DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-23 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 23 are amended. Claims 6 and 8 are cancelled.
The objections to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 1-5 and 7-23 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 8.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “by-product comprising solid aluminosilicates” in lines 14-15. The instant specification discloses the presence of alumina and silica compounds (instant specification: [0023]), however the instant specification does not disclose the by-product as comprising aluminosilicates (i.e., an aluminum and silica comprising compound), and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites “non-magnetic impurities” in line 15. The instant specification “the process includes an ion exchange step 4, to remove the introduced sodium or potassium or any cation already in the alkaline leached mineral matrix that may influence the quality of target value products” (instant specification: [0026]), however the instant specification does not disclose the impurities being “non-magnetic”, and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites “to give ion exchanged aluminosilicates” in lines 25-26. The instant specification discloses “the residue… via the ion exchange step, may be subjected to an acid leaching step to form useful intermediates. Where hydrochloric acid is selected, aluminium chloride hexahydrate is leached from either the alkaline treated lithium slag or the ion exchanged residue. Aluminium trichloride hexahydrate is a useful intermediate. This step also concentrates silica in the solid phase.” (instant specification: [0013]), i.e., the residue from ion exchange comprises aluminum and silica, however the instant specification does not disclose the presence of aluminosilicates (i.e., an aluminum and silica comprising compound), and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites “to obtain an ion exchanged aluminosilicate solid” in lines 28-29. The instant specification discloses “The residue directly from alkaline treatment, or via the ion exchange step, may be subjected to an acid leaching step to form useful intermediates… This step also concentrates silica in the solid phase.” (instant specification: [0013]), “The ion exchanged residue is then subjected to an acid leaching step 5 in which the ion exchanged residue is re-slurried in hydrochloric acid with the object of producing a useful intermediate, aluminium trichloride hexahydrate” (instant specification: [0030]), and “The solid ion exchanged residue is heated to remove part of the ammonia as well as adsorbed water. During the heating process, the zeolite may undergo structural change likely related to ammonia release” (instant specification: [0028]) i.e., the obtained solid comprises aluminum and silica, and may be a zeolite, however the instant specification does not disclose the presence of aluminosilicates (i.e., an aluminum and silica comprising compound), and therefore does not describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor invented the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially depleted of alumina” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially depleted of alumina” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, making unclear how much alumina has been depleted from the acid leached residue.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "further calcining step" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as there is no other calcining step disclosed in the instant claims, making unclear how the calcining step is a “further calcining step”. Correction is required.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-23 are free from prior art rejections, however are not in condition for allowance as they are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) as noted above, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest identified prior art of record is Archambault (US 3131022 A), Ge (“recovery of aluminium and lithium form gypsum residue obtained in the process of lithium extraction from lepidolite”), and Ellestad (US 2516109 A).
Archambault teaches a process for producing lithium carbonate with concomitant recovery of reactants, where a lithium carbonate and an aluminosilicate byproduct are recovered (Col. 1, Claim 8 step (e), claim 9 step (d)). Archambault teaches hydrothermally treating lithium ore or concentrate with an aqueous solution of an alkaline compound (Col. 1 lines 38-51, Col. 2 lines 38-50), at a temperature of 60-130 C for 1-36 hours (i.e., at selected temperature and selected duration) (Col. 2 lines 51-65). Archambault teaches the decomposition produces a slurry containing hydrated sodium aluminosilicate zeolite (Col. 1 lines 47-51) which are cooled and contacted with ammonium carbonate (Col. 1 lines 51-55, Col. 3 lines 15-35). As Archambault teaches that the solids from the slurry may be cooled and contacted instead of the slurry as a whole, for the case where Archambault only processes the solids, Archambault would inherently include a solid/liquid separation step. Archambault therefore suggests performing a solid/liquid separation step as claimed.
Archambault teaches the decomposition results in all of the lithium and half of the silica content being removed from the ore, being left as insoluble silicate lithium carbonate or compound (Col. 3 lines 7-13), and separating a solid residue including sodium ions (i.e., cations) from the aqueous solution of the alkaline compound (Col. 1 lines 56-60). Archambault teaches that leaching of the insoluble solids removes impurities such as R2O3 and Fe (Col. 4 lines 36-37), indicating their presence in the insoluble solids; therefore, Archambault implies that the solid residue contains impurities as claimed.
Archambault teaches performing an ion exchange step on the separated solid residue by contacting an aqueous solution of an ion exchange compound with the separated solid residue (Col. 3 lines 39-49). As sodium cations in the zeolite originate from the decomposition step (analogous to a hydrothermal treatment), and are removed by ion-exchange by the ammonium carbonate, Archambault teaches removing cations introduced by the aqueous solution of the alkaline compound during hydrothermal treating step (b) as claimed.
Archambault teaches, after leaching with ammonium carbonate, separating ammoniated zeolite and silicic residue (i.e., ion exchanged solid residue) from the aqueous solution of the ion exchange compound (Col. 1 lines 60-63).
Archambault does not teach hydrothermally treating waste by-product, or treating a lithium containing ore to liberate lithium from the ore and form said waste by-product.
Ge teaches a recovery of aluminum and lithium from gypsum residue (i.e., waste by-product) obtained in the process of lithium extraction from lepidolite (i.e., treating a lithium containing ore to liberate lithium), where the lithium extraction was performed by sulfuric acid method (i.e., leaching the lithium from the ore, thereby forming said waste by-product having lithium liberated therefrom) (2.1. Materials). Ge teaches silica is not present in the gypsum residue (Table 2), thus it would not be able to hydrothermally treated to solubilize silica as required by step (c) of claim 1.
Ellestad teaches a method of extracting lithium values from spodumene ores, where lithium-containing beta spodumene ore is treated to liberate lithium from the ore, which comprises leaching the lithium from the ore (Col. 2 lines 30-38, Col. 4 line 38-Col. 5 line 16). Thus, Archambault and Ellestad are analogous as both are directed to methods of recovering lithium from materials including or derived from aluminosilicate lithium ores. Ellestad teaches the leaching forms lithium sulfate which may be treated to recover commercial lithium sulfate (Col. 5 line 74- Col. 6 line 11) and a waste by-product (e.g., Col. 6 lines 63-67, Col. 8 lines 28-47). Ellestad refers to the residue as a “lithium-free residue”, and while Ellestad teaches in Examples II, IV, and V that less than 100% of the lithium is recovered as lithium sulfate in solution even after accounting for losses through roasting, filtering, etc. (Col. 8 lines 42-47, Col. 9 lines 23-25, 48-50), however Ellestad teaches the losses of lithium in the process include stack and other losses during the first roasting step, losses in the leach tank, losses on the filter, etc. (Col. 8 lines 45-47), thus the lithium-free residue has no motivation to use in the process of Archambault, as the purpose of Archambault’s process is to recover lithium.
Based on the above discussion, the closest prior art, taken singularly or in combination, does not fairly suggest or render obvious a process for obtaining high purity alumina from an aluminosilicate waste by-product as claimed. As the independent claim is free from the art, claims 2-5, 7, and 9-23 are also free from the art due at least to their dependency from claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733