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 on 08/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18-19, 22-23, 25-28, 30-32, 34, 36-37 are pending in the application. Outstanding and new issues brought about by the amendment are addressed in the 112(b) section below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 16, 18-19, and 22, 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein the one or more compounds" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted to mean the roasting agent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 16, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (CN 106929664, machine translation used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for recovering lithium from waste ternary lithium-ion batteries ([0002]). The method comprises disassembling the waste ternary lithium-ion batteries and separating electrode active materials; uniformly mixing the electrode active materials, i.e. lithium-bearing material provided in a water-insoluble solid form, with sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide, i.e. solid roasting agent, and then calcining the mixture at a temperature of 400 to 600°C ([0009] meeting limitation “heating a mixture”); stirring and mixing the calcined materials with water ([0009] meeting limitations “suspending the solid composition in a first aliquot of water” and “thereby dissolving the at least one water-soluble phase and forming a first suspension comprising a first solid phase and a first liquid phase, wherein the first liquid phase comprises a first portion of the first amount of lithium and wherein the first solid phase comprises the at least one water-insoluble phase comprising the second amount of lithium”), separating the liquid from the solid, and adding a carbonate precipitant to the resulting liquid phase to generate lithium carbonate precipitate ([0009] meeting limitation “recovering the first portion of the first amount of lithium from the first liquid phase”). In a preferred embodiment, the calcination time is 2 to 4 hours ([0013] meeting limitation “for a first predetermined time”). Preferably, the calcination temperature is 500-600 °C ([0014] meeting limitation “wherein the heating is at a heating temperature from about 100 °C to less than about 850 °C”).
Regarding the limitation “to form a solid composition comprising at least one water-soluble phase and at least one water- insoluble phase, wherein the at least one water-soluble phase comprises a first amount of lithium and wherein the at least one water-insoluble phase comprises a second amount of lithium”, Zhang discloses adding the roasted material, i.e. solid composition, into the aqueous solution, stirring and filtering ([0025]); adding carbonate solution to the filtrate obtained by filtration, stirring for a period of time until no new precipitate is formed; ([0026]) the suspension obtained is filtered and the filter cake obtained is Li2CO3 ([0027]). Therefore, the roasted material must necessarily comprise one water-soluble phase and at least one water-insoluble phase, wherein the at least one water-soluble phase comprises a first amount of lithium. Zhang discloses a lithium recovery rate of 91.2% ([0049]), therefore the remaining 8.8% can reasonably be assumed to remain in the solid residue after filtration, i.e. the at least one water-insoluble phase comprises a second amount of lithium.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including the present invention uses NaOH or KOH as a roasting additive to achieve full conversion of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide and other materials… so that lithium is efficiently dissolved and the lithium recovery efficiency is greatly improved ([0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including a method for recovering lithium from waste ternary lithium-ion batteries ([0002] meeting limitation “Li-batteries”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses the waste ternary lithium-ion battery is a nickel-cobalt-aluminum system ternary battery ([0017]). The method for recovering lithium from waste ternary lithium-ion batteries provided by the present invention comprises ([0020]) discharging, disassembling and vibrating waste ternary lithium-ion batteries to obtain positive and negative electrode active material powders ([0021]). While Zhang does not explicitly disclose the first liquid phase further comprises a first amount of one or more of aluminum, calcium, iron, silicon, sodium, or at least one of rare earth elements, it would be reasonably expected that the first liquid phase would comprise aluminum since the waste ternary lithium-ion battery is a nickel-cobalt-aluminum system ternary battery.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including In a preferred embodiment, the calcination time is 2 to 4 hours ([0013]). 2 to 4 hours is within the claimed time of from about 0.5 seconds to about 24 hours.
Regarding claim 22, Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and further discloses the lithium recovery rate from waste ternary lithium ion battery active material using this embodiment is shown in FIG1, indicating that after 10 g of waste ternary lithium ion battery active material powder is treated as described above, the lithium recovery rate is 91.2% ([0049]), which is within the claimed range of from about 5% to less than 100%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 106929664, machine translation used for citations), in view of Tiihonen et al (WO 2019/220003A1).
Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein step d) is present” (claim 2), “wherein if the further liquid phase is substantially free of the further portion of the first amount of lithium, the method further comprises a step of recycling the further liquid phase to the first aliquot of water” (claim 4) and “wherein a sum of the first portion and the further portion of the first amount of lithium is from about 5% to less than 100% of all lithium present in the lithium-bearing material” (claim 23).
