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 .
Priority
It is noted the claimed “rotating manifold valve system” limitation is present in the priority application 16010286 filed on 06-15-2018 and the claimed “reverse osmosis circuit” limitation is present in the priority application 62520024 filed on 06-15-2017.
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 43 and 44 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.
Claims 43 and 44 are deemed indefinite because of the term “CCAD”. It is unclear what “CCAD” stands for or is and the term “CCAD” is not defined in the as-originally filed specification.
Claims 43 and 44 recite “configured to recycle a combination or mixture of at least a portion of the lithium chloride solution, the reverse osmosis recycle stream, a mother liquor, a centrate, or a combination or mixture thereof”. Claims 43 and 44 are deemed indefinite because “a combination or mixture” is being used to define itself. “to recycle a combination or mixture … or a combination or mixture thereof”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 8-11, 13-18, 20-25, 28-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0152309 A9 (hereinafter US 309) in view of WO 2014/170863 (hereinafter WO 863) and US 20010000597 A1 (hereinafter US 597).
Regarding claim 1, US 309 discloses a composition, method and system for treating geothermal brine compositions containing various metals, including lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel, alkali and alkaline earth metals (see US 309 abstract, figures 1-10, 13-15 and paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0014], [0016], [0072], [0078], [0089]-[0091], [0096], [0116]), which is deemed a system for recovery of lithium from a lithium-containing brine.
Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
US 309 discloses “lithium chloride containing solution 4310 can be obtained from a variety of sources, including geothermal brines” (see US 309 paragraph [0271]) and “the process for removing lithium occurs after the geothermal brine is supplied to a silica management step. In some embodiments, the process for removing lithium occurs after the geothermal brine is supplied to both a silica management step and an iron removal process” (see US 309 paragraph [0096]; see also US 309 figures 5, and paragraphs [0101], [0110], [0163]-[0164]). US 309 discloses a line is used to transport the treated brine, which has a reduced concentration of silica and iron, to a lithium removal process that comprises column(s) containing extraction material, such as lithium aluminate intercalate/gibbsite composite material, a resin based lithium aluminate intercalate and a granulated lithium aluminate intercalate, a series of vessels/reactors, lines/pipes, valves, heat exchangers, control means and/or filters, to achieve a solution of lithium chloride in water from the treated brine (see US 309 figures 5, 10, 13-15 and paragraphs [0159]-[0160], [0165], [0167], [0185]-[0187], [0203], [0205]-[0209], [0213], [0238], [0239]-[0241], [0243], [0257], [0260], [0267], [0269], [0271], [0273], [0288], [0317]), which is deemed a continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit configured for selectively recovering lithium chloride from said brine.
It is noted that the prior art’s ion exchange circuit is continuous in the sense that operates over a period of time without interruption. It is noted that the as-originally filed specification does not explicitly disclose a definition of the term continuous.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 is substantially identical to the claimed continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 is presumed inherently capable of configured for selectively recovering lithium chloride from said brine and the structure of US 309 is presumed inherently capable of concentrating lithium chloride into a lithium chloride solution.
US 309 does not disclose that the continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprises a rotating or indexing manifold valve system having a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns.
WO 863 discloses a multi-vessel continuous counter-current ion exchange (CCIX) system for removing metal species from a pregnant leach solution (PLS) (see WO 863 abstract , page 3 last paragraph- page 4 continuing paragraph, page 5 last paragraph- page 6 continuing paragraph). WO 863 discloses “multi-vessel continuous counter-current ion exchange (CCIX) elution and regeneration system may comprise 6-30, typically 12-20 vessels. The optimum number of vessels for each process depend upon the specific needs of each process” (see WO 863 page 5 last paragraph – page 6 continuing paragraph ). WO 863 discloses
resin vessel starts its cycle at the position in which it is charged with loaded resin; its cycle finishes at the position in which the regenerated resin is removed - either hydraulically or as a complete vessel. The cycle comprises stepping through all the zones and the stages within the zones. The time a vessel rests in one position is called the step time and in a 20- vessel system there are 20 steps of equal time length. If a resin vessel starts in position 20 and finishes in position 1 then fluids flow direction will be opposite to achieve the counter-current effect. The word position refers to the multiport valve position; a valve that services 20 vessels will have exactly 20 positions. The vessels may be mounted on a rotating carousel; or the vessels may be stationary.
(see WO 863 page 6 2nd and 3rd paragraphs). WO 863 discloses a rotary distribution valve in US Patent 3192954, a disc-axial multiport valve in US Patent 4625763, a rotary distribution apparatus in WO 2004/029490 (see WO 863 page 9 last paragraph – page 10 continuing paragraph).
WO 863 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. separation, removal and/or recovery of elements from a liquid medium, such as brine/pregnant leach solution, ion exchange system and/or purification of a stream.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 with the multi-vessel continuous counter- current ion exchange (CCIX) system with a rotating carousel/ rotary distribution valve/ disc-axial multiport valve/ rotary distribution apparatus, as disclosed in WO 863, using the extraction material, as disclosed in US 309, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. separate a component from a feed stream.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the ion exchange process of US 309 with the multi-vessel continuous counter- current ion exchange (CCIX) system with a rotating carousel/ rotary distribution valve/ disc-axial multiport valve/ rotary distribution apparatus, as disclosed in WO 863, with the extraction material, as disclosed in US 309, because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). This substitution would yield the predictable result of separating components and/or metal species from a feed stream, such as brine/pregnant leach solution.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the multi-vessel continuous counter- current ion exchange (CCIX) system with a rotating carousel/ rotary distribution valve/ disc-axial multiport valve/ rotary distribution apparatus, as disclosed in WO 863, which as an separation process, into the method and system of US 309, and use the extraction material, as disclosed in US 309, because all 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 have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art and would have a reasonable expectation of success (see M PEP 2143.02 (A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all 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 have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143, A and 2143.02).). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Hence, US 309 in view of WO 863 is deemed to disclose a system for recovery of lithium from a lithium-containing brine, said system comprising a continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit configured for selectively recovering lithium chloride from said brine; said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit further configured for concentrating lithium chloride into a lithium chloride solution; said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprising a rotating manifold valve system having a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns having a lithium selective adsorbent or resin.
US 309 in view of WO 863 does not disclose a reverse osmosis circuit positioned downstream of the continuous counter-current-ion exchange circuit and configured to dewater the lithium chloride solution to form a product eluate and a recycle stream.
US 597 discloses methods of removing a metal, such as zinc, from a brine solution using an anionic ion exchange resin (see US 597 abstract, claim 1, paragraphs [0010], [0033]). US 597 discloses “After removal of the aqueous (Zn-depleted) phase, the Zn-loaded SX extractant is scrubbed with a dilute acid solution, washed with reverse osmosis (RO) water and then stripped with a sulfuric acid solution” (see US 597 paragraph [0010]). US 597 discloses “IX product (or purified IX product) may be used as is, or it may be concentrated by any method known in the art, such as reverse osmosis …. The eluate is preferably concentrated using reverse osmosis (RO). The eluate is preferably concentrated so as to double the concentration of zinc in the IX product. Concentration of the IX product is useful to reduce the size (volume) of subsequent steps in the recovery process, which reduces capital and operating expense. RO of the IX product yields an RO permeate (Zn-depleted) and an RO concentrate (Zn-rich). The Zn-depleted RO permeate can optionally be ‘recycled’ as a substitute for fresh water in IX resin elution stages” (see US 597 paragraph [0055]).
US 597 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. separation, removal and/or recovery of metal elements from a liquid medium, such as geothermal brines, ion exchange system and/or purification of a stream.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 by incorporating a reverse osmosis system, as disclosed in US 597, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. concentrate the metal component and/or dewater
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 by incorporating a reverse osmosis system, as disclosed in US 597, because the reverse osmosis process would concentrate the metal, such as zinc or lithium, in the IX product and/or because the “RO permeate can optionally be ‘recycled’ as a substitute for fresh water in IX resin elution stages” (see US 597 paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 by incorporating a reverse osmosis system, as disclosed in US 597, because all 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 have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art and would have a reasonable expectation of success (see M PEP 2143.02 (A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all 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 have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143, A and 2143.02).). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 by incorporating a reverse osmosis system, as disclosed in US 597, because it would assist with purifying the metal, such as zinc or lithium, from the eluant/process water/solution.
Hence, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is deemed to disclose a system for recovery of lithium from a lithium-containing brine, said system comprising a continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit configured for selectively recovering lithium chloride from said brine; said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit further configured for concentrating lithium chloride into a lithium chloride solution; said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprising a rotating or indexing manifold valve system having a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns having a lithium selective adsorbent or resin; and a reverse osmosis circuit positioned downstream of the continuous counter-current-ion exchange circuit and configured to dewater the lithium chloride solution to form a product eluate and a recycle stream.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed reverse osmosis circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of dewatering the lithium chloride solution to form a product eluate and a recycle stream.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of concentrating lithium chloride in a lithium chloride solution using an eluant stream comprising lithium and water.
Hence, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is deemed to disclose a system for recovery of lithium from a lithium-containing brine, said system comprising a continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit configured for selectively recovering lithium chloride from said brine; said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit further configured for concentrating lithium chloride into a lithium chloride solution; said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprising a rotating or indexing manifold valve system having a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns having a lithium selective adsorbent or resin; and a reverse osmosis circuit positioned downstream of the continuous counter-current-ion exchange circuit and configured to dewater the lithium chloride solution to form a product eluate and a recycle stream; wherein said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit further configured for concentrating lithium chloride in a lithium chloride solution using an eluant stream comprising lithium and water.
Regarding claim 14, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses a system for recovery of lithium from a lithium-containing brine, said system comprising a continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit configured for selectively recovering lithium chloride from said brine (see rejection of claim 1).
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit further configured for concentrating lithium chloride into a lithium chloride solution (see rejection of claim 1).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively recovering lithium chloride from said brine and concentrating lithium chloride into a lithium chloride solution.
