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
The Amendment filed on 31 December 2025 has been entered; claims 1-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, and 30-35 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7 of the Remarks, filed 31 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 27, and 29-31 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 27, and 29-31 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9 of the Remarks, filed 31 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 27, and 29-31 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in that there is not one embodiment that teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed below in reference to the lithium removal methods disclosed by WO (‘120); however, Applicant’s arguments that WO (‘130) only teaches sequential metal recovery steps is not found to be persuasive, as claim 1 and dependent claims do not preclude sequential solvent extractions steps to remove metals and lithium. Therefore, the relevant claims are rejected below under 35 USC 103 to account for solvent extraction of lithium now being required, as necessitated by amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 4, the rejection of claim 4 and dependent claims is now rejected under 35 USC 103 in combination with US (‘416), as discussed in detail below and as necessitated by amendment. The Double patenting rejection of the instant claims over Patent (‘561) has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s filing of an approved Terminal Disclaimer, and the Double Patenting rejection of the instant claims over Patent (‘494) has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 32, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO (2020/124130), hereinafter “WO (‘130)”.
With respect to claims 1 and 3, WO (‘130) teaches a process for isolating purified water comprising: subjecting an aqueous solution comprising a metal (M) and lithium (Li+) (Abstract; Paragraphs [0012, 0033, 0055]) to a solvent extraction process in the presence of one or more of copper, iron, manganese, aluminum, cobalt, nickel, and lithium (see Paragraphs [0021-0024, 0031-0039])) a metal extractant under conditions to remove a portion of the metal from the aqueous solution to form a metal poor solution. In Paragraph [0325], WO (‘130) teaches that recovery of lithium via lithium carbonate (lithium salt forming agent being sodium carbonate: see Paragraph [0340]) precipitation is preferred, but also teaches alternative lithium recovery means, including solvent extraction (see Paragraphs [0324-0328]), wherein the lithium solvent extraction can be embodied as an oxime (see Paragraph [0330]). In view of this, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to add lithium solvent extraction before the step of lithium carbonate precipitation as suggested by the additional lithium recovery means disclosed in Paragraph [0327]), as lithium solvent extraction before, during, or after lithium precipitation are the only options if one was to carry out both lithium recovery steps, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 2, WO (‘130) teaches that the aqueous solution comprises copper, iron, manganese, aluminum, cobalt, nickel, and lithium (see Paragraphs [0012, 0021-0024, 0033])); and a portion of the metal and a portion of the lithium are removed by solvent extraction (Paragraphs [0031-0039]).
With respect to claim 10, WO (‘130) teaches that the process can include lithium removal via addition of sodium carbonate (“an alkaline material”) to precipitate lithium carbonate (“lithium salt having a lower solubility in water than metal/lithium in solution”) (Paragraphs [0034, 0061]) to form a lithium poor solution (see Paragraph [00315]).
With respect to claims 11, 13, and 14, WO (‘130) teaches additional treatments which remove aluminum and iron hydroxides (“salt removal”) via precipitation with addition of ammonium hydroxide following the first extraction of metals step (which is copper- see Paragraph [0094], and see Paragraphs [00150-00155]), wherein the “ammonium hydroxide” is considered to be an “acid removing agent” which raises the pH to a range of 4.5 to 6 (“no greater than 8.0”) (see Paragraph [00155]).
With respect to claim 17, WO (‘130) teaches that following copper extraction (“the metal”), the copper-poor solution has less than 10 ppm Cu (“less than 1000 ppm of the metal”) (Paragraph [00355]).
With respect to claims 19 and 21, WO (‘130) teaches that the feed stream is obtained from recovery of various metals, including lithium and nickel, from spent lithium-based batteries (Paragraphs [0001, 0011, 0063, 0064]), considered to be consistent with removing lithium ions from a host material (“delithiation process”), see also Pages 16-18 for pretreatment and acid leaching of metals which generates the feed stream.
With respect to claim 32, WO (‘130) teaches that the aqueous waste stream obtained from spent lithium-based (Li-ion) batteries (Paragraphs [0001, 0011]).
