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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 08/28/2025.
Claims 17-31 are currently pending.
The Drawings filed 04/20/2023 are approved by the examiner.
The IDS statement filed 04/20/2023 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 17-27, in the reply filed on 08/28/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 28-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 is cautioned that, in the event the elected invention, notably claim 17, becomes allowable, the non-elected claims are not in condition for rejoinder as the dependency to independent claim 17 in withdrawn claim 28 is optional (the dependency to claim 17 is recited in an entirely optional step).
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.
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.
For purposes of claim interpretation, the recitations of “characterized in that” in the instant claims are construed as synonymous with “wherein”.
Claims 17, 19, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 8,637,428 B1) in view of Mori et al. (JP 2004-313916 A). Citations to Mori et al. are with respect to the English language machine translation of the reference supplied by the Office unless specified otherwise.
As to claims 17, 22, and 24, Harrison et al. teach a particulate lithium extraction material comprising a polymer based substrate including a lithium aluminum intercalate layer operable to capture lithium ions (abstract), which reads on a composite material comprising a polymer and a lithium adsorbent. The substrate is a porous support material (col. 4 lines 23+) and may be composed of fibers having a length of up to about 210 microns and an average diameter of up to about 10 microns (col. 5 lines 40-53), which are certainly microfibers. The disclosed upper bound of about 10 microns touches and even overlaps the instantly claimed 10 to 500 micron diameter range. Harrison et al. elsewhere teach fibers having dimensions ranging from about 0.5 microns to 1 mm are alternatively disclosed (col. 5 lines 39-41). Harrison et al. further teach another embodiment where the fibers may have an aspect ratio of about 5:1 to 20:1 (col. 5 lines 54-56); applying this aspect ratio to the prior disclosed preferably maximum fiber length of about 210 microns amounts to a maximum diameter of about 42 microns (210/5 = 42), which overlaps the claimed microfiber diameter range; alternatively, applying this aspect ratio to the prior disclosed 0.5 micron to 1 mm range amounts to a maximum diameter of about 200 microns (1,000/5 = 200), also overlapping the claimed microfiber diameter range. Harrison et al. further teach the lithium aluminum intercalate are present as fine particles such as particles having a diameter of less than 5 microns (col. 7 lines 50-55). In summary, in view of the above teachings, Harrison et al. teach a sorbent composite material comprising polymer microfibers having a diameter overlapping that claimed and lithium adsorbent particles.
While Harrison et al.’s material clearly has some degree of porosity due to it being disclosed as porous (Id.), Harrison et al. fail to teach the composite material has an open porosity between 70% and 99% or between 80% and 90% and a density between 0.05 g/cm3 and 0.5 g/cm3 or between 0.15 g/cm3 and 0.3 g/cm3, as claimed.
However, Mori et al. similarly teach a sorbent material comprising three-dimensionally netted skeleton or gap and comprising an adsorbing/desorbing compound having the ability to carbon dioxide (abstract). The sorbent component comprises silicates, zirconates, nickelates, ferrates, and aluminates, all of lithium (para. 0025), which are compounds that are capable of adsorbing/desorbing lithium. The three-dimensionally network skeleton structure can be made from polymeric fibers (para. 0029) and may have an easily adjusted porosity between 25% to 95%, preferably 50% to 90%, in view of optimizing and/or balancing packing density of the sorbent material in the network structure, diffusability of the network structure, and content/filling capacity of the sorbent per unit volume (para. 0041-0042). This porosity overlaps those claimed.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the high porosity as taught by Mori et al. to Harrison et al.’s composition in order to obtain a polymer fiber-based sorbent composite material having a balance, if not optimized, packing density of sorbent material, diffusability of the network structure of polymeric fibers, and content/filling capacity of the sorbent per unit volume with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed low density of 0.05-0.5 g/cm3 and 0.15-0.3 g/cm3 would flow naturally from the combination of references as the combination amounts to providing an increased and/or high porosity, i.e., an increased and/or large/majority volume of pores and voids in the composite material, that would be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to lower the overall density of the polymer-based composite material. "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As to claim 19, Harrison et al. teach the lithium aluminum intercalate are present as fine particles such as particles having a diameter of less than 5 microns (Id. at col. 7 lines 50-55), which overlaps the claimed limitation that the lithium adsorbent particles have a mean diameter between 10 nm and 10 microns.
As to claim 21, Harrison et al. teach the polymer microfibers have a diameter overlapping the claimed range of between 50 and 150 microns (Id.).
As to claim 23, Harrison et al. teach the polymer microfibers comprise polyethylene (the porous support material/substrate may be provided as fibers, Id., and the support material/substrate can be polyethylene, col. 4 lines 15-17).
As to claim 25, Harrison et al. teach the composite material is made by a method where the support/substrate and a sorbent material precursor solution are present at a minimum 1:1 weight ratio, preferably a 1:4 weight ratio (col. 8 lines 47-52). While it is noted the sorbent material precursor solution is present in a solution (and the true amount of the precursor is a fraction of the stated relative amount) and the precursor does not yet contain at least the lithium ions (the precursor has a preferred general formula Al2(OH)5Cl and lacks Li and an additional OH to constitute the final lithium sorbent material LiAl2(OH)6Cl, see, e.g., col. 8 lines 31-37), a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand and recognize a product made from a 1:1 weight ratio of microfibers and a 50 wt.% solution of Al2(OH)5Cl, preferably a 1:4 weight ratio of microfibers and a 50 wt.% solution of Al2(OH)5Cl, finally forming LiAl2(OH)6Cl in the microfibers would overlap, if not fall within, the claimed weight ratio of lithium sorbent to microfibers between 0.05 and 5, i.e., 0.05:1 to 5:1.
As to claim 26, Harrison et al. teach the composite material is in the form of a nonwoven fabric (the substrate is a porous support material composed as polymer microfibers, Id.; Figs. 3 & 4 depict the microfibers may be randomly oriented and tangled, which reads on the material being a nonwoven fabric). Regarding the claimed nonwoven fabric having a basis weight between 100 g/m2 and 800 g/m2, like the density limitations described above, the claimed nonwoven fabric’s basis weight would flow naturally from the combination of references as the combination amounts to providing an increased and/or high porosity, i.e., an increased and/or large/majority volume of pores and voids in the composite material, that would be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, tailor, and/or obtain a basis weight arriving at and/or overlapping the claimed basis weight between 100 g/m2 and 800 g/m2 of the polymer microfiber-based composite material and nonwoven fabric thereof.
As to claim 27, Harrison et al. teach a cartridge comprising the composite material (for use to extract lithium, the composition is loaded and packed into a column, col. 10 line 55 to col. 11 line 59; the composition’s presence in a column reads on a cartridge comprising the composition).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 8,637,428 B1) in view of Mori et al. (JP 2004-313916 A) as applied to claims 17, 19, and 21-27 above, and further in view of Snydacker (US 2020/0230591 A1).
The disclosure of Harrison et al. in view of Mori et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Harrison et al. teach their preferred lithium aluminum intercalate for capturing lithium ions has the general formula LiAl2(OH)6X.nH2O (top col. 4 and col. 6 lines 44-47). Examples of this formula clarify the X inorganic anion may be Cl (see, e.g., col. 3 lines 46-47 disclosing LiAl2(OH)6Cl.H2O and LiAl2(OH)6Cl.2H2O).
Harrison et al. fail to teach their lithium sorbent comprise a lithium titanate, a lithium aluminate, or a lithium manganate. Harrison et al. also fail to teach their lithium sorbent compound is in the form of agglomerates having a size between 1 micron and 500 microns.
However, Snydacker is similarly drawn to lithium extraction/sorbent composition that may comprise ion exchange material/particles embedded in a fiber-based support structure (abstract and para. 0068) where the ion exchange material may comprise, among others, LiCl.xAl(OH)3.yH2O where x and y span 0.1 to 10, which, stated differently by accounting for possibility that x may be 2 and then accounting for the two Al(OH)3 in the formula, amounts to LiClAl2(OH)6.yH2O, i.e., LiAl2(OH)6Cl.nH2O (the same general compound/formula of Harrison et al.), lithium titanate (Li4Ti5O12, Li2TiO3, etc.), lithium aluminate (LiAlO2), and lithium manganate (Li4Mn5O12, Li2MnO3, etc.) (see, for example, para. 0008, 0009, & 0039), which establishes and recognizes all of lithium aluminum hydroxy chloride, lithium titanate, lithium aluminate, and lithium manganate as lithium extraction/sorbent compounds. Snydacker further teach the ion exchange particles (comprising, for example, lithium aluminum hydroxy chloride, lithium titanate, lithium aluminate, and/or lithium manganate, Id.) are typically formed of secondary particles comprised of smaller primary particles that may have an average diameter greater than 10 microns (10,000 nm) or greater than 100 microns (100,000 nm), which overlaps the claimed agglomerate size range (see para. 0006, 0039, and 0042).
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lithium titanate, a lithium aluminate, or a lithium manganate as a lithium extraction/sorbent compound with or in place of the lithium aluminum hydroxy chloride lithium extraction/sorbent compound of Harrison et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because Snydacker teaches and recognizes all them suitable lithium extraction/sorbent compounds.
At the time of the effective filing date it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the lithium aluminum hydroxy chloride, lithium titanate, lithium aluminate, and/or lithium manganate lithium extraction/sorbent compound(s) of Harrison et al. or Harrison et al. in view of Snydacker as secondary particles comprised of smaller primary particles, i.e., agglomerates, having an average diameter greater than 10 microns as taught by Snydacker in order for the lithium extraction/sorbent compound(s) to be operable of sufficiently extracting/adsorbing/desorbing lithium ions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 8,637,428 B1) in view of Mori et al. (JP 2004-313916 A) as applied to claims 17, 19, and 21-27 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 109759006 A).
The disclosure of Harrison et al. in view of Mori et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Harrison et al. teach their preferred lithium aluminum intercalate for capturing lithium ions has the general formula LiAl2(OH)6X.nH2O (top col. 4 and col. 6 lines 44-47). Examples of this formula clarify the X inorganic anion may be Cl (see, e.g., col. 3 lines 46-47 disclosing LiAl2(OH)6Cl.H2O and LiAl2(OH)6Cl.2H2O).
Harrison et al. fail to teach their LiAl2(OH)6Cl.nH2O lithium sorbent compound is in the form of agglomerates having a size between 1 micron and 500 microns.
However, Li et al. teach lithium sorbents of the formula LiCl.2Al(OH)3.nH2O (abstract), which, stated differently by accounting for the two Al(OH)3 in the formula, amounts to LiClAl2(OH)6.nH2O, i.e., LiAl2(OH)6Cl.nH2O (the same general compound/formula of Harrison et al.) and are provided in the form of primary particles having a fine particle size below 1 micron agglomerated to form secondary particles having average particle sizes of 5 to 15 microns (p.4 of the English language machine translation of the reference). Li et al.’s background and summary sections imply providing this lithium sorbent compound/formula as agglomerates improve the adsorption amount, efficiency, and speed.
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Harrison et al.’s LiAl2(OH)6Cl.nH2O lithium sorbent as agglomerates of primary particles where the agglomerates have a size of 5 to 15 microns as taught by and in view of the teachings of Li et al. in order to obtain a polymer fiber-based lithium sorbent composite material having a sufficient, if not improved, adsorption amount, efficiency, and/or speed with a reasonable expectation of success.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Chung et al. (US 2008/0119350 A1) teach a lithium adsorbent/filter composition comprising lithium manganese oxide filled in a filter membrane of bundled and woven hollow fibers made of a polymer plastic material such as polysulfone, sulfonated polysulfone, polyethersulfone, cellulose, polyvinylidene fluoride, and polyacrylonitrile (abstract, para. 0044-0045, and Fig. 1 & 2). While the hollow fiber membrane is depicted to be comprised of microfibers bundled and woven so as to have voids between showing some degree of a porosity (see Fig. 1 & 2), the fibers are very clearly tightly woven together and would be recognized to a person of ordinary skill in the to not fairly meet or encompass the claimed composite material requiring the remarkably high open porosity of 70-99% and low density of 0.05-0.5 g/cm3.
Nagashima et al. JP 2008-126144 A (an X reference on Form PCT 210) teach a molded article with a plurality of cells that encapsulate a lithium adsorbent (abstract and p.1). The molded body is formed of a polymer including an aramid polymer, an acrylic polymer, a vinyl alcohol polymer, or a cellulose polymer having a pore size of about 1 nm to 1 micron (p.4) and can be present as a fiber (p.5). The lithium adsorbent, preferably a lithium manganate, has a particle size of 1 nm to 500 microns (p.5). Nagashima et al. further teach a fibrous molded object can be made by a spray nozzle, i.e., extruding, where the diameter and thickness of the molded body can be arbitrarily adjusted by changing the diameter of the spray nozzle, the coating thickness, and the like (p.6). However, Nagashima et al. fail to fairly teach or suggest the claimed structural limitations that the polymer fibers have a diameter between 10 and 500 microns, a remarkably large open porosity of 70% to 99%, and low density of 0.05-0.5 g/cm3.
Chung et al. (US 9,745,644 B2, the issued patent of the US 2015/0258501 A1 X reference on Form PCT 210) teach a composite nanofiber membrane for adsorbing lithium comprising a lithium adsorbent lithium manganese oxide powder loaded in a polymer nanofiber (abstract and col. 3). While Chung et al. teach the nanofiber has a diameter of 200 to 2,000 nm (col. 4 lines 1-3), i.e., a diameter of 0.2 to 2 microns, and could broadly be described as encompassing a microfiber, Chung et al. falls significantly short of the claimed diameter of 10 to 500 microns and fails to teach or suggest any guidance or motivation that would be necessary to increase their maximum fiber diameter by at least five-fold to approach the instantly claimed diameter range.
The remaining references listed on forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
November 17, 2025