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 Status
Rejected Claims: 13, 15-16, and 18-25
Withdrawn Claims: 1-12, and 17
Cancelled Claims: 14
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 22 MAY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 13 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 13, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to account for the changed limitations of claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 22 MAY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, regarding instant claim 13, that Mceachern does not teach the newly added limitation “lithium is desorbed from the aluminum salt adsorbent by one or more of demineralized water, deionized water, and saline” because Mceachern teaches the use of strong HCl to desorb lithium from an aluminum oxide ion sieve. Furthermore, it would not be obvious to modify the process of desorbing lithium from an aluminum oxide ion sieve with demineralized water, deionized water, and/or saline because the sieve would require a stronger cation to displace the lithium. Therefore instant claim 13 is now allowable (Arguments filed 22 MAY 2026, Page 7 to Page 8, Paragraph 1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim 13 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. Furthermore, Mceachern teaches that many different adsorbents can be used to target lithium and simply lists aluminum oxide ion sieves as one example. See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for instant claim 13 below for the reasons why the new prior art applies.
Applicant argues that instant claims 15-16 and 18-25 depend upon instant claim 13 and so instant claims 15-16 and 18-25 are also allowable (Arguments filed 22 MAY 2026, Page 8, Paragraph 2 to Page 9).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, instant claims 15-16 and 18-25 are not allowable because instant claim 13 is not allowable.
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.
Claims 13, 15-16, 18-20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mceachern et al US Patent Application No. US 20200299805 A1 (hereinafter Mceachern) in view of Jariwala et al US Patent Application No. US 20210246529 A1 (hereinafter Jariwala).
Regarding Claim 13, Mceachern teaches a method of recovering lithium from energy process water (i.e., A system unit; Abstract), specifically mentioning produced water (i.e., for processing produced water from an oil and/or gas well; Paragraph 0002), comprising a lithium recovery system (i.e., a process unit comprising; Fig. 1, #100)
in which a separator (i.e., wherein the process unit comprises; a filtration unit; Fig. 3, #124) removes hydrocarbon contaminants (i.e., arranged and configured to extract oil and/or gas from the produced water) followed by a second separator (Fig. 3, #141) for the removal of alkaline earth contaminants (Paragraph 0023) where the second separator is preferred to be a specific ultrafiltration system (i.e., hereafter filter the produced water hereby producing permeate (filtrate) and retentate; Paragraphs 0027-0029)
which then feeds an absorbent reaction system (i.e., a separator; Fig. 3, #140) that includes one or more batch reactors (Fig. 3, #148) which consists of adsorbents such as cation exchange resins for the removal of lithium (i.e., that is configured to receive and process permeate (filtrate) from the produced water, wherein the separator is arranged and configured to extract lithium from the permeate; Paragraphs 0036-0037) to create cleaned water (i.e., to obtain treated water; Fig. 3, #150a; Paragraph 0043),
wherein the separator may include a metal adsorbent (Fig. 3, #149) which may be added in the reactors and the adsorbents generally used in the industry and preferred by the invention include ion sieves made from aluminum oxide (i.e., wherein the separator comprises one or more adsorbents including aluminum salt adsorbent for extracting lithium from the permeate; Paragraphs 0036-0037)
wherein the adsorbents are not particularly limited by Mceachern with many options including cation exchange resins and others (Paragraph 0037).
Mceachern does not teach wherein the lithium is desorbed from the aluminum salt adsorbent by one or more of demineralized water, deionized water, and saline.
However, Jariwala teaches a lithium extraction process (Fig. 2A, #200) in which aluminum hydroxide based resins can be used (i.e., wherein the separator comprises one or more adsorbents including aluminum salt adsorbent for extracting lithium from the permeate; Paragraph 0038) where flush water enters the resin beds (Fig. 2A, #206) once the resin beds reach a saturation point of lithium ions through flush water lines (Fig. 2A, #212; Paragraph 0040) wherein the flush water is obtained by recycling water (Fig. 2A, #222) from downstream processes by routing the water through a reverse osmosis unit (i.e., wherein the lithium is desorbed from the aluminum salt adsorbent by one or more of demineralized water; Fig. 2A, #220; Paragraph 0043) for the purpose of maximizing the concentration of lithium ions in the lithium bearing effluent (Paragraph 0040).
Jariwala is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to an apparatus for integrated alkali metal extraction (Abstract) and specifically lithium extraction from aqueous sources (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the lithium adsorbent and desorbing fluid as taught by Mceachern to be aluminum hydroxide based resins with reverse osmosis permeate water to desorb lithium as taught by Jariwala because the combination would maximize the concentration of lithium ions in the lithium bearing effluent.
Regarding Claim 15, Mceachern further teaches that the absorbent reaction system (i.e., wherein the separator; Fig. 3, #140) consists of cation exchange resins for the removal of lithium (i.e., is arranged and configured to: a) extract lithium from the permeate is carried out by using an ion-exchange resin method that extracts lithium ions; Paragraphs 0036-0037) and that, after elution from the ion exchange process, the lithium elution fluid is further processed in a processing system (Fig. 3, #230; Paragraph 0044) in which lithium is precipitated out as lithium carbonate and separated by centripetal force or filtration (i.e., and b) recover Li+ as precipitates of Li2CO3; Fig. 3, #168 and 171; Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 16, Mceachern further teaches that the absorbent reaction system (i.e., wherein the separator; Fig. 3, #140) consists of cation exchange resins for the removal of lithium (i.e., is arranged and configured to selectively remove lithium from the permeate; Paragraphs 0036-0037).