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprising a continuous counter-current ion exchange lithium extraction unit having rotating manifold valve system, a plurality of sequential, individual process zones, and a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns containing a lithium selective adsorbent or resin (see rejection of claim 1).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is noted that each individual bed or column of the claimed plurality of ion exchange beds or columns may contain one or more of the claimed plurality of sequential, individual process zones. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each process zone may be encompassed within a portion of an ion exchange bed or column of the claimed plurality of ion exchange beds or columns or may be a separate and distinct process zone. That is, the claimed plurality of sequential, individual process zones limitation is not defined by a structural limitation. A “process zone” is an undefined structural zone and thus, the claimed “plurality of sequential, individual process zones” may be multiple zones within one ion exchange column or within one reactor vessel or tank or the claimed “plurality of sequential, individual process zones” may be multiple columns or multiple reactor vessels wherein each individual column or vessel is a separate zone. US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is deemed to a plurality of sequential, individual process zones, and a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns containing a lithium selective adsorbent or resin (see rejection of claim 1). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the multi-vessel continuous counter-current ion exchange (CCIX) system, comprising various zones and stages within the zones, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, is deemed to disclose said plurality of process zones comprising a brine displacement zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of a brine loading zone; said brine loading zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an entrainment rejection zone; said entrainment rejection zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an elution zone; and said elution zone in fluid communication with said brine displacement zone.
In the alternative, if US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose a “said plurality of process zones comprising a brine displacement zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of a brine loading zone; said brine loading zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an entrainment rejection zone; said entrainment rejection zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an elution zone; and said elution zone in fluid communication with said brine displacement zone” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597.
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said plurality of process zones comprising a brine displacement zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of a brine loading zone; said brine loading zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an entrainment rejection zone; said entrainment rejection zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an elution zone; and said elution zone in fluid communication with said brine displacement zone (see rejection of claim 1; see WO 863 page 3 last paragraph- page 4/2nd paragraph; page 6/1st full paragraph & 3rd paragraph; page 13/point 1-page 14/point 4; figure 1).
Regarding claim 2 and claim 15, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 14. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said brine is a geothermal brine (see US 309 title, abstract, paragraphs [0002]-[0004], [0013]), [0014], [0016]).
Regarding claim 28 and claim 16, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 14. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses an impurity removal circuit positioned upstream of said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit, and said impurity removal circuit configured for selectively removing silica, iron and metals from said brine to produce a clarified or polished brine (see rejection of claim 1; see US 309 figures 1-6 & 13-15 and paragraphs [0002], [0091], [0126]-[0150], [0157]-[0158], [0269]).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed impurity removal circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively removing silica, iron and certain metals from said brine to produce a clarified or polished brine.
Regarding claim 3, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 28. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said impurity removal circuit comprises a first set of reaction tanks; a first clarifier positioned downstream of said first reaction tanks; said first clarifier configured to selectively remove precipitated silica and iron from said brine to form a substantially iron and silica free brine (see US 309 figures 1-3, 6 and paragraphs [0089]-[0090], [0126]-[0129], [0140]-[0141], [0146]-[0150], [0174]-[0175]).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed first clarifier of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively remove precipitated silica and iron from said brine to form a substantially iron and silica free brine.
Regarding claim 8, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said ion exchange beds or columns of said process zones are configured in parallel, in series, or in combinations of parallel and series, flowing in up flow modes (see rejection of claims 14 and 1; see US 309 figure 10 and paragraphs [0205]-[0209]).
Regarding claim 20, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 14. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses each of said process zones comprises one or more said ion exchange columns containing said lithium selective adsorbent or resin (see rejection of claims 1, 14 and 6; see US 309 figure 10 and paragraphs [0205]-[0209]).
Regarding claim 21, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 20. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said ion exchange beds or columns of said process zones are configured in parallel, in series, or in combinations of parallel and series, flowing in up flow modes (see rejection of claims 1, 14; see US 309 figure 10 and paragraphs [0205]-[0209]; see WO 863 page 15 last paragraph; page 16/point C & later point A; page 18/1st full paragraph).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 21, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 20. In the alternative, if US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose a “said ion exchange beds or columns of said process zones are configured in parallel, in series, or in combinations of parallel and series, flowing in up flow modes”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configured the ion exchange columns of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 in parallel, in series, or in combinations of parallel and series, flowing either in up flow or down flow modes because Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding claim 10 and claim 23, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 14. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said lithium selective absorbent or resin is a manufactured resin-based alumina imbibed adsorbent (see rejection of claims 1 & 14).
Regarding claim 24 and claim 29, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 14. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses a lithium chloride conversion circuit positioned downstream of said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit; said lithium chloride conversion circuit configured for converting lithium chloride in said lithium chloride solution to lithium hydroxide product (see US 309 figures 13-15 and paragraphs [0269]-[0270], [0282], [0284], [0289]-[0292]).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed lithium chloride conversion circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of converting lithium chloride in said lithium chloride solution to lithium hydroxide product.
Regarding claim 32 and claim 38, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 3 and 17. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said substantially iron and silica free brine has a temperature of about 229 °F+23°F (see US 309 paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 17, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said impurity removal circuit comprises a first set of reaction tanks; a first clarifier positioned downstream of said first reaction tanks; said first clarifier configured to selectively remove precipitated silica and iron from said brine to form a substantially iron and silica free brine (see US 309 figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0089]-[0090], [0126]-[0129], [0140]-[0141], [0146]-[0150], [0174]-[0175]).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed first clarifier of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively remove precipitated silica and iron from said brine to form a substantially iron and silica free brine.
