Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 9-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0101484) in view of Grande Villarino et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2023/0313338).
Regarding claim 1, Perez discloses a system for extracting lithium from brine, the system comprising:
one or more solar evaporation ponds configured to allow evaporation of water from the brine to occur in each solar evaporation pond of the one or more solar evaporation ponds and for brine to flow from a first solar evaporation pond to one or more other solar evaporation ponds (paragraphs 22-27; figure 1);
a separator configured to at least partially separate through physical means lithium from impurity cations and anions whereby one or more impurities are then separated from lithium to form a high impurity stream and a low impurity stream (paragraphs 25-26; 35);
a recycling conduit for recycling the high impurity stream to a point in one or more of the evaporation ponds where conditions are favorable for precipitation, a lithium separation plant or to a concentration facility (paragraphs 16-17; 25-27; 35; 39).
Perez fails to teach a conduit configured to remove at least a portion of the brine at a brine after evaporation of the brine at a brine removal location at one or more of the solar evaporation ponds and transmit the portion of the brine removed by the conduit directly to the separator.
Grande Villarino discloses a system for maximum lithium recovery with minimum environmental impact comprising a conduit configured to remove at least a portion of brine after evaporation one or more solar evaporating ponds and transmit the portion of the brine removed by the conduit directly to a separator in order to avoid its return to salt flat and obtain other compounds of commercial interest while making it easier to obtain high purity lithium compounds (figure 5; paragraphs 42-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to connect a conduit directly from the solar evaporation ponds to the separator of Perez, as taught by Grande Villarino, in order to avoid the brine from returning to salt flat and obtain other compounds of commercial interest, while making it easier to obtain high purity lithium compounds.
Regarding claim 2, Perez further teaches wherein the high impurity stream is recycled to a pond precipitating a salt selected from the group consisting of calcium borate, gypsum, or halite (paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 3, Perez discloses wherein the low impurity stream is fed to a pond that is substantially free of co-precipitated Li in the form of lithium sulfate (paragraphs 22, 34).
Regarding claim 4, the portion of brine removed at the brine removal location of Perez inherently comprises between 1% to 100% of the total brine flow in the ponds (paragraphs 7; 9-10; 16-17).
Regarding claim 5, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 6, the separator of Perez is configured to at least partially separate lithium from impurity cations and anions which have a propensity to form lithium salts that can precipitate under further brine concentration, and which impurity cations and anions are suitable for earlier precipitation with each other in a preceding evaporation pond (paragraphs 16-25).
Regarding claim 7, the separator of Perez is solvent extraction (paragraphs 25-26).
Regarding claim 9, the system of Perez is configured to advance the low impurity stream to a downstream pond for further concentration or processing to lithium products (paragraphs 17; 25-27; 35; 39).
Regarding claim 10, Perez teaches wherein the further concentration in the downstream pond, occurs substantially without lithium co-precipitation and associated lithium loss (paragraphs 16-25).
Regarding claim 11, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 12, Perez discloses where the high impurity stream is fully or partially evaporated in a separate pond (all remaining solutions may then be returned to a solar evaporation pool – abstract; paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 13, Perez discloses where the low impurity stream is fully or partially evaporated in a separate pond (all remaining solutions may then be returned to a solar evaporation pool – abstract; paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 14, the precipitated salts of Perez are harvested and processed separately or with the clean concentrated lithium brine in a processing plant (paragraphs 16; 25-27; 35).
Regarding claim 15, Perez teaches separating chlorides from sulfates present in the brine (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 16, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21). It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 17, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21). It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claims 18-19, It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 20, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21). It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 21, the system of Perez results in low impurity brines, inherently reducing reagent requirements for impurity removal through the processing plant thereby also reducing processing plant capital costs (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 22, the system of Perez results in high concentration brines, which inherently increasing processing plant per pass recovery (paragraphs 21-30).
Regarding claim 23, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21). It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 24, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21). It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 25, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21). It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 26, Perez teaches concentrating brines in evaporation pools in order to increase lithium recovery (paragraph 21). It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 and 20-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant argues that Perez fails to teach a system that physically separates lithium from a brine solution immediately after an evaporation in an evaporation pond, as amended. After further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Grande Villarino et al.
In view of applicant’s amendments to claims 18 and 19, the previous rejections under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794