Tiihonen discloses a method for recovering lithium hydroxide from a raw material containing lithium which comprises pulping the raw material containing lithium in the presence of water… for extracting the lithium from the raw material and producing a first slurry containing lithium (Pg. 4 lines 31-35). After pulping the first lithium-containing slurry is leached for a first time for producing a second slurry containing lithium carbonate (Pg. 5 lines 3-4). After an optional solid-liquid separation, the lithium-containing phase is leached for a second time… followed by a separation of solids from the solution by solid-liquid separation and by the preparation of lithium hydroxide-containing solution of high purity (Pg. 5 lines 5-10). If a separation step is performed between the leaching steps the liquid fraction of the first leaching solution can be recycled either to the pulping step or to the first leaching step (Pg. 5 lines 11-13). This recycling reduces the need for a separate pH adjustment in the later stages of the process and likewise reduces the chemical consumption in the process (Pg. 3 lines 22-24). Tiihonen further discloses the method may also comprise steps for pretreating the lithium-containing raw material…a heat treatment of the lithium-containing raw material before pulping (Pg. 5 lines 29-34).
While Tiihonen does not explicitly disclose the percentage of lithium recovered from the starting lithium material, Archambault discloses the crystalline lithium carbonate thus recovered represented about 75% of the lithium content of the starting spodumene (Column 7 Example 1 lines 7-10). The method of Archambault comprises one step of suspending lithium in water. Any additional lithium recovered by successive suspensions in water would result in 75% or more of the lithium content of the starting material, which necessarily lies within the claim 23 range about 5% to less than 100%.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for step d) to be present (claim 2), the method further comprising a step of recycling the further liquid phase to the first aliquot of water (claim 4), and a sum of the first portion and the further portion of the first amount of lithium is from about 5% to less than 100% of all lithium present in the lithium-bearing material (claim 23) in the method of Zhang in order to prepare a lithium solution of high purity and reduce chemical consumption in the process as taught by Tiihonen.
Claims 3, 18-19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 106929664, machine translation used for citations), in view of Archambault et al (US 3,380,802, cited in IDS 08/19/2022).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein any of the steps a)-d) is performed under a pressure from about 0.1MPa to about 20 MPa”.
Archambault discloses carbonatizing roast to lithium-bearing mineral materials containing significant quantities of aluminum, silicon, sodium, iron, manganese, and other elements to achieve an easy and substantially complete separation of lithium values either as a carbonate of high purity or as a directly derivated compound from the latter (Col. 2 lines 60-66). The invention also contemplates a procedure that avoids or at least restricts to very small amounts the formation of difficultly leachable lithium compounds (silicates) by carrying out the reaction in the continuous presence of carbon dioxide at atmospheric or supra atmospheric pressure, at the site of the reaction (Col. 2 lines 67-72). This is accomplished for instance by circulating carbon dioxide gas in the reactor or by operating under low pressure (of say 30 p.s.i. or less) of carbon dioxide (Col. 3 lines 3-6). 30 psi is equivalent to 0.21 MPa, which is within the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the steps to be performed under a pressure from about 0.1MPa to about 20 MPa in the method of Zhang in order to restrict the formation of lithium silicates as taught by Archambault.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein the suspending comprises heating of the first suspension and/or the further suspension if present” and “wherein the heating of the first suspension or the further suspension, if present, occurs is at a temperature from about 20 °C to about 100 °C”.
Archambault discloses the mixture was slurried with 2500 parts of water and agitated in a covered vessel at a temperature in the range from 100° C. to 105 °C, i.e. boiling for a period of forty hours (Column 7 Example 2 lines 18-21). The range disclosed by Archambault (100° C. to 105 °C) is within the claimed range (about 20 °C to about 100 °C). Archambault further discloses the resulting slurry was then cooled to room temperature and … filtered to provide a liquor which contained over 90% of the lithium content of the starting mineral as dissolved lithium carbonate (Col. 7 lines 21-27).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the suspending to comprise heating of the first suspension and/or the further suspension if present and wherein the heating of the first suspension or the further suspension, if present, occurs is at a temperature from about 20 °C to about 100 °C in the method of Zhang in order to provide a liquor which contains over 90% of the lithium content of the starting material as taught by Archambault.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 106929664, machine translation used for citations), in view of Sun et al (CN 110117020A, machine translation used for citations).
Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “wherein the mixture comprises a ratio of the roasting agent to the lithium-bearing material between about 0.1:1 to about 10:1, wherein the ratio is calculated by the weight of the roasting agent to the weight of the lithium-bearing material” (claim 11) “wherein the heating comprises a heated chamber comprising one or more heating sources effective to provide the heating temperature, and wherein the one or more heating sources comprise a microwave heating source” (claim 12).
Sun discloses a method for treating lithium-containing minerals… the method comprises mixing the lithium-containing mineral with an inorganic salt, subjecting the obtained mixture to mineral element phase transfer and obtaining a soluble salt or a composite salt containing lithium ([0014]). The phase transfer method is one or a mixture of mechanical activation, ultrasound, microwave or plasma treatment. The lithium-containing mineral is any one of spodumene, lepidolite, ferroalite, petalite, ferroalite or lithium porcelain stone ([0021]). The inorganic salt i.e., roasting agent, is any one of alkali metal sulfates, alkali metal chlorides, alkaline earth metal sulfates or alkaline earth metal chlorides, or a combination of at least two thereof ([0054]). Sun discloses a mass ratio of (100-1):1 of lithium-containing material and an inorganic salt ([0054]). The power of the microwave treatment is 300-800 W ([0054]). Sun further teaches the present invention allows lithium to enter soluble salts or composite salts through in-situ lithium element interphase transfer, thereby achieving efficient selective dissolution using water or low-concentration acid at room temperature, and the lithium leaching rate can reach more than 98%.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Sun (mass ratio of 1: (100-1) inorganic salt to lithium-containing material) overlaps with the claim 11 range (about 0.1:1 to about 10:1 roasting agent to lithium-bearing material). Therefore, the range in Sun renders obvious the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio of the roasting agent to the lithium-bearing material between about 0.1:1 to about 10:1, wherein the ratio is calculated by the weight of the roasting agent to the weight of the lithium-bearing material and wherein the heating comprises a heated chamber comprising one or more heating sources effective to provide the heating temperature, and wherein the one or more heating sources comprise a microwave heating source in the method of Zhang in order to allow lithium to enter soluble salts or composite salts through in-situ lithium element interphase transfer, thereby achieving efficient selective dissolution using water or low-concentration acid at room temperature, and the lithium leaching rate can reach more than 98% as taught by Sun.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 106929664, machine translation used for citations), in view of Sun et al (CN 110117020A, machine translation used for citations), and in further view of Yao et al (CN 109750155A, machine translation used for citations).
Zhang in view of Sun discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “the method of claim 12, wherein the microwave source has a frequency between about 900 MHz to about 6 GHz, and wherein the microwave source has an energy between about 500 W to about 30kW” (claim 14).
Yao discloses a method for recovering cobalt from positive electrode materials of waste lithium-ion batteries which comprises the following steps: using lithium cobalt oxide powder i.e., lithium bearing material, obtained by disassembling and separating waste lithium-ion batteries as a raw material, adding 10% by mass of carbon black i.e., roasting agent, and mixing the two evenly; placing the mixture in a covered crucible, and then roasting it in a microwave oven …; cooling the roasted sample to room temperature under a vacuum environment, and then dispersing it in water ([0042]). The frequency of the microwave is 2.45 GHz or 915 MHz, and the power is 200-1000 W ([0023]). Yao further discloses the reaction rate is fast and the reaction can be completed within 20 minutes, while the traditional vacuum reduction roasting time is as long as 4 hours ([0032]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the range taught by Yao (2.45 GHz or 915 MHz) overlaps with the claimed range (about 900 MHz to about 6 GHz). In the instant case, the range taught by Yao (200-1000 W) overlaps with the claimed range (about 500 W to about 30kW). Therefore, the range in Yao renders obvious the claimed range.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the microwave source to have a frequency between about 900 MHz to about 6 GHz, and wherein the microwave source has an energy between about 500 W to about 30kW in the method of Archambault in view of Sun in order to for the reaction to be completed within 20 minutes instead of 4 hours as taught by Yao.
Claims 25-28, 30-31, 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 106929664, machine translation used for citations), in view of Hunwick (US 20170175228A, cited in IDS 09/06/2024).
Zhang discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to:
“further comprising collecting the first solid phase or the further solid phase if present and then a) adding a first aliquot of an acid to the first solid phase or the further solid phase if present; and b) suspending the first solid phase or the further solid phase if present in the amount of acid for a fourth predetermined time to form an additional suspension comprising an additional solid phase and an additional liquid phase, wherein the additional liquid phase comprises a first portion of the second amount of lithium and wherein the additional solid phase comprises a second portion of the second amount of lithium” (claim 25)
“further comprising recovering the first portion of the second amount of lithium from the additional liquid phase” (claim 26)
“wherein the fourth predetermined time is from about 1 min to about 72 hours” (claim 27)
“wherein b) further comprises mixing the additional suspension and/or wherein b) further comprises keeping the additional suspension at a temperature from about 20 °C to about 300 °C” (claim 28)
“wherein the additional liquid phase comprises a second amount of one or more of aluminum, calcium, iron, silicon, sodium, or at least one of rare earth elements” (claim 30)
“further comprising recovering the second amount of one or more of aluminum, calcium, iron, silicon, sodium, or at least one of rare earth elements” (claim 31)
“wherein the acid comprises H2SO4, HCl, H3PO4, HNO3 or any combination thereof” (claim 36)
“wherein any of the steps a)-b) and/or i)-ii) is performed under a pressure from about 0.1MPa to about 20 MPa.” (claim 37)
Hunwick discloses process for recovering lithium from a lithium-containing silicate mineral, such as hard-rock minerals ([0009]). The process can comprise subjecting the mixture of silicate mineral with nitric acid to a leaching process ([0016]). The leaching process can take place in one or more stages, and may be conducted under conditions such that lithium values in the silicate mineral are leached into an aqueous phase as lithium nitrates ([0016], meeting claim 25 limitations). The leaching process conditions may be controlled to minimize the quantities of non-lithium values that can be present in the silicate mineral (e.g. aluminum, iron and other transition metals including nickel, chromium, manganese and cobalt, the alkaline-earth metals calcium and magnesium; and, the phosphate ion) and that are leached into the aqueous phase ([0016]). If leached out, the non-lithium values may be separated (e.g. precipitated, etc.) out of the aqueous phase ([0016], meeting claim 30 and 31 limitations). The silicate mineral and nitric acid can be reacted together at elevated temperatures (e.g. 170 C.) and elevated pressures (e.g. ~20 Bar pressure i.e., 2 MPa), e.g. in a digestion reactor, such as an autoclave ([0018], meeting claim 28, 36-37 limitations. It has been shown, for example, that it is possible to extract 95% of the lithium in a sample of calcined (β) spodumene under pressure in such a reactor at a temperature of 170° C. in under an hour ([0018], meeting claim 27 limitation). A primary solids-liquids separation stage (e.g. a filtration stage) may be added immediately after the leaching stage ([0031]). The product of the aforementioned stages can be a hot, concentrated aqueous solution of lithium nitrate ([0041]). This solution may be further processed in the course of converting the contained lithium values to the desired chemicals: lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate ([0041], meeting claim 26 limitation). Hunwick further discloses the process can recover lithium in marketable forms ([0011]), can avoid the need to purchase and consume expensive and hazardous chemicals, can avoid the production of unwanted by-products such as sodium sulphate, may involve a minimum of processing steps, and can be environmentally benign ([0012]).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise collecting the first solid phase or the further solid phase if present and then a) adding a first aliquot of an acid to the first solid phase or the further solid phase if present; and b) suspending the first solid phase or the further solid phase if present in the amount of acid for a fourth predetermined time to form an additional suspension comprising an additional solid phase and an additional liquid phase, wherein the additional liquid phase comprises a first portion of the second amount of lithium and wherein the additional solid phase comprises a second portion of the second amount of lithium (claim 25), further comprise recovering the first portion of the second amount of lithium from the additional liquid phase (claim 26), wherein the fourth predetermined time is from about 1 min to about 72 hours (claim 27), wherein b) further comprises mixing the additional suspension and/or wherein b) further comprises keeping the additional suspension at a temperature from about 20 °C to about 300 °C (claim 28), wherein the additional liquid phase comprises a second amount of one or more of aluminum, calcium, iron, silicon, sodium, or at least one of rare earth elements (claim 30) further comprising recovering the second amount of one or more of aluminum, calcium, iron, silicon, sodium, or at least one of rare earth elements (claim 31) wherein the acid comprises H2SO4, HCl,H3PO4,HNO3 or any combination thereof (claim 36) wherein any of the steps a)-b) and/or i)-ii) is performed under a pressure from about 0.1MPa to about 20 MPa (claim 37) in the method of Zhang in order to recover lithium in marketable forms, avoid the need to purchase and consume expensive and hazardous chemicals, avoid the production of unwanted by-products such as sodium sulphate, involve a minimum of processing steps, and be environmentally benign as taught by Hunwick.
Claims 32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 106929664, machine translation used for citations), in view of Hunwick (US 20170175228A, cited in IDS 09/06/2024), and in further view of Xiang (“Extraction of vanadium from converter slag by two-step sulfuric acid leaching process”) and Ellestad (US 2516109A, cited in IDS 11/21/2022).
Zhang in view of Hunwick discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but is silent to “comprising collecting the additional solid phase, wherein the step of collecting comprises the sequence of steps: i) step of adding a second aliquot of an acid to the additional solid phase to form a further additional suspension comprising a further additional solid phase and a further additional liquid phase, wherein the further additional liquid phase optionally comprises a further portion of the second amount of lithium; ii) separating the further additional liquid phase and further additional solid phase; if the further additional liquid phase comprises the further portion of the second amount of lithium, the further additional solid phase is further subjected to the steps i)-ii); and if the further additional liquid phase is substantially free of the further portion of the second amount of lithium, recycling the further additional liquid phase to the first or the second aliquot of the acid” (claim 32) and “further comprising combining the additional liquid phase and each of the further additional liquid phases, and then recovering all portions of the second amount of lithium” (claim 34).
Xiang discloses extraction of vanadium by a two-step leaching process, starting from a mechanically activated converter slag (Pg. 1090 left column par. 4). For the first-stage leaching, the leach solution was acidified by sulfuric acid, and leaching temperature and holding time were optimized in 30-90 °C range and under 60 min, respectively (Pg. 1090 Procedure). After the reaction, the slurry was filtered to separate the remaining unreacted solids from the leaching solution (Pg. 1090 Procedure). The unreacted solids were then used for the second-stage leaching experiment (Pg. 1090 Procedure). For the second-stage leaching experiment, five different sulfuric acid solutions were investigated (Pg. 1090 Procedure, meeting claim 32 limitation “i) step of adding a second aliquot of an acid to the additional solid phase to form a further additional suspension comprising a further additional solid phase and a further additional liquid phase, wherein the further additional liquid phase optionally comprises a further portion of the second amount of lithium;”) After the second leaching experiments, the slurry was filtered out (Pg. 1090 Procedure, meeting claim 32 limitation “ii) separating the further additional liquid phase and further additional solid phase”). The leaching solution was recycled for several times and then used for vanadium recovery (Pg. 1090 Procedure, meeting claim 32 limitation “if the further additional liquid phase is substantially free of the further portion of the second amount of lithium, recycling the further additional liquid phase to the first or the second aliquot of the acid” and claim 34 limitation “combining the additional liquid phase and each of the further additional liquid phases, and then recovering all portions of the second amount of lithium”). Xiang further discloses a single stage leaching requires about 60 min of leaching time for a maximum fraction (about 86%) of vanadium to dissolve and the production efficiency and cost are seriously hindered by such a long leaching time (Pg. 1089 right column par. 1). Multistage leaching processes is an efficient way to improve the leaching rate and make full use of leaching agent (Pg. 1090 left column par. 3).
While Xiang does disclose the method steps of adding a second aliquot of an acid to a solid phase, separating the liquid and solid phase, recycling the liquid phase and recovery from combined liquid phases, Xiang does not disclose recovering lithium.
However, Ellestad discloses beta- spodumene is thoroughly mixed with strong sulfuric acid… the ore is leached with aqueous liquid to extract lithium sulfate, leaving behind the spodumene mineral in its original form except for the substitution of hydrogen for lithium and without decomposing the mineral or dissolving the aluminum content thereof (Colum 2 lines 30-42). The leach solution of lithium sulfate is the treated in any suitable manner to produce a product comprising dry lithium sulfate or to convert the lithium sulfate to other chemical forms in which it may be used commercially (Col. 2 lines 44-49). One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted vanadium for lithium in the method of Xiang and the results would have been predictable because sulfuric acid leaching is known to be an effective method of extracting lithium sulfate without decomposing the mineral or dissolving the aluminum content as taught by Ellestad.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to collect the additional solid phase, wherein the step of collecting comprises the sequence of steps: i) step of adding a second aliquot of an acid to the additional solid phase to form a further additional suspension comprising a further additional solid phase and a further additional liquid phase, wherein the further additional liquid phase optionally comprises a further portion of the second amount of lithium; ii) separating the further additional liquid phase and further additional solid phase; if the further additional liquid phase comprises the further portion of the second amount of lithium, the further additional solid phase is further subjected to the steps i)-ii); and if the further additional liquid phase is substantially free of the further portion of the second amount of lithium, recycling the further additional liquid phase to the first or the second aliquot of the acid (claim 32) and combine the additional liquid phase and each of the further additional liquid phases, and then recover all portions of the second amount of lithium” (claim 34) in the method of Zhang in view of Hunwick in order to improve leaching rate and make full use of the leaching agent as taught by Xiang.
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 NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738 9/15/2025
Prosecution Insights