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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23) in the reply filed on 4/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 has been amended to further define the hydrothermal treatment and thermal treatment conditions. This is not found persuasive because the claims still require the technical feature of a nanomaterial composite, which does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-14 and 16-17 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/25/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1 , 3-5, 7-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasian (“Hydrothermal Synthesis of Lithium Meta Titanate Nanocrystallites,” 2015) and further in view of Yadav (US 7559494 B1).
With respect to claim 1, the claim requires “the method of producing a nanomaterial composite, comprising, mixing in an aqueous medium at least one lithium source and at least one other source selected from a silicon source, an aluminum source, a titanium source, a zirconium source, a metal-phosphate source and a mixture thereof;” Abbasian teaches Tetrabutyl titanate (Ti(C4H9O)4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), citric acid (C6H8O7), ammonia (NH3·H2O) used as raw materials by hydrothermal method. Abbasian further teaches Li2CO3 (purity: 99.99%, wt.%) and TiO2 (purity: 99.99%, wt.%) powders (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation).
Claim 1 further requires “forming a suspension at an atomic molar ratio of lithium to the other source of at least 2.0:1;” Abbasian teaches Lithium meta titanate teaches Li2TiO3. (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation).
Claim 1 further requires “subjecting the suspension to a hydrothermal treatment at a temperature of between about 60°C to about 250°C to for a period of time of between about 1 hour to about 84 hours to form the nanomaterial composite;” Abbasian teaches nanocrystallites lithium-titanate were synthesized at low temperature, 200°C for 12h by the hydrothermal method (Abbasian, abstract).
Claim 1 further requires “optionally subjecting the nanomaterial composite to a thermal treatment at a temperature of between about 100°C and about 1050°C for a period of time of between about 1 hour to about 84 hours wherein the nanomaterial composite has a domain size of less than 100 nm.” Abbasian teaches subsequent heat treatment for 6 h at 700°C (Abbasian, abstract) (Abbasian 338, 3.1. XRD analysis). Abbasian does not explicitly teach a domain size of less than 100 nm. However, Yadav teaches submicron material with domain sizes is less than 100 nm (Yadav 10, line 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Abbasian, a domain size of less than 100 nm as Yadav teaches that nanostructured powders often advantageously have sizes as small as 50 nm and 30 nm (Yadav 7, line 60).
Regarding claim 3, Abbasian teaches lithium nitrate (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation). Regarding claim 4, Abbasian teaches use of TiO2 powder (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation).
Regarding claim 5, Abbasian teaches use of citric acid (C6H8O7) (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation).
Regarding claim 7, Abbasian teaches ammonia (NH3·H2O) (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 1 is discussed above.
claim 8 further requires “the method of claim 1, wherein the nanomaterial composite has a domain size of between about 20 nm and about 60 nm.” Abbasian teaches the synthesized compounds had grain size smaller than 120 nm (Abbasian, abstract). Abbasian does not explicitly teach a domain size of between about 20 nm and about 60 nm. However, Yadav teaches submicron material with domain sizes is less than 100 nm (Yadav 10, line 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Abbasian, a domain size of between about 20 nm and about 60 nm as Yadav teaches that nanostructured powders often advantageously have sizes as small as 50 nm and 30 nm (Yadav 7, line 60).
Regarding claim 10, Abbasian teaches citric acid as a chelating agent (Abbasian).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasian (“Hydrothermal Synthesis of Lithium Meta Titanate Nanocrystallites,” 2015) and Yadav (US 7559494 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paranthaman (“Recovery of Lithium from Geothermal Brine with Lithium−Aluminum Layered Double Hydroxide Chloride Sorbents,” 2017).
With respect to claim 6, the method of 5 has been discussed above.
Claim 6 further requires “The method of claim 5, wherein the acid is selected from nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and carboxylic acid.” Abbasian does not explicitly teach wherein the acid is selected from nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and carboxylic acid. However, Paranthaman teaches Li:Al = 1:3 synthesized at various temperatures in 5% nitric acid solution (Paranthaman 13484, sorbents with nominal Li:Al).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Abbasian, acid is selected from nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and carboxylic acid as Paranthaman teaches this provides a suitable product used for selective extraction of lithium from brines (Paranthaman, abstract).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasian (“Hydrothermal Synthesis of Lithium Meta Titanate Nanocrystallites,” 2015) and Yadav (US 7559494 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coleman (“HYDROTHERMAL SYNTHESIS OF LITHIUM SILICATE FROM WASTE GLASS. A PRELIMINARY STUDY,” 2015).
With respect to claim 15, the method of claim 1 has been discussed above.