Regarding Claim 18, Mceachern further teaches that the absorbent reaction system (i.e., wherein the separator; Fig. 3, #140) consists of cation exchange resins for the removal of lithium (i.e., an extracting unit that is arranged and configured to extract lithium from the ion-exchange resin; Paragraphs 0036-0037) and that, after elution from the ion exchange process (i.e., a washing unit that is arranged and configured to wash the resin), the lithium elution fluid is further processed in a processing system (Fig. 3, #230; Paragraph 0044) in which lithium is precipitated out as lithium carbonate and separated by centripetal force or filtration (i.e., and recover Li+ as precipitates of Li2CO3 or LiOH when the ion-exchange resin has been treated in the washing unit; Fig. 3, #168 and 171; Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 19, Mceachern further teaches that the absorbent reaction system (i.e., wherein the separator; Fig. 3, #140) consists of cation exchange resins for the removal of lithium (i.e., is configured to recover Li+; Paragraphs 0036-0037) and that, after elution from the ion exchange process (i.e., by extracting lithium from the ion-exchange resin), the lithium elution fluid is further processed in a processing system (Fig. 3, #230; Paragraph 0044) in which lithium is precipitated out as lithium carbonate and separated by centripetal force or filtration (i.e., (as precipitates of Li2CO3 or LiOH); recovering Li+ as precipitates of Li2CO3 or LiOH after a washing process; Fig. 3, #168 and 171; Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 20, Mceachern further teaches that the absorbent reaction system (i.e., wherein the separator; Fig. 3, #140) consists of cation exchange resins for the removal of lithium (Paragraphs 0036-0037) and that, after elution from the ion exchange process, the lithium elution fluid is further processed in a processing system (Fig. 3, #230; Paragraph 0044) in which lithium is precipitated out as lithium carbonate and separated by filtration (i.e., comprises a filter assembly that is arranged and configured to recover Li+ (as precipitates of Li2CO3 or LiOH) by filtration and hereby retain precipitates of Li2CO3 or LiOH; Fig. 3, #168 and 171; Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 24, Mceachern further teaches that the absorbent reaction system (Fig. 3, #140) consists of cation exchange resins for the removal of lithium (Paragraphs 0036-0037) and that, after elution from the ion exchange process, the lithium elution fluid is further processed in a processing system (Fig. 3, #230; Paragraph 0044) in which lithium is precipitated out as lithium carbonate (i.e., wherein the process unit comprises a first post-processing unit arranged and configured to concentrate or purify an output from a processing unit of the process unit; Fig. 3, #168; Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 25, Mceachern further teaches that the absorbent reaction system (Fig. 3, #140) consists of cation exchange resins for the removal of lithium (Paragraphs 0036-0037) and that, after elution from the ion exchange process, the lithium elution fluid is further processed in a processing system (Fig. 3, #230; Paragraph 0044) in which lithium is precipitated out as lithium carbonate (Fig. 3, #168) and separated by centripetal force or filtration (i.e., wherein the process unit comprises a second post-processing unit arranged and configured to concentrate or dry an output from the first post-processing unit; Fig. 3, #171; Paragraphs 0051-0052).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mceachern in view of Jariwala with support from Bromley US Patent Application No. US 20240116001 A1 (hereinafter Bromley).
Regarding Claim 21, Mceachern further teaches that the specific ultrafiltration system is RSLTM (replaceable skin layer) ultrafiltration (i.e., wherein the filtration unit is an ultrafiltration unit comprising; Fig. 3, #141; Paragraphs 0027-0029).
Bromley further teaches that the RSLTM ultrafiltration (Paragraph 0004) includes an RSLTM powder (Paragraph 0042) located on the membrane and the membrane is ceramic (i.e., wherein the membranes are made of a ceramic material) and in the shape of a sheet (i.e., flat sheet membranes; Paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 22, Mceachern further teaches that the specific ultrafiltration system is RSLTM (replaceable skin layer) ultrafiltration (i.e., wherein the ultrafiltration unit comprises a number of; flat sheet membranes arranged in a membrane reactor; Fig. 3, #141 Paragraphs 0027-0029).
Bromley further teaches that the RSLTM ultrafiltration (Paragraph 0004) includes an RSLTM powder which is activated carbon (i.e., wherein granular activated carbon is present in the membrane reactor; Paragraph 0042) located on the membrane and the membrane is ceramic (i.e., ceramic) and in the shape of a sheet (i.e., flat sheet membranes; Paragraph 0041).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mceachern in view of Jariwala as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sanderson US Patent No. US 4357237 A (hereinafter Sanderson).
Regarding Claim 23, Mceachern further teaches that magnetic separation for the recovery of minerals from water is well known in the art (Paragraph 0017).
Mceachern in view of Jariwala does not explicitly teach wherein the process unit comprises a magnetic water treatment unit that is arranged and configured to initiate precipitation of particles.
However, Sanderson teaches a magnetic device that causes the precipitation of calcium and other minerals present in hard water into a loose slurry instead of as scale build-up (i.e., wherein the process unit comprises a magnetic water treatment unit that is arranged and configured to initiate precipitation of particles; Col. 2, Lines 11-29) that has the advantage of being structurally sound enough to prevent movement of the device and thus movement of the magnetic field during severe jolts caused by events such as a water hammer or others (Col. 3, Lines 50-66).
Sanderson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a device for the magnetic treatment of fluids such as water and natural gas (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process made obvious by Mceachern in view of Jariwala with the magnetic separator as taught by Sanderson because the magnetic separator would precipitate calcium precipitation as scale on the walls of pipes/reactors and would also the device would maintain its position in adverse conditions such as a water hammer event.
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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/A.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights