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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on October 8, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of any patent granted on pending reference application number 17/529,492 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perez et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0101484).
Regarding claim 1, Perez discloses a system for extracting lithium from brines (paragraphs 16-17), the system comprising:
one or more solar evaporation ponds configured to allow evaporation of brine to occur in each pond and for brine to flow from a first pond to one or more other ponds, or to a process plant for lithium separation (paragraphs 22-27; figure 1);
at least one conduit configured to remove at least a portion of the brine, the at least one conduit including a first conduit (17) coupled to the first pond (38) at a brine removal location, and configured to transmit the removed brine therefrom (as shown in figure 1); and
a separator configured to at least partially separate lithium from at least one type of impurity anions, i.e. sulfate anions (paragraphs 17, 20-22, tables 2-3 on page 2); the at least one type of impurity anions having a propensity to form lithium salts that can precipitate under further brine concentration (paragraphs 20-26; 35),
the separator configured to receive the removed brine transmitted via the first conduit (as shown in figure 1, the concentrated brine 17 is recycled back into a separator 23),
the separator configured to form a high impurity stream and a low impurity stream, the high impurity stream comprising a higher concentration of the impurity anions than the low impurity stream (paragraphs 16-26; 35);
wherein the high impurity stream is optionally recycled to the one or more of the evaporation ponds at a location the same as, upstream from the brine removal location, or disposed in a separate pond or reinjected underground (paragraphs 17; 35; 39), and the low impurity stream is fed to one or more of the ponds, or to a lithium separation plant, or to a concentration facility (paragraphs 16; 25-27).
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 7, the separator of Perez is solvent extraction (paragraphs 25-26).
Regarding claim 8, the system of Perez comprises recycling of the high impurity stream to a point in one or more preceding evaporation ponds where conditions are favorable for precipitation and thus removal of one or more impurity ions without lithium co-precipitation (paragraphs 17; 25-27; 35; 39).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art made of record fails to teach a flow of a lithium precipitation retardant directed into at least one of the first pond or another pond upstream from the first pond, the lithium precipitation retardant comprising at least one of potassium chloride, calcium chloride, calcium hydroxide, calcium oxide, or calcium carbonate. In Perez, potassium chloride is removed from the solar evaporation ponds as an impurity (via conduit 39; figure 1; paragraph 35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Perez fails to teach a conduit configured to remove brine from an evaporation pond and transmit the brine from the evaporation pond to a separator configured to separate lithium from one or more impurities.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Perez teaches a conduit (17; figure 1) configured to remove brine from an evaporation pond (38) to a separator (20) configured to separate lithium from one or more impurities (the lithium content is precipitated/recovered in step 20. The lithium content can then be further purified to reduce additional impurities - paragraphs 17, 30). Therefore, the previous rejections in view of Perez are still deemed proper and are maintained.
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 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