Claim 15 further requires “The method of claim 1, wherein the nanomaterial composite obtained by mixing in an aqueous medium at least one lithium source and a colloidal silica solution to form a suspension at an atomic molar ratio of lithium to silica of at least 2.0:1; and, subjecting the suspension to a hydrothermal treatment to form the nanomaterial composite.” Abbasian teaches lithium nitrate (LiNO3) as a lithium source (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation). Abbasian further teaches nanomaterial composites synthesized at low temperature, 200°C for 12h by using the hydrothermal method (Abbasian, abstract). Abbasian does not explicitly teach and a colloidal silica solution to form a suspension at an atomic molar ratio of lithium to silica of at least 2.0:1. However, Coleman teaches preparations of lithium metasilicate have been carried out using refined silicate reagents such as colloidal silica (Coleman, Introduction). Lithium metasilicate naturally has a ratio of 2:1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Abbasian, a suspension at an atomic molar ratio of lithium to silica of at least 2.0:1 as Coleman teaches this results in a suitable product to conserve resources and divert waste streams (Coleman, abstract).
Claim(s) 22 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasian (“Hydrothermal Synthesis of Lithium Meta Titanate Nanocrystallites,” 2015) and Yadav (US 7559494 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Chen (“Hydrothermal synthesis of lithium iron phosphate,” 2015).
With respect to claim 22, the method of claim 1 is discussed above.
Claim 22 further requires “ the method of claim 1, comprising mixing in an aqueous medium at least one lithium source and a metal-phosphate source to form a suspension at an atomic molar ratio of lithium to the metal of the metal-phosphate source of at least 2.0:1; and, subjecting the suspension to a hydrothermal treatment to produce the nanomaterial composite wherein the metal of the metal-phosphate source is selected from Fe2+, Zn2+, Co2+, Cu2+, Mn2+, Ni2+ and a mixture thereof.” Abbasian teaches lithium nitrate (LiNO3) as a lithium source (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation). Abbasian further teaches were synthesized at low temperature, 200°C for 12 h by the hydrothermal method (Abbasian, abstract). Abbasian does not explicitly teach a metal-phosphate source selected from Fe2+, Zn2+, Co2+, Cu2+, Mn2+, Ni2+ and a mixture thereof. However, Chen teaches FeSO4 * 7H2O (98% Fisher) and the molar ratio of the Li:Fe:P was 3:1:1 (Chen 856, 2. Experimental).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Abbasian, a metal-phosphate source selected from Fe2+, Zn2+, Co2+, Cu2+, Mn2+, Ni2+ and a mixture thereof as Chen teaches that a suitable battery acceptable LiFePO4 can be successfully synthesized at low temperatures using a hydro thermal process (Chen 858, 4. Conclusions).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 and 23 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Abbasian (“Hydrothermal Synthesis of Lithium Meta Titanate Nanocrystallites,” 2015), Chen (“Hydrothermal synthesis of lithium iron phosphate,” 2015), Paranthaman (“Recovery of Lithium from Geothermal Brine with Lithium−Aluminum Layered Double Hydroxide Chloride Sorbents,” 2017), and Chen (“Hydrothermal synthesis of lithium iron phosphate,” 2015) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 15 has been discussed above. However, neither Abbasian nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest wherein an aluminum salt is mixed with the lithium source and the colloidal silica solution to form the suspension. Rather, the cited prior art teaches Tetrabutyl titanate (Ti(C4H9O)4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), citric acid (C6H8O7), ammonia (NH3·H2O) used as raw materials by hydrothermal method. Abbasian further teaches Li2CO3 (purity: 99.99%, wt.%) and TiO2 (purity: 99.99%, wt.%) powders (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation).
Claims 19-20 contains allowable subject matter due to its dependence on claim 18, which
contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 23, the method of claim 22 has been discussed above. However, neither Abbasian nor the other cited prior art references teach or suggest subjecting the lithium metal-phosphate nanocomposite to a thermal treatment at a temperature of from about 1000°C up to about 1050°C and for a period of time from about 1 hour to about 84 hours. Rather, the cited prior art teaches Tetrabutyl titanate (Ti(C4H9O)4), lithium nitrate (LiNO3), citric acid (C6H8O7), ammonia (NH3·H2O) used as raw materials by hydrothermal method. Abbasian further teaches Li2CO3 (purity: 99.99%, wt.%) and TiO2 (purity: 99.99%, wt.%) powders (Abbasian 337, 2.1. Chemicals and Instrumentation). Abbasian further teaches nanocrystallites lithium-titanate were synthesized at low temperature, 200°C for 12h by the hydrothermal method (Abbasian, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights