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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fogg “Study of the intercalation of lithium salt in gibbsite using time-resolved in situ x-ray diffraction”.
Regarding claim 1, Fogg teaches a process of making reacting a Al(OH)3 with a lithium salt that may may be a sulfate (Abstract). The Al(OH)3 and lithium salt are mixed at 60 to 140 deg. C (Experimental section), and form an aluminum lithium complex (Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, the Al(OH)3 may be gibbsite (Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, the lithium compound produced in Fogg is according to the formula recited in claim 19 (Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-13, 16, and 19-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison US 2014/0239221 in view of Fogg “Study of the intercalation of lithium salt in gibbsite using time-resolved in situ x-ray diffraction”.
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 27, Harrison teaches a process of extracting lithium from an aqueous solution that may contain lithium salts, such as lithium sulfate (Paragraph [0078]) using a sorbent such as aluminum hydroxide such as gibbsite (Paragraph [0167]). The adsorption process may occur at a temperature of 95 to 100 deg. C (Paragraph [0274]).
Harrison does not provide an example of lithium sulfate being extracted from the solution. However, Harrison teaches that the lithium salt may be lithium sulfate (Paragraph [0078]). It would be obvious to extract lithium sulfate as the lithium salt. The rationale for doing so would have been to choose one of the known lithium salts that would provide predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Harrison does not expressly state that the sorbent consists of Al(OH)3.
Fogg teaches a process of making reacting a Al(OH)3 with a lithium salt that may may be a sulfate (Abstract). The Al(OH)3 and lithium salt are mixed at 60 to 140 deg. C (Experimental section), and form an aluminum lithium complex (Abstract).
At the time of invention it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to use Al(OH)3 as an absorbent in Harrison in view of Fogg. The rationale for doing so would have been to use a known method of removing lithium with predictable result. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claims 4-6, the solution may have approximately 1000 ppm lithium (Paragraph [0275]), 63000 ppm sodium (Paragraph [0077]), and 20000 ppm potassium (Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 7, the solution may include calcium (Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claims 8-13, the process may remove up to 96% of the lithium, while leaving the concentrations of sodium and potassium substantially unchanged (Table 4).
Regarding claims 17-18, the sorbent may be sodium aluminate (Paragraph [0396]).
Regarding claim 19, the lithium aluminum complex may be a compound as recited in the formula of claim 19 (Examples).
Regarding claims 20-23, the pH of the adsorption may be between 7-10 (Paragraph [0248]).
Regarding claim 26, the lithium-aluminum compound may be cooled (Paragraphs [0274], [0355]).
Regarding claims 24-25, the lithium-aluminum complex may be crystalline or amorphous (Paragraphs [0167], [0189], [0249], [0363]).
Regarding claim 28, the lithium may be removed by washing with an aqueous solution at the same temperature as the extraction process (Paragraph [0402]).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison US 2014/0239221 in view of Fogg “Study of the intercalation of lithium salt in gibbsite using time-resolved in situ x-ray diffraction” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson US 2019/0185963.
Regarding claim 2-3, Harrison does not expressly state that the lithium sulfate is produced by the process of claims 2-3.
Johnson teaches that lithium sulfate may be extracted from a lithium containing mineral by mixing with gypsum and heating at 950 deg. C for 2 hours (Paragraph [0007]).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to form the lithium sulfate solution of Harrison using the process of Johnson. The rationale for doing so was to use a known prior art process of forming lithium sulfate with predictable results. See MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Harrison does not teach or suggest that the sorbent material consists of Al(OH)3 according to the most recent claim amendments. In response, the rejections above have been amended to include rejections over Fogg “Study of the intercalation of lithium salt in gibbsite using time-resolved in situ x-ray diffraction”. Fogg teaches a process of making reacting a Al(OH)3 with a lithium salt that may may be a sulfate (Abstract). The Al(OH)3 and lithium salt are mixed at 60 to 140 deg. C (Experimental section), and form an aluminum lithium complex (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights