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 invention (claim 1-12) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because restriction is established based upon groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 as set forth in previous office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
First, claim 1 recites “providing lithium hydroxide, hydrates, solvates or mixtures”, such recited hydrates, solvates or mixture renders claim indefiniteness because one of ordinary skill in the art is uncertain what materials being included in such hydrates, solvents or mixtures. Then claim 1 also recites “the starting material is preferably in solid form”, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or not. Second, claim 1 recites “such as 20-100 °C”, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, claim 2 recited phrases “preferably 20-80 °C”, or “more preferably 60-80 °C” also renders claim indefiniteness because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Next, the claimed “elevated temperature” in claim 1 appears to be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “elevated temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Hence, all these limitations render claim indefiniteness and all claim 1’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4 and 11 are 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 and 11 respectively recite the broad recitation “0.1-1000 m3/h”, and the claim also recites “preferably 5-500 m3/h”, “more preferably 10-50 m3/h” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 and 7-11 are 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. First, claim 6 recites “preferably carried out at room temperature of elevated temperature”, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Second, the term “elevated temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, such term render claim indefinites. Next claim 6 also recites “such as 20-100 °C”, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “20-300 °C, and the claim also recites “preferably 80-200 °C”, “more preferably 80-150 °C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. All claim 6’s depending claims are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 7 is 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 “preferably HCl, HBr and mixtures thereof” renders the claim indefinite because it is uncertain to one of ordinary skill in the art whether the feature introduced by such phrase of “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 8 is 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “40-5000g/h”, and the claim also recites “preferably 50-4500 g/h”, “more preferably 100-3000 g/h” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites “preferably in a volume concentration of 0.001-100 vol.%” renders the claim indefinite because it is uncertain to one of ordinary skill in the art whether the feature introduced by such phrase of “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Similarly claim 9 recited “more preferably 1.0-10 vol.%” are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 12 is 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. First claim 12 recites ‘the halogen containing gas”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Next, claim 12, recites the phrase "e.g.", which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following such phrase “e.g.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kalo et al. (WO2018/086862).
Kalo et al teaches a method of preparing anhydrous lithium hydroxide (i.e. a lithium salt substantially free of water) comprising providing LiOH hydrate particulate (page 2 line 40-page 3 line 15) in a reactor (page 3 lines 9-20), subjecting such LiOH hydrate to a stream of carrier gas under elevated temperature (page 3 lines 16-19, 32-34, 40-42, claim 1-4, page 4 lines 5-10).
Kalo et al teaches every and each limitation of claim 1, therefore, claim 1 is anticipated by Kalo et al.
Regarding claim 2, Kalo et al. teaches LiOH hydrate can be LiOH·H2O (page 2 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 4, Kalo et al. teaches 250 Nm3/h (i.e. normal cubic meters per hour) of carrier gas being used (page 4 lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 12, Kalo et al. already teaches the carrier gas being a gas claim 1-4, page 4 lines 5-10) (i.e. a fluid).
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) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kalo et al. (WO2018/086862).
Regarding claim 3, Kalo et al. further teaches the carrier gas stream have a temperature in the range from 150-500°C (page 2 lines 17-19), wherein such carrier gas specifically being air with 30-50 ppm CO2 being used (page 4 lines 5-10). Kalo disclosed air reads onto the instantly claimed inert gas.
Alternatively, Kalo et al. also broadly teaches carrier gas can be air, nitrogen, argon, preferred is nitrogen (page 2 lines 32-37). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “obvious to try” nitrogen, argon as shown by Kalo as carrier gas because choosing nitrogen or argon as carrier gas from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of carrier gas would have a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 5, Kalo et al. does not expressly teach the anhydrous lithium hydroxide being substantially free of Li2CO3 and/or Li2O. However, Kalo et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same process of providing same or substantially the same lithium hydroxide hydrate, and subjecting such same or substantially the same lithium hydroxide hydrate to a same or substantially the same carrier gas at elevated temperature to produce a same or substantially the same anhydrous lithium hydroxide product as that of instantly claimed, wherein such anhydrous lithium hydroxide product would have be substantially free of Li2CO3 and/or Li2O.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the impurities content in such obtained anhydrous lithium hydroxide product via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144.05 II), such as obtaining anhydrous lithium hydroxide product substantially free of Li2CO3 and/or Li2O as that of instantly claimed because obtain a high purity final product is always desired and common-sensical.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen (CN108584992) (for applicant’s convenience, machine translation has been used as citations hereof) in view of Kalo et al. (WO2018/086862).
Chen teaches a method of producing anhydrous lithium chloride (i.e. a lithium salt substantially free of water) comprising providing lithium hydroxide hydrate (claim 3), subjecting such lithium hydroxide hydrate to a stream of carrier gas (i.e. argon gas) under elevated temperature to produce anhydrous lithium hydroxide (claim 4, para [0012]-[0014], [0026]-[0028], example 1-10).
Regarding claim 1, Chen does not expressly teach the providing lithium hydroxide hydrate in a reactor.
However, Kalo et al. already teaches converted lithium hydroxide hydrate to anhydrous lithium hydroxide can be performed in a reactor (page 3 lines 9-21).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known reactor as shown by Kalo et al. to modify the lithium hydroxide hydrate dehydrating of Chen because applying such known technique of providing lithium hydroxide hydrate into a reactor to modify a well-known lithium hydroxide dehydrating process for improvement would have predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 2, Kalo et al. already teaches lithium hydroxide hydrate being LiOH·H2O. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known LiOH·H2O as shown by Kalo et al to practice the lithium hydroxide hydrate because adopting such well-known LiOH·H2O to modify a well-known lithium hydroxide dehydrating process for improvement would have predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the carrier gas can be argon (para. [0026], example 1-10).
Regarding claim 4, Kalo et al. already teaches such limitation as discussed above.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known carrier gas flow rate as shown by Kalo et al to modify the lithium hydroxide hydrate because adopting such well-known carrier gas flow rate to modify a well-known lithium hydroxide dehydrating process for improvement would have predictable results (See MPEP §2143 KSR).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the obtained anhydrous lithium chloride having a purity great than 99.0% (para. [0020]). Chen and/or Kalo et al. already teaches a same or substantially the same process of providing same or substantially the same lithium hydroxide hydrate, and subjecting such same or substantially the same lithium hydroxide hydrate to a same or substantially the same carrier gas at elevated temperature to produce a same or substantially the same anhydrous lithium hydroxide product as that of instantly claimed, wherein such anhydrous lithium hydroxide product would have be substantially free of Li2CO3 and/or Li2O. Hence, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the impurities content in such obtained anhydrous lithium hydroxide product via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144.05 II), such as obtaining anhydrous lithium hydroxide product substantially free of Li2CO3 and/or Li2O as that of instantly claimed because obtain a high purity anhydrous lithium hydroxide is always desired and will help ensure obtaining a high purity anhydrous lithium chloride product.
Regarding claim 6, Chen further teaches contacting the obtained anhydrous lithium hydroxide with hydrogen chloride to chlorination reaction thus forming anhydrous lithium chloride under elevated temperature with a protective gas, e.g. argon (i.e. a carrier gas) (claim 1, 6, para. [0030]-[0037], example 1-10).
Regarding claim 7, 10 and 12, such limitations are met as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Chen also discloses the molar ratio of anhydrous lithium
hydroxide to hydrogen chloride is 1:(1.2-1.6) (being introduced into chlorination reactor while chlorination reaction time can be 3-5 hours (claim 2 and 5, example 1-10). Since hydrogen chloride having a molar mass of 36.5 g/mol, for every mole of anhydrous lithium hydroxide, 43.8 -58.4 grams of hydrogen chloride can be introduced into the reactor for 3-5 hours (i.e. for 43.8 -58.4g/h) for obtaining anhydrous lithium chloride product. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce same rate of halogen-containing gas as that of instantly claimed via routine experimentation (see MPEP §2144.05 II) for help obtaining desired anhydrous lithium chloride as suggested by Chen.
Regarding claim 9, since Chen already teaches the gas stream containing both carrier gas of argon and halogen-containing gas, therefore, such halogen-containing gas in the total gas stream has to be greater than 0% but less than 100 vol%.
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches both lithium hydroxide dehydration and following chlorination reaction using same carrier gas atmosphere e.g. argon (example 1-10) while Kalo et al. already teaches argon as well as air can all be used as carrier gas wherein amount of carrier gas of 250 Nm3/h (i.e. normal cubic meters per hour) being used (page 2 lines 32-37, page 4 lines 12-13).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt such well-known carrier gas flow rate as shown by Kalo et al. to modify the carrier gas flow rate in a well-known chlorination reaction for improvement would yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143 KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-5858. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/JUN LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732