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses that the treated brine having a reduced concentration of silica and iron can be further processed to remove manganese and zinc (see US 309 paragraphs [0177]-[0181]; see also US 309 figures 7, 15 and paragraphs [0091], [0175]-[0176]). US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses “the treated brine solution can be supplied to a process designed to selectively remove and recover at least one of manganese and zinc. In a first embodiment, the pH of the solution can be adjusted to selectively precipitate zinc and/or manganese. Following precipitation of zinc and/or manganese, the solids can be separated from the solution by known filtration means” (see US 309 paragraph [0177]). US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses “manganese can be oxidized to precipitate a manganese solid, which can be separated by filtration” (see US 309 paragraph [0178]) and “zinc and/or manganese can be selectively removed by extraction. In certain embodiments, zinc and manganese can be separately recovered by individual extractions, or by double extraction” (see US 309 paragraph [0179]).
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose a second set of reaction tanks positioned downstream of said first clarifier; a second clarifier positioned downstream of said second reaction tanks; said second clarifier configure to selectively remove precipitated metal oxides and/or hydroxides from said substantially iron and silica free brine to form a substantially zinc and manganese free brine.
However, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does disclose a using a combination of reactor vessel(s) and clarifier(s) to remove a metal impurity from the brine solution (see US 309 figures 1- 3, 6; see rejection of claims 1 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the reaction vessel(s) and clarifier(s) to selectively remove and recover at least one of manganese and zinc and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove an impurity.
Regarding claim 31, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 3. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said impurity removal circuit further comprises a second set of reaction tanks positioned downstream of said first clarifier; a second clarifier positioned downstream of said second reaction tanks; said second clarifier configured to selectively remove precipitated metal oxides and/or hydroxides from said substantially iron and silica free brine to form a substantially zinc and manganese free brine (see rejection of claim 17).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed second clarifier of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively remove precipitated metal oxides and/or hydroxides from said substantially iron and silica free brine to form a substantially zinc and manganese free brine.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 18, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 31 and 17. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit positioned downstream of said impurity removal circuit; and said manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit configured to selectively extract manganese and zinc from the precipitated metal oxides and/or hydroxides. (see rejection of claim 17).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively extract manganese and zinc from the precipitated metal oxides and/or hydroxides.
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit positioned upstream of said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to form a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit upstream of the continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove impurities from the treated brine.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to form a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit upstream of the continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit because the rearrangement of the circuits for removing an impurity is considered nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts (see M.P.E.P. 2144.04 VI. C.).
Regarding claim 11, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 29. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses “a purification step can be employed to remove calcium, magnesium, or other divalent ions such as zinc and manganese that may be present in lithium chloride-rich stream 4324. Removal of calcium, magnesium, and/or other alkaline earth metals can be achieved by known means, such as, … by the addition of a base, such as lime, sodium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, or the like, followed by the addition of lithium carbonate, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, ammonium carbonate, or other suitable carbonate, which can precipitate magnesium and iron hydroxide, as well as calcium carbonate” (see US 309 paragraph [0279]).
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose said lithium chloride conversion circuit comprises a third set of reaction tanks; a third clarifier positioned downstream of said third reaction tanks; said third clarifier configured to selectively remove precipitated calcium and magnesium from said lithium chloride solution to form a substantially calcium and magnesium free brine.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the vessel(s)/reactor(s), clarifier(s), control means, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, in the purification step to form a substantially calcium and magnesium free brine, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove impurities.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the vessel(s)/reactor(s), clarifier(s), control means, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, in the purification step to form a substantially calcium and magnesium free brine, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, because the combination of known elements was obvious to try. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed third clarifier of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively remove precipitated calcium and magnesium from said lithium chloride solution to form a substantially calcium and magnesium free brine.
Regarding claim 25, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 24. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 said lithium chloride conversion circuit comprises a third set of reaction tanks; a third clarifier positioned downstream of said third reaction tanks; said third clarifier configured to selectively remove precipitated calcium and magnesium from said lithium chloride solution to form a substantially calcium and magnesium free brine (see rejection of claim 11).
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses “it may be beneficial to remove boron from the product stream at this point process by known means, such as by precipitation, solvent extraction, or ion exchange” (see US 309 paragraph [0279]).
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose a boron ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said third clarifier; said boron ion exchange circuit configured to selectively capture boron from said substantially calcium and magnesium free brine to form a substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the vessel(s)/reactor(s), clarifier(s), control means, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, in the purification step to form a substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove impurities.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the vessel(s)/reactor(s), clarifier(s), control means, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, in the purification step to form a substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine, as disclosed in US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, because the combination of known elements was obvious to try. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed boron ion exchange of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively capture boron from said substantially calcium and magnesium free brine to form a substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine.
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses a divalent ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said boron ion exchange circuit; said divalent ion exchange configured to selectively removing any remaining divalent ions from said substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine (see rejection of claim 11).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed divalent ion exchange (circuit) of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively removing any remaining divalent ions from said substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine.
In the alternative, if US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose a “a boron ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said third clarifier” and “divalent ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said boron ion exchange circuit”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to have a boron ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said third clarifier” and “divalent ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said boron ion exchange circuit” and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove impurities from the treated brine.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to have a boron ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said third clarifier” and “divalent ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said boron ion exchange circuit” because the rearrangement of the circuits for removing an impurity is considered nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts (see M.P.E.P. 2144.04 VI. C.).
Regarding claim 13, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said lithium chloride conversion circuit further comprising a solvent extraction and electrolysis circuit configured selectively converting said lithium chloride in said substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine to lithium hydroxide (see rejection of claim 29; see US 309 figures 13-15 and paragraphs [0279]-[0282], [0320], [0403]).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed solvent extraction and electrolysis circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively converting said lithium chloride in said substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine to lithium hydroxide.
Regarding claim 30 and claim 37, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 1 and 14. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said continuous counter- current ion exchange circuit further configured for concentrating lithium chloride into said lithium chloride solution using an eluant stream comprising lithium and water at a concentration of up to about 1000 mg/kg lithium (see US 309 abstract and paragraphs [0014], [0016], [0081], [0088] and figure 26) and at temperatures of about 20 °C to about 100 °C (see US 309 paragraphs [0106], [0112], [0113], [0238], [0274]).
It is noted that the concentration is “up to about 1000 mg/kg lithium, which includes a concentration of 0 mg/kg lithium.
Further, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed continuous counter- current ion exchange circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of concentrating lithium chloride into said lithium chloride solution using an eluant stream comprising lithium and water at a concentration of up to about 1000 mg/kg lithium and at temperatures of about 5 °C to about 100 °C.
Regarding claim 33 and claim 39, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 3 and 17. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said substantially iron and silica free brine has an iron concentration of less than about 5 ppm (see US 309 paragraph [0298]) and a silica concentration of less than about 5 ppm (see US 309 paragraphs [0122], [0298]).
Further, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to continue to treat the brine of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 until the treated brine had an iron concentration of less than about 5 ppm and a silica concentration of less than about 5 ppm because it will assist with preventing scale build up in the lithium recovery step/equipment and because removal of silica and iron prior to lithium recovery will assist with achieving a higher purity of the lithium recovery product.
Regarding claim 34 and claim 40, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 31 and 17. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose said substantially zinc and manganese free brine has a manganese concentration of less than about 10 ppm and a zinc concentration of less than about 5 ppm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to continue to treat the brine of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 until the treated brine had a manganese concentration of less than about 10 ppm and a zinc concentration of less than about 5 ppm because it will assist with preventing scale build up in removal and/or recovery equipment of the apparatus and because removal of silica and iron prior to lithium recovery will assist with achieving a higher purity of the lithium recovery product.
Further, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 35, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 said lithium chloride conversion circuit further comprises a boron ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said third clarifier; said boron ion exchange circuit configured to selectively capture boron from said substantially calcium and magnesium free brine to form a substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine (see rejection of claim 25).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed boron ion exchange (circuit) of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively capture boron from said substantially calcium and magnesium free brine to form a substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine.
Regarding claim 36, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 said lithium chloride conversion circuit further comprises a divalent ion exchange circuit positioned downstream of said boron ion exchange circuit; said divalent ion exchange configured to selectively removing any remaining monovalent ions, divalent ions or a combination of both from said substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine (see rejection of claim 25).
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed divalent ion exchange (circuit) of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is presumed inherently capable of selectively removing any remaining monovalent ions, divalent ions or a combination of both from said substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine.
Regarding claim 9 and claim 22, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 8 and 21. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses fluid flow through said continuous counter-current ion exchange lithium extraction circuit/unit is controlled by pumping flow rates and a predetermined timing of the rotating manifold valve system, whereby said ion exchange beds or columns continually cycle through said process zones (see rejection of claims 1 & 14).
Regarding claim 41, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses said plurality of process zones further comprise a brine displacement zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of a brine loading zone; said brine loading zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an entrainment rejection zone; said entrainment rejection zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an elution zone; and said elution zone in fluid communication with said brine displacement zone (see rejection of claims 1 & 14).
Regarding claim 42, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses a reverse osmosis circuit positioned downstream of the continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit and configured to dewater the lithium chloride solution to form a product eluate and a recycle stream (see rejection of claims 1 and 14).
Regarding claim 43 and regarding claim 44, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit is further configured to recycle a combination or mixture of at least a portion of the lithium chloride solution, the reverse osmosis recycle stream, a mother liquor, a centrate, or a combination or mixture thereof to one or more of the process zones and/or upstream of the CCAD circuit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recycle a portion of either the lithium chloride solution, the reverse osmosis recycle stream, a mother liquor, a centrate, or a combination or mixture thereof, in the system of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597, because it would reduce waste and/or because it would assist with repeated treatment of the treated liquid/brine and/or because it would assist with recovering lithium from brine.
Claim(s) 13 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 as applied to claims 11 and 24 above, and further in view of US 4271131 A (hereinafter US 131).
Regarding claim 13 and claim 27, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 11 and 24. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose said lithium chloride conversion circuit further comprising a solvent extraction and electrolysis circuit configured selectively converting said lithium chloride in said substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine to lithium hydroxide.
US 171 discloses a method and system for producing lithium chloride from brine (see US 171 abstract and figure 1). US 171 discloses that after purification of the brine, the treated brine “is further evaporated, preferably by a novel solar evaporation step described hereinbelow, to increase the lithium chloride concentration thereof to at least about 40%, by weight. This concentrated brine is then subjected to further evaporation, preferably under vacuum, at a temperature of at least about 101° C. to produce anhydrous lithium chloride. The lithium chloride is heated to a temperature of at least about 200° C., cooled and extracted with isopropanol. The solvent extract is filtered and the solvent is then removed to provide highly pure lithium chloride suitable for use in the production of lithium metal by electrolysis” (see US 171 col 2 lines 46-58).
US 171 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. processing brine solutions as well as removal and/or recovery of element process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to incorporate the solvent extraction and electrolysis, as disclosed US 171, because it would assist with achieving highly pure lithium chloride for the use in the production of lithium metal.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to incorporate the solvent extraction and electrolysis, as disclosed US 171, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. concentration and/or purify lithium from the brine.
Additionally, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 is substantially identical to the claimed solvent extraction and electrolysis circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597 and US 171 is presumed inherently capable of selectively converting said lithium chloride in said substantially calcium, magnesium and/or boron free brine to lithium hydroxide.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 as applied to claims 31 and 16 above, and further in view of US 20210079496 A1 (hereinafter US 496).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 18, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 31 and 17. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 discloses a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit positioned downstream of said impurity removal circuit (see rejection of claim 17).
US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 does not disclose a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit positioned upstream of said continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit.
US 496 discloses a method for recovering lithium from an aqueous solution (see US 496 abstract). US 496 discloses removing impurities, such as copper, iron, aluminium, nickel, cobalt and/or manganese, prior to the lithium purification process to maximize the recovery of lithium (see US 496 paragraphs [0019]-[0025], [0033], [0043] and figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to form a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit upstream of a lithium recovery process, as disclosed in US 496, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove impurities from the treated brine.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to form a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit upstream of a lithium recovery process, as disclosed in US 496, because the rearrangement of the circuits for removing an impurity is considered nothing more than an obvious rearrangement of parts (see M.P.E.P. 2144.04 VI. C.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 in view of WO 863 and US 597 to form a manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit upstream of a lithium recovery process, as disclosed in US 496, because it would assist with lithium recovery from the brine solution.
Claim(s) 5, 19, 34 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597 and US 496 as applied to claims 4, 16-18, 31, 28 above, and further in view of US 20010000597 A1 (hereinafter US 597) and US 20030226761 A1 (hereinafter US 761).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 19, US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597 and US 496 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 4 and 18. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863, NPL and US 496 or US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597 and US 496 discloses the manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit (see rejection of claims 4 & 18).
US 309 in view of WO 863, NPL and US 496 or US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597 and US 496 does not disclose a manganese solvent extraction circuit comprising a manganese extraction stage having a first stage contactor, a manganese scrubbing stage having a second stage contactor, and a manganese stripping stage having a third stage contactor.
US 761 discloses a process of removing manganese from brine (see US 761 abstract, figures 1-5, 7 and paragraphs [0001], [0020]). US 761 discloses that the “method for manganese extractions where calcium is extracted by introducing manganese-rich strip solution to the organic phase of the manganese and iron extraction step, displacing calcium from the organic phase, and scrubbing the displaced calcium from the solution. The manganese-rich strip solution described above may be comprised of a side-stream of recycled electrolyte. Further, this solution may contain an organic phase/aqueous phase (O/A) ratio between about 5-20. In one embodiment, the O/A ratio is about 10. The method described above may also include neutralizing the organic phase during stripping and washing to reform the components of the QL reagent” (see US 761 paragraphs [0024]-[0026]; see also US 761 paragraphs [0040]-[0047], [0062]-0074).
US 761 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. processing brine solutions as well as removal and/or recovery of element process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the manganese recovery method and system, as disclosed in US 761, as part of the manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit of US 309 in view of WO 863, NPL and US 496 or US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597 and US 496 because combination of known elements was obvious to try. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the manganese recovery method and system, as disclosed in US 761, as part of the manganese and zinc solvent extraction circuit of US 309 in view of WO 863, NPL and US 496 or US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597 and US 496 and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. remove zinc from brine.
Regarding claims 34 and 40, US 309 in view of WO 863, NPL, US 496 and US 761 or US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597, US 496 and US 761 discloses the invention as discussed above in claims 31 and 17. Further, US 309 in view of WO 863, NPL, US 496 and US 761 or US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597, US 496 and US 761 does not disclose said substantially zinc and manganese free brine has a manganese concentration of less than about 10 ppm (see US 761 paragraph [0088]) a zinc concentration of less than about 5 ppm (see US 597 table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to continue to treat the brine of US 309 in view of WO 863, NPL, US 496 and US 761 or US 309 in view of WO 863, US 597, US 496 and US 761 until the treated brine had a manganese concentration of less than about 10 ppm and a zinc concentration of less than about 5 ppm because it will assist with preventing scale build up in removal and/or recovery equipment of the apparatus and because removal of silica and iron prior to lithium recovery will assist with achieving a higher purity of the lithium recovery product.
Further, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed January 8, 2026 have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
The prior art rejections have been maintained except for rejections that include NPL. Applicant has established that NPL is not available as prior art against the present application.
In the response, it was argued that US 309 does not disclose, teach, suggest or render obvious a continuous countercurrent ion exchange circuit (see Response page 14-16). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. US 309 discloses that the ion exchange system can achieve a countercurrent flow configuration (see US 309 paragraphs 0159-0160). The term “continuous” is an undefined time period. The length of continuous may be an extended period of time or a short period of time. It is noted that the as-originally filed specification does not explicitly disclose a definition of the term continuous. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.). Herein, the structure of US 309 is substantially identical to the claimed continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit of the present application, and therefore, the structure of US 309 is presumed inherently capable of configured for selectively recovering lithium chloride from said brine and the structure of US 309 is presumed inherently capable of concentrating lithium chloride into a lithium chloride solution.
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the September 8, 2025 Office Action, it was acknowledged that US 309 does not disclose that the continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprises a rotating or indexing manifold valve system having a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns. The Examiner relies upon secondary references to overcome the deficiencies of the primary reference.
In the response, it was argued that WO 63 does not disclose, teach, suggest or render obvious the claimed process zone limitations of Applicant’s claims (see Response pages 16-22). In the response, it was argued that WO 863 discloses a process “including ... subjecting the loaded resin to a multi vessel continuous counter current ion exchange (CCIX) system ... for elution, purification and regeneration .... "). WO 863 further explains the resin vessel stepping and multiport valve positions (see WO 863, page 6, first full paragraph), but it is confined to resin handling through elution/purification stages and does not disclose a CCIX lithium extraction circuit for brine treatment that includes the claimed "a brine displacement zone ... an entrainment rejection zone ... and said elution zone in fluid communication with said brine displacement zone," all operated under the control of the rotating manifold valve system for continuous countercurrent ion exchange” (see Response page 17).
Regarding claim 1, this argument is deemed unpersuasive. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns”. WO 863 discloses “multi-vessel continuous counter-current ion exchange (CCIX) elution and regeneration system may comprise 6-30, typically 12-20 vessels. (see WO 863 page 5 last paragraph – page 6 continuing paragraph ). Hence, US 309 in combination with WO 863 is deemed to disclose the claimed continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprising a rotating manifold valve system having a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns having a lithium selective adsorbent or resin limitation.
In the response, regarding the claimed brine displacement zone, the brine loading zone; the entrainment rejection zone and the elution zone limitations, as recited in claims 14 and 41, it was argued that “WO 863's zones are defined differently and are resin-handling steps” and it was argued that “The claimed "brine displacement zone" differs materially from the displacement/entrainment concepts discussed in WO 863” (see Response page 18; see also Response page 19). In the response, it was argued that WO 863 does not disclose, teach, suggest or render obvious the claimed entrainment rejection zone limitations, which are downstream of the brine loading zone and upstream of the elution zone, because WO 863 discloses “rejecting entrained eluent/water during resin rinse/conditioning in the elution/regeneration section and routing flows among elution/rinse/conditioning to recover acid/base and minimize water/chemical use” (see Response page 19). In the response, it was argued that the “WO 863 further teaches fluid communications between its A3 pre-elution, A4 elution, AS rinse, and eluent makeup (e.g., recycle of strong eluent from rinse to mid-elution, dilution of fresh eluent with rinse effluent; WO 863, "A4 Elution ... d.-g.; AS Rinse ... b.-c."), but not the claimed communications among brine displacement, brine loading, entrainment rejection, and elution conducted on adsorption beds under the same rotating manifold valve system” (see Response page 19; see also Response page 20). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
Claims 1, 14 and 41 are directed towards a system claim. “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim” (see MPEP 2114; see also MPEP 2115). The combination of US 309 in view of WO 863 discloses a continuous counter-current ion exchange lithium extraction unit having a rotating manifold valve system, a plurality of sequential, individual process zones, and a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns containing a lithium selective adsorbent or resin; and said plurality of process zones comprising a brine displacement zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of a brine loading zone; said brine loading zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an entrainment rejection zone; said entrainment rejection zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an elution zone; and said elution zone in fluid communication with said brine displacement zone”. Each of the claimed zones are defined by where each zone is in relation to another zone in the system and requires fluid communication. There is no structural element that distinguishes “brine displacement” from “brine loading” from “entrainment” from “elution” in the claimed system. That is, the claimed zones are four zones in a specific order and being in fluid communication. The zones of US 309 in view of WO 863 will necessarily be in fluid communication since each zone is present within the same system. US 309 in view of WO 863 discloses several zones being present within the system.
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the September 8, 2025 Office Action, it was acknowledged that US 309 does not disclose that the continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprises a rotating or indexing manifold valve system having a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns. The Examiner relies upon secondary references to overcome the deficiencies of the primary reference.
In the response, it was argued that WO 863's multiport valve and carousel is directed solely to “resin will have to be transported from a resin loading system to the CCIX” and therefore does not render obvious the claimed “brine loading zone” (see Response page 20). (See remarks above regarding apparatus claims and structurally defining a zone). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” (see MPEP 2123, I). WO 863 discloses “The loading and washing steps may take place sequentially with the continuous counter-current ion exchange (CCIX) elution and regeneration system; or load and wash at a remote leach field and then transport loaded resin to a site where the continuous counter-current ion exchange (CCIX) elution and regeneration system is situated” (emphasis added) (see page 8 first full paragraph). The quoted section of WO 863, as presented by Applicant, is limited to only when the CCIX is limited to elution, purification and regeneration only (WO 863 discloses “To use the CCIX for elution, purification and regeneration only, the requirement of the invention is that resin will have to be transported from a resin loading system to the CCIX elution and regeneration system” (emphasis added) (see WO 863 page 8 third paragraph).
In the response, it was argued that paragraphs 37-39 of the September 8, 2025 Office Action relies upon broad mapping and inherency (see Response pages 20-21). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. Paragraph 37 of the September 8, 2025 Office Action presents the under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “a brine displacement zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of a brine loading zone; said brine loading zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an entrainment rejection zone; said entrainment rejection zone positioned upstream with respect to fluid flow of and in fluid communication with an elution zone; and said elution zone in fluid communication with said brine displacement zone”, as recited in claim 14. Paragraphs 38 & 39 of the September 8, 2025 Office Action presents “in the alternative reasoning”. See remarks above regarding apparatus claims and structurally defining a zone. Inherency has not been presented in paragraphs 37-39.
In the response, it was argued that “the express claim language that requires each process zone to comprise a plurality of beds or columns rather than the converse of each bed or column comprising a plurality of process zones” (see Response page 21). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of process zones, each of said process zones comprising a plurality of ion exchange beds or columns”. Claim 20, which is dependent upon claim 1, recites “each of said process zones comprises one or more of said ion exchange beds or columns”. Each ion exchange column may comprise multiple beds. Similar reasoning applies to claim 14.
In the response, it was argued that the combination of US 309 in view of WO 863 would “causes the art to become inoperable or destroys its principle of operation” (see Response pages 21-22). This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
US 309 discloses separation/purification via ion exchange. WO 863 discloses using a a continuous counter-current ion exchange circuit comprising a rotating manifold valve system. The proposed modifications, as presented in the September 8, 2025 Office Action and above, continues to use an ion exchange system for its intended purposes (For example, “It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify US 309 with the multi-vessel continuous counter- current ion exchange (CCIX) system with a rotating carousel/ rotary distribution valve/ disc-axial multiport valve/ rotary distribution apparatus, as disclosed in WO 863, using the extraction material, as disclosed in US 309, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. separate a component from a feed stream” (see September 8, 2025 Office Action page 5/paragraph 12).). One of ordinary skill in the art, such as a chemical engineer with a Bachelors of Science, would have the capacity to modify and/or substitute the ion exchange system of US 309 with the multi-vessel continuous counter- current ion exchange (CCIX) system with a rotating carousel/ rotary distribution valve/ disc-axial multiport valve/ rotary distribution apparatus, as disclosed in WO 863, in order to treat geothermal brine compositions containing various metals, including lithium (see September 8, 2025 Office Action pages 5-6).
In the response, it was argued that the “cited zinc IX/RO in US 597 neither teaches nor suggests the claimed arrangement integrated with a CCIX lithium extraction circuit and a rotating manifold valve system and zone structure as recited” (see Response page 23). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the response, it was argued that the “WO 863's CCIX is an elution/regeneration carousel for solids-tolerant loading systems and does not teach a CCIX circuit configured with a lithium-bearing eluant for desorption and concentration of lithium from hypersaline geothermal brine. Likewise, US 309 is directed to treated brine compositions and downstream uses but does not disclose any eluant formulation, much less a lithium-containing eluant” (see Response page 24). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. See remarks above regarding apparatus claims. In the response, it was argued that the “Office Action's reliance on US 309 is misplaced in this context, as the passages cited from US 309 concern the composition of feed or treated brines, not the eluant stream in a lithium CCIX plant, and WO 836 neither teaches a lithium tenor eluant nor an RO-permeate-to-eluant recycle” (see Response page 24). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the response, it was argued that “Taken together, the lithium-containing eluant and permeate recycle are coordinated, structural process circuit constraints not taught or suggested by the cited prior art references” (see Response page 24). It is unclear if Applicant ‘s position is that “lithium-containing eluant” and recycled “permeate” are structural elements of the claimed apparatus. It is the Examiner’s position that an eluant and/or permeate are not structural elements of the claimed system.
In the response, regarding claims 8, 9, 21 and 22, it was argued that “Neither US 309's dual column alternation nor WO 863's resin elution/purification stepping discloses Applicant's rotating manifold valve system cycling brine adsorption beds through the claimed zone sequence with the defined fluid communications” (see Response page 26). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. Claim 9 and 22 recite “fluid flow through said continuous counter-current ion exchange lithium extraction circuit is controlled by pumping flow rates and a predetermined timing of the rotating manifold valve system, whereby said ion exchange beds or columns continually cycle through said process zones”. The claims do not recite a controller, a pump or other structural device for controlling a flow rate. There must necessarily be a flow rate for the fluid to flow through the apparatus/system of US 390 in view of WO 863 and US 597. It is understood that “a predetermined timing” may be any time setting. Herein, there must necessarily be a value within the prior art. . “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
In the response, regarding claims 28 and 31-33, 38-40, it was argued that “US 309 generally describes silica/iron removal, but does not tie those concepts to the Applicant's overall system architecture, which involves CCIX lithium extraction with a rotating manifold valve and downstream RO dewatering of the CCIX lithium chloride solution, as claimed” (see Response page 27). This argument is deemed unpersuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773