013, 0014) and that optimizing these conditions yields a metal concentrate of high purity and a residue with very little metal content (Sect. 0027-0028). Gates does not explicitly disclose a removing aluminum frames and junction boxes from photovoltaic modules, a humidity sensor for measuring humidity, wherein electrostatically separating the photovoltaic sandwich particles is conducted at a humidity of less than about 60% or wherein the first fraction comprises less than 5% of total polymer particles and is substantially free of glass particles. Rarufu discloses a “Method For Selecting Conductive Plate Scrap From Electric-Electronic Equipment”. See Fig. 1 and respective portions of the specification. Rarufu further discloses a method for recovering metallic materials, the method comprising: the method comprising removing components from the composite articles before processing (Sect. 0013), then shredding/crushing the articles in multiple stages using a cutter and hammer mill to produce a mixed particle stream comprising metals, synthetic resins, glass fibers, glass fragments, and ceramic particles (Sect. 0013-0014). It should be noted that this is analogous to the removal of aluminum frames and junction boxes from photovoltaic modules to provide photovoltaic sandwich structures. Likewise, Rarufu discloses that ambient humidity and material moisture critically degrade corona drum separator performance and discloses controlling temperature and humidity to stabilize operating conditions. Inoue discloses an “Apparatus for the electrostatic separation of particulate mixtures”. See Figs. 1-20 and respective portions of the specification. Inoue further discloses that elevated atmospheric humidity prevents proper electrification and produces unstable charge, impairing separation (Sect. 0010), and discloses heating means enclosing the separator to actively reduce sorting atmosphere humidity (Sect. 0032). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rarufu and Inoue to include a humidity sensor as taught by Inoue to measure the separation environment as a way of reducing and controlling sorting atmosphere humidity, while the specific threshold of less than about 60% constitutes optimization of a result-effective variable, while the specific range of less than 5% weight polymer particles and substantially free of glass is further recognized as a result effective variable, which would have been optimized to achieve so that a metal concentrate of high purity could be reached.
Referring to claims 2-4. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gages does not disclose shredding photovoltaic structures comprises sieving the particles thereby to define a maximum particle size of the particles for electrostatic separation, wherein the maximum particle size is less than 10mm or wherein the maximum particle size is less than 2mm. Rarufu discloses discharging crushed fine matter through a sieve screen of approximately 4mm diameter (Sect. 0014) and further fractionating the fine debris into narrow dimensional grades (Sect. 0018-0019), with individual grade fractions ranging from sub 0.1mm to approximately 4mm as the maximum size entering the corona drum separator. Thus Rarufu, teaches sieving to define a maximum particle size for electrostatic separation and the disclosed maximum sizes are below 10mm and 2mm respectively. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rarufu into the system of Gates so that the structures were shredded and sieved to reach the preferred size for subsequent operation. Likewise, the selection of specific values within these disclosed ranges is routine optimization.
Referring to claims 5-7. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates further discloses multi-stage high-tension roll separators with individual stages in series and material cascading from one stage to the next (Sect. 0012-0013, 0060). Rarufu discloses a two-stage corona drum separator (stages 11 and 12) with mixed debris from stage 1 re-fed to stage 2, and the option of further recycling the output back to the process (Sect. 0021-0022). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rarufu and include one or more electrostatic separators in series, so that the separation of materials could be optimized with a focus on metallic particles being targeted/removed in the successive stages so that the end product was optimized.
Referring to claim 8. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates further discloses that the roll speed is a result-effective variable, wherein slower rotation increase particle dwell time in the electric field and thereby enhances separation efficiency (Sect. 0042) and discloses that roll speed is independently at each stage to optimize separation (Sect. 0013). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/adjust the roll speed to approximately 30 rpm if determined to be ideal speed for separation efficiency as it is the routine optimization of a recognized optimization variable.
Referring to claim 9. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates discloses wherein the electric potential difference of the electrostatic separator is about 25 kV (See Sect. 0024).
Referring to claim 10. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates disclose wherein the splitter is at about a 10-degree angle to the vertical (See Sect. 0013-0014). More specifically, Gates discloses wherein the splitter angle and position are adjusted at each stage and optimized for separation performance, the specific value of 10 degrees represents routine optimization of a result-effective parameter.
Referring to claim 11. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates doesn’t disclose wherein the metal particles comprise silver, copper and aluminum particles. Rarufu discloses that the composite scrap feedstock contains copper, aluminum, iron, lead and noble metals including silver and gold (See Sect. 0002). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rarufu wherein silver, copper and aluminum particles were processed so that the valuable components from photovoltaic modules could be processed to be separated and /or recovered.
Referring to claims 12-13. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first fraction comprise greater than 90 wt% total silver particles or greater than 95 wt% total silver particles. Rarufu discloses tha the objective and result of the process is a metal concentrate of high purity (Sect. 007, 0027). While, Inoue discloses that optimized electrostatic separation with humidity control achieves product purity of 95% or more and recovery of 90% or more (See Sect. 0034, 0041). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to based on the teachings of Rarufu and Inoue that achieving purity thresholds greater than 90/95% represent the optimization of result effective variables including roll speed, electric potential differences, and splitter position, to adjust the result-effective parameters of roll speed, electric potential differences and splitter position to achieve ideal optimization and purity conditions.
Referring to claim 14. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates doesn’t explicitly disclose that the first fraction comprises greater than 70 wt% total aluminum particles. Rarufu discloses aluminum recovery as a target output of the process, with the method specifically optimizing the corona drum separator parameters to maximize metal recovery purity (Sect. 0021, 0024-0025, 0027). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rarufu to target the recovery of aluminum so that aluminum could be targeted and recovered from the stream at the required purity level. Likewise, the greater than 70% aluminum threshold represents routine optimization of the recognized result-effective parameter.
Referring to claims 15-16. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates doesn’t disclose maintaining the humidity below a predetermined threshold value and reducing humidity with a heater and/or dehumidifier. Rarufu discloses controlling temperature and humidity of both the feed material and the surrounding separator environment to maintain constant operating conditions (Sect. 0023). Inoue discloses enclosing the separator in a box member and applying a heat source to actively reduce and maintain sorting atmosphere humidity below an operating level (Sect. 0032, 0054), as well as additional heating means variations (Sects. 0053-0061). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Rarufu and Inoue to control and maintain humidity below the threshold value so that operating conditions could be optimized to achieve greater purity in the product and the use of a heater and dehumidifier are known and standard to use to aid in reducing humidity.
Referring to claims 17-18. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claim 1. Gates doesn’t disclose feeding a monolayer of the photovoltaic sandwich structure particles to the electrostatic separator and wherein the monolayer is formed with a vibratory feeder. Inoue discloses a specified-amount feeder that vibrates plastic pieces on a feed tray to disentangle them and pass them through a gap of predetermined height, delivering the particles to the drum electrode in the form of a thin, uniform layer (monolayer) (See Sects. 0013, 0022, 0035, 0038) and further teaches that monolayer feeding ensures consistent application of image force and centrifugal force to individual particles, thereby improving separation efficiency and purity (See Sects. 0013, 0038). Further, Inoue discloses a vibrator comprising a cylindrical cam member driven by an electric motor with elastic support members that vibrate the feed tray to form the monolayer feed (Sects. 0019-0020, 0038). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate monolayer feeding comprising a vibratory feeder so that separation efficiency and purity could be improved.
Referring to claim 19. Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue disclose the combination set forth above as applied to claims 1, 8, and 17. With respect to claim 19, the method described in these claims would inherently result from the use of Gates in view of Rarufu and Inoue as advanced above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL HOWARD MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-5929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/TERRELL H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights