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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-30 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 11-14, and 20-21 are amended. Claims 2, 8, and 10 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 14-19, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the subsequent steps (e) include precipitating… lithium carbonate and sodium sulfate successively from solution in the digestion liquor”. The instant specification discloses in subsequent steps to digesting jadarite concentrate in sulphuric acid, precipitating lithium carbonate and sodium sulfate successively (instant specification: pg. 3 lines 24-25, pg. 15 lines 1-14) and that subsequent steps may include precipitating boric acid and sodium sulfate decahydrate (instant specification: pg. 16 line 20 – pg. 17 line 11), however the instant specification does not disclose both recovering sodium sulfate decahydrate along with boric acid by further cooling (according to instant claim 1), and then in subsequent steps further recovering additional sodium sulfate. Therefore, the instant specification does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-30 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 1 recites the limitation "sodium sulfate decahydrate (Glauber’s salt)" in lines 9-10. The limitation is indefinite as while Glauber’s salt is an alternative name for sodium sulfate decahydrate, it is unclear whether “(Glauber’s salt)” is meant to redefine “sodium sulfate decahydrate”; is a separate composition from “sodium sulfate decahydrate” without mention of Glauber’s salt (e.g., as recited at lines 10-11); or merely discloses an alternative name for sodium sulfate decahydrate, however this is further unclear as “Glauber’s salt” is not recited at any point later in the claim. The Examiner suggests Applicant use either the term “sodium sulfate decahydrate” or “Glauber’s salt” consistently in the recited claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “separating the boric acid and sodium sulfate decahydrate mix from the digestion liquor” in lines 10-11. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether the limitation merely emphasizes that the boric acid and sodium sulfate decahydrate are precipitated from solution (i.e., the separation refers to the precipitation of boric acid and sodium sulfate decahydrate from solution), or if boric acid and sodium sulfate decahydrate once precipitated are further separated (e.g., removed from the vessel or process comprising the digestion liquor).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the boric acid and sodium sulfate decahydrate mix" in lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the term "partially separating" in line 11. The term “partially separating” is not defined by the instant specification nor does the term have a single established meaning in the art, thus the term is interpreted according to its plain meaning, however “partially separating” is ambiguous as it is unclear if boric acid and sodium decahydrate are separated from each other, if boric acid and/or sodium decahydrate are separated from the solution, but not each other; or both.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "boric acid rich" in line 12. The term “boric acid rich” is not defined by the instant specification nor does the term have a single established meaning in the art, thus the term is interpreted according to its plain meaning, however “boric acid rich” is ambiguous as it is unclear how much boric acid must be present to be considered “boric acid rich”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the subsequent steps (e) include precipitating… lithium carbonate and sodium sulfate successively from solution in the digestion liquor”. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear whether the sodium sulfate precipitated in claim 9 is the same as that precipitated in claim 1 step (d), or if claim 9 sets forth a further step of precipitating sodium sulfate after the precipitation of sodium sulfate as Glauber’s salt in claim 1.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, 11, 13, 20, 22, 26-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo et al. (WO 2013049952 A1, original document supplied with IDS filed 05/08/2020, Examiner supplied machine translation provided with Office Action dated 11/14/2023) in view of Burat et al. (“Boron mining and processing in Turkey”, supplied with Office Action dated 11/14/2023), Catovic (WO 2017136885 A1, original document supplied with IDS filed 05/08/2020), Atwood et al. (US 4475771 A, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023) and Wilson (US 3917801 A).
Regarding claim 1, Domingo teaches a process for recovering products from jadarite ore containing boron and lithium (Example 3, pg. 14-15). As the instant specification recites that “valuable products include… by way of example… lithium carbonate” (instant specification: pg. 1 lines 8-10), and Domingo recovers lithium carbonate (pg. 14 Example 3 stage 1 steps 1-4), thus Domingo recovers valuable products. Domingo teaches jadarite ore is ground, added to hot water, and stirred (pg. 14 Example 3 stage 1 steps 1-3), where the ore would inherently have had to have been at some point mined and or stockpiled to be available for use in the process, Domingo comprising a mined or stockpiled jadarite ore. Domingo then teaches adding hydrochloric acid until total dissolution is reached (digesting in an acid; pg. 14 Example 3: stage 1 step 4), where a filtrate and a precipitate of silica oxide are produced (steps 5-7). Domingo teaches subsequent steps to separate valuable boron-containing and lithium-containing products from the digestion liquor (pg. 15 Example 3: stage 2 step 11, stage 3 step 9), indicating that boron and lithium from the jadarite were dissolved into the solution (i.e., digestion liquor), Domingo taking boron and lithium into solution in a digestion liquor.
Domingo does not teach beneficiating ore to produce a concentrate.
Burat discusses boron mining and processing (Title, Introduction), thus Domingo and Burat are analogous as both are directed to methods of processing boron-containing ores as an effort to recover useful forms of boron or boron-containing compounds. Burat teaches beneficiating ore and producing a concentrate (pg. 56 paragraph 1, Fig. 4-5). Burat teaches that gangue materials such as clay minerals, quartz, volcanic tuff, calcite, gypsum, biotite, chlorite and limonite are removed from the boron ores (i.e., they comprise the separated tailings) (4.1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a step of attrition tumbling/scrubbing ore to produce a jadarite ore concentrate for further processing as taught by Burat before the digestion step of Domingo as doing so would predictably improve the purity of the eventually recovered boric acid in Domingo, and reduce the possibility of unwanted reactions from the removed gangue materials, further improving purity of the recovered boric acid and potentially reducing reagent consumption.
Domingo does not teach digesting the concentrate in sulphuric acid.
Catovic teaches a process for extracting and recovering lithium values from lithium bearing materials (Title), where lithium-bearing silicates such as jadarite are treated to recover lithium (Abstract, pg. 8 lines 8-12), thus Domingo and Catovic are analogous as both are directed to processes of extracting lithium from jadarite including steps to produce lithium carbonate precipitate. Catovic teaches sulfuric acid and fluoride in the form of fluoride salt, hydrofluoric acid, or a fluoride-bearing substance that generates hydrofluoric acid in situ by reaction with sulphuric acid is used to digest the ore (pg. 2 lines 26-32, pg. 3 lines 11-15, Ex. 1-2). It has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Domingo teaches using hydrochloric acid (HCl) to dissolve jadarite and Catovic uses sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to dissolve jadarite, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have substituted the hydrochloric acid of Domingo with the sulfuric acid and fluoride of Catovic, as each mixture is capable of digesting jadarite, where at least for the case where fluoride is in the form of a fluoride salt or a fluoride-bearing substance, the acid consists of sulphuric acid as claimed.
Domingo teaches precipitating boric acid at 90-95 C (pg. 15 stage 2, steps 10-11), and teaches that the boric acid produced has a purity of 99.5% (pg. 15 stage 2 steps 10-11), but does not teach how much of the boric acid produced is actually precipitated/recovered, or that the boric acid is crystallized.
Atwood teaches cyclic solution mining of borate ores (Title), where boron containing ore is leached with hydrochloric acid (Col. 2 lines 53-57), and boric acid is separated from the solution (Col 2 lines 61-63), thus Domingo and Atwood are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of treating ore by wet process with strong acids that recover solid phase boric acid from solution.
Atwood teaches boric acid crystallization including cooling the digestion liquor to precipitate boric acid crystals from the digestion liquor and separating the boric acid crystals from the digestion liquor (Col. 6 lines 60 -Col. 7 line 68). Atwood teaches further cooling the digestion liquor to precipitate boric acid and separating the boric acid from the digestion liquor (Fig. 4, Col. 4 lines 48 – Col. 5 line 26). Atwood teaches returning a stream produced from the separation of the boric acid to the boric acid crystallisation step via steps of regenerating the solution and recycling the solution for leaching (Col. lines 41-59, Fig. 4, Claim 1). As the stream contains at least some boric acid (e.g., “Leach solution” in Fig. 1), it comprises a “boric acid rich stream” as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above. Atwood teaches crystallization to be a preferred method of obtaining boric acid from solution as boric acid has a much lower solubility in water than calcium chloride and is salted out by dissolved salts (Col. 4 lines 59-65), and when using both types of crystallization, a relatively large portion of the boric acid can be recovered from solution in the flash step, and the amount of water needed to perform the process is reduced (Col. 7 lines 3-10). Atwood teaches the flash cooling is performed at 10-30 C (Col. 7 lines 66-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used steps of evaporation crystallization and flash crystallization of boric acid as taught by Atwood to precipitate boric acid in Domingo as doing so would recover a relatively large portion of boric acid without the need for ex. removing salt impurities from the solution beforehand. Doing so would have been further obvious as Domingo teaches precipitating boric acid as a result of reacting barium borate with sulfuric acid at 90-95 C (forming boric acid), and potentially letting the solution cool for 30-60 minutes, where the solution would remain at least somewhat elevated temperature in any case, while Atwood teaches flash cooling at 10-30 C, which would predictably remove a greater portion of boric acid in the solution as the solubility limit of boric acid decreases with decreasing temperature (as evidenced by the boric acid coming out of solution as a result of a flash cooling step), thus a greater amount of boric acid would be recovered from the solution, and less boron would be present to contaminate the subsequently produced lithium carbonate.
Catovic teaches recovering sodium sulfate after lithium carbonate precipitation (Catovic: pg. 19 lines 5-7), indicating the presence of sodium sulfate in digest solution from digesting jadarite with sulfuric acid. Atwood teaches further cooling the digestion liquor to precipitate boric acid, but does not teach the further cooling the digestion liquor to precipitate sodium sulfate decahydrate (Glauber's salt).
Wilson teaches a flotation of boric acid from sodium sulfate obtained during the processing of borate ores (Title), where a slurry resulting from a reaction between borate ore and sulfuric acid is cooled to recover boric acid (Abstract, Col. 3 lines 9-17) where during cooling evaporation occurs (Col. 4 lines 33-39), thus Wilson and Domingo in view of Catovic and Atwood are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes of separating boric acid precipitate from digest solutions from digesting borate ores with sulfuric acid by cooling with evaporation. Wilson teaches recovering boric acid from slurries comprising sodium sulfate by cooling to a temperature above Glauber’s salt transition temperature of 29.2 °C to prevent crystallization of Glauber’s salt which would contaminate the recovered boric acid (Abstract, Col. 3 lines 9-17). Wilson further teaches recovering boric acid from Glauber’s salt slurries obtained from the cooling of mother liquors obtained after the reaction of refined borax with sulfuric acid and filtration of the crude boric acid above the Glauber's salt transition point (analogous to a digestion liquor left after a boric acid crystallisation cooling step) (Col. 2 lines 13-19), which permits the recovery of boric acid which would otherwise be lost (Col. 2 lines 19-22). Wilson teaches further cooling the digestion liquor to below a Glauber’s salt transition temperature (Col. 3 lines 48-61) to precipitate boric acid (Col. 3 lines 53-55) and sodium sulfate decahydrate (Glauber's salt) (Col. 3 lines 48-53), and separating the boric acid and sodium decahydrate (Col. 3 lines 55-61), which would comprise partial separation as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the temperature of the cooling in the boric acid crystallization step to be above the Glauber’s salt transition temperature of 29.2 °C to avoid precipitation of Glauber’s salt, and to have controlled the temperature of the further cooling to be below the Glauber’s salt transition temperature to recover Glauber’s salt and additional boric acid as taught by Wilson in the process of Domingo in view of others as doing so would avoid contamination of boric acid from the boric acid crystallization step with Glauber’s salt and recover additional boric acid from the Glauber’s salt digest solution in the further cooling step that would otherwise be lost.
Regarding claim 9, Wilson teaches precipitating sodium sulfate as part of boric acid precipitation (Wilson: Col. 3 lines 48-53) and Domingo teaches obtaining lithium carbonate precipitate successive to boric acid precipitation (Domingo: stage 3 steps 8-9).
Domingo in view of others does not teach the claimed order of sodium sulfate and lithium carbonate being successively precipitated from solution, however the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)C. Since the instant application does not disclose any new or unexpected result due to changing the order of mixing steps compared to the prior art, and the instant specification notes that the application is not particularly limited to any specific sequence of precipitation (instant specification pg. 7 lines 29-30), it would have been obvious to select any order of the addition of components because lithium carbonate and sodium sulfate are both recovered, regardless of the sequence of the precipitation of products. Therefore, Domingo in view of Wilson teaches claim 9 as best can be examined in view of the rejections of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(a) and (b).
Regarding claim 11, Atwood teaches boric acid is crystallized by a flash cooling step to precipitate boric acid (Fig. 4, Col. 8 lines 1-10), where as flash cooling operates by cooling under vacuum (Col. 7 lines 57-60), the digestion liquor is evaporated. As the boric acid concentration would be at the solubility limit at the chosen temperature, and the boric acid is obtained by evaporation, Atwood teaches wherein the boric acid crystallisation step includes evaporating the digestion liquor to increase the boric acid concentration to a predetermined concentration.
Regarding claim 13, Atwood teaches the crystallization includes a flash cooling step (i.e., wherein the boric acid crystallisation step includes flash cooling the digestion liquor to precipitate boric acid crystals from the digestion liquor) (Col. 8 lines 1-8, 9-39). Atwood teaches the boric acid is separated from the mother liquor by the crystallization (i.e., separating the boric acid crystals from the digestion liquor) (Col. 3 lines 4-14).
Regarding claim 20, Wilson teaches wherein the cooling step (d) includes a sodium sulfate crystallisation step (Col. 3 lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 22, Atwood teaches the sodium sulfate crystallization step includes precipitating sodium sulfate crystals by evaporating the digestion liquor (Col. 4 lines 54-55, Col. 5 lines 1-9).
Claims 3-4, 26-27, and 29-30 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025. Claims 3-4, 26-27, and 29-30 have not been amended since that time, therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood, and Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of ChemEurope (Lithium hydroxide data sheet, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023) and Perez (US 20130101484 A1, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023).
Regarding claims 5-6, Domingo teaches obtaining boric acid precipitate (stage 2, steps 10-11), and lithium carbonate precipitate (pg. 15: stage 3: steps 8-9), where the lithium carbonate is obtained by treating the liquor with sodium carbonate (pg. 15: stage 3 step 2), (i.e., wherein the subsequent steps (c) include precipitating boric acid, and lithium carbonate successively from solution in the digestion liquor).
Domingo does not teach precipitating boron-containing and lithium-containing products successively from solution in the digestion liquor in subsequent steps, or wherein lithium hydroxide or sodium borate.
Catovic teaches lithium is recovered by leaching jadarite with sulfuric acid and obtaining lithium carbonate by adding sodium carbonate to the lithium bearing solution obtained from leaching (pg. 4 lines 24-30, pg. 6 lines 10-16), and then further treating the lithium carbonate with lime (CaOH) and evaporating to produce lithium hydroxide (pg. 6 lines 10-16, pg. 15 lines 9-12). ChemEurope teaches lithium hydroxide is used in carbon dioxide scrubbers for purification of gases and air, as a heat transfer medium, as a storage-battery electrolyte, and as a catalyst for polymerization, among numerous other uses (Applications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further treated lithium carbonate with lime to form lithium hydroxide as taught by Catovic using the lithium carbonate product of Domingo, as doing so would produce lithium hydroxide with utility in a wide variety of applications as taught by ChemEurope, improving the usefulness and flexibility of the process as lithium carbonate, or with further treatment lithium hydroxide, may be produced depending on ex. the prices of each commodity.
Domingo in view of Burat and Catovic does not teach precipitating sodium borate.
Perez teaches a method for the production of battery grade lithium carbonate from natural and industrial brines (Title), where boron is a contaminant that must be removed when producing lithium or lithium compound products depending on the end use [0007], such as when producing lithium carbonate [0017], thus Domingo and Perez are analogous as both are analogous to the instant application as both are directed to processes for producing lithium carbonate via wet process and removing boron from solution. Perez teaches after lithium brine is mixed with lime to precipitate magnesium chloride and magnesium and sodium sulfates [0022] formed into a pulp, and subjected to solid/liquid separation [0025], the brine pH is adjusted to pH 7 and solvent extraction with one or more steps using an aliphatic alcohol and a phase modifier dissolved in aromatic solvent is performed to remove residual boron [0026]. Perez teaches that residual boron is removed from the brine in the form of sodium borate which can be collected in solar evaporation pools (precipitating sodium borate; [0026]), and the treated brine contains less than 0.001% boron, where the treated brine is then sent to a precipitation stage to react with sodium carbonate to precipitate lithium carbonate product [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a step of solvent extraction to remove residual boron prior to precipitation of lithium carbonate as taught by Perez to the process of Domingo as doing so would further purify the lithium carbonate produced by removing boron, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the applicability of the produced lithium carbonate for more uses and industries, improving its commercial value; and also produce sodium borate (i.e. borax), with predictable utility and value as a chemical reagent.
Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood, Wilson, ChemEurope, and Perez teaches precipitation of sodium borate, lithium carbonate, and lithium hydroxide successively, where as Domingo in view of others teaches precipitating sodium borate and lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide successively, Domingo in view of others suggests all of the limitations of claim 5. Domingo in view of others does not teach the claimed order of boric acid, lithium hydroxide, sodium borate, and lithium carbonate being successively precipitated from solution, however the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)C. Since the instant application does not disclose any new or unexpected result due to changing the order of mixing steps compared to the prior art, and the instant specification notes that the application is not particularly limited to any specific sequence of precipitation (instant specification pg. 7 lines 29-30), it would have been obvious to select any order of the addition of components because boric acid, lithium carbonate, sodium borate, and lithium hydroxide are all recovered, regardless of the sequence of the precipitation of products.
Regarding claim 7, Perez teaches precipitating sodium borate (i.e., sodium-containing product) from solution in the digestion liquor [0026].
Claims 12 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood and Wilson as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Linde Gas (web article on blanketing, supplied with Office Action dated 11/14/2023) and Yamasaki et al. (US 20110059339 A1, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023).
Claims 12 and 28 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025. Claim 28 has not been amended since that time, and the amendments to claim 12 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood, and Wilson as applied to claim 9 above, with evidence from Zhao et al. (“Mechanism and Modelling of Reactive Crystallization Process of Lithium Carbonate”, supplied with Office Action dated 11/14/2023).
Claims 14-16 and 18 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025. Claims 15-16 and 18 have not been amended since that time, and the amendments to claim 14 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood and Wilson with evidence from Zhao as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Perez.
Claim 17 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025. Claim 17 has not been amended since that time, therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood and Wilson with evidence from Zhao as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Harrison et al. (US 20010028871 A1, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023).
Claim 19 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025. Claim 19 has not been amended since that time, therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood and Wilson as applied to claim 20 above, further in view of Howling (US 3099527 A, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023).
Atwood teaches recovering sodium sulfate (Col. 6 lines 60 - Col. 7 line 68, Fig. 4, Col. 4 lines 48 – Col. 5 line 26), but does not teach the sodium sulfate crystallization step to include adjusting the pH.
Howling teaches a purification of leach liquor containing lithium values (Title), where lithium ore leach slurry is treated with lime, filtered to remove impurities, and treated with sodium carbonate to precipitate lithium carbonate (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 38-40, Col. 2 line 58- Col. 3 line 6). Howling teaches the byproduct liquor after extraction of lithium is treated with sulfuric acid to neutralize the pH to 6.2, and cooled to recover sodium sulfate by crystallization, recovering 88% of the sodium sulfate in solution and at a purity of greater than 99% (Col. 3 lines 55-65, Fig. 1 “33”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the pH of the digestion liquor as taught by Howling before precipitating sodium sulfate from the digestion solution of Domingo in view of Atwood as Howling teaches such conditions are suitable for relatively high recovery of sodium sulfate, and produce a very pure sodium sulfate product, which would increase both the amount and value of sodium sulfate byproduct produced. Further, because Domingo in view of Atwood is silent with respect to a suitable pH at which to carry out the sodium sulfate precipitation, in order to carry out the invention of Domingo in view of Atwood one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching pH value suitable for use within the process of Domingo in view of Atwood, such as a pH of 6.2 as taught by Howling.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood and Wilson with evidence from Zhao as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 4207297 A, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023) and Zbranek et al. (US 8431005 A, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023) and ChemEurope.
Claims 23-24 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025. Claims 23-24 have not been amended since that time, therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domingo in view of Burat, Catovic, Atwood and Wilson with evidence from Zhao further in view of Brown, Zbranek, and ChemEurope as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Harrison and Buckley et al. (US 20110044882 A1, cited in Office Action dated 11/14/2023).
Claim 25 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 07/16/2025. Claim 25 has not been amended since that time, therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered with the following effect:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have modified Domingo’s method to substitute the approach of Atwood for recovering boric acid (see pg. 9 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Atwood teaches crystallization to be a preferred method of obtaining boric acid from solution as boric acid has a much lower solubility in water than calcium chloride and is salted out by dissolved salts (Col. 4 lines 59-65), and when using both types of crystallization, a relatively large portion of the boric acid can be recovered from solution in the flash step, and the amount of water needed to perform the process is reduced (Col. 7 lines 3-10), which would all be expected advantages of replacing the boric acid precipitation of Domingo with the boric acid crystallization step of Atwood.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claim 1 and its dependents under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Domingo, Burat, and Catovic have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Atwood and Wilson which teach a process for recovering valuable products from jadarite comprising steps (c) and (d) as claimed as necessitated by amendment.
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 Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733