With respect to claim 33, WO (‘130) teaches a process for isolating purified water comprising: subjecting an aqueous solution comprising a metal (M) and lithium (Li+) (Abstract; Paragraphs [0012, 0033, 0055]) to a solvent extraction process in the presence of one or more of copper, iron, manganese, aluminum, cobalt, nickel, and lithium (see Paragraphs [0021-0024, 0031-0039])) a metal extractant under conditions to remove a portion of the metal from the aqueous solution to form a metal poor solution, wherein WO (‘130) teaches that the aqueous waste stream obtained from spent lithium-based (Li-ion) batteries (Paragraphs [0001, 0011]), and wherein WO (‘130) teaches additional treatments which remove aluminum and iron hydroxides (“salt removal”) via precipitation with addition of ammonium hydroxide following the first extraction of metals step (which is copper- see Paragraph [0094], and see Paragraphs [00150-00155]), wherein the “ammonium hydroxide” is considered to be an “acid removing agent” which raises the pH to a range of 4.5 to 6 (“no greater than 8.0”) (see Paragraph [00155]).
In Paragraph [0325], WO (‘130) teaches that recovery of lithium via lithium carbonate precipitation (with sodium carbonate as a lithium salt-forming agent: see Paragraph [0340]) is preferred, but also teaches alternative lithium recovery means, including solvent extraction (see Paragraphs [0324-0328]), wherein the lithium solvent extraction can be embodied as an oxime (see Paragraph [0330]). In view of this, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to add lithium solvent extraction before the step of lithium carbonate precipitation as suggested by the additional lithium recovery means disclosed in Paragraph [0327]), as lithium solvent extraction before, during, or after lithium precipitation are the only options if one was to carry out both lithium recovery steps, as discussed above. WO (‘130) teaches that the aqueous solution comprises copper, iron, manganese, aluminum, cobalt, nickel, and lithium (see Paragraphs [0012, 0021-0024, 0033])); and a portion of the metal and a portion of the lithium are removed by solvent extraction (Paragraphs [0031-0039]).
With respect to claim 35, WO (‘130) teaches that at least some LiCl (“at least some chloride”) is stripped with an acidic strip solution, wherein LiCl is crystallized (“removed from”) the aqueous waste solution (see Paragraph [0332]).
Claims 4-7, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO (2020/124130) in view of U.S. Patent # 5536416), hereinafter “WO (‘130)” and US (‘416)”.
With respect to claims 4-7, WO (‘130) teaches that aluminum and iron can be recovered by a precipitation step (Paragraph [0025]) via addition of a base including ammonia (“ammonium hydroxide”), lime, or limestone (“an alkaline material”) (Paragraph [0027]), forming an aluminum- and iron-poor solution which is not lithium depleted, but does not specifically teach forming the lithium salts as claimed.
US (‘416) teaches forming lithium silicate precipitates (see Claim 22, step (a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form lithium silicate precipitates as taught by US (‘416) in addition to or instead of lithium carbon precipitates as taught by WO (‘130) because WO (‘130) teaches that other means for precipitating and recovering lithium products known to those skilled in the art may be used without deviating from the scope of the present invention (Paragraph [0341]), and because US (‘416) teaches that lithium precipitates from metal-containing solutions as a silicate in applications directed to metals removal from aqueous solutions.
With respect to claims 30 and 31, WO (‘130) teaches removing ammonium sulfate from the lithium free solution (“salt removal process”) via crystallization/evaporation of water (Paragraphs [00342, 00343]), considered to be consistent with “removal of at least some acid”, as water (containing at least some hydrogen and hydronium ions) is removed, and because washing steps are conducted (effectively diluting the filtrate).
WO (‘130) teaches additional treatments which remove aluminum and iron hydroxides (“salt removal”) via precipitation with addition of ammonium hydroxide following the first extraction of metals step (which is copper- see Paragraph [0094], and see Paragraphs [00150-00155]), wherein the “ammonium hydroxide” is considered to be an “acid removing agent” which raises the pH to a range of 4.5 to 6 (“no greater than 8.0”) (see Paragraph [00155]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO (2020/124130) as applied to claim 33, and further in view of U.S. Patent # 5536416), hereinafter “WO (‘130)” and “US (‘416)”.
WO (‘130) does not specifically teach forming the lithium salts as claimed.
US (‘416) teaches forming lithium silicate precipitates (see Claim 22, step (a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form lithium silicate precipitates as taught by US (‘416) in addition to or instead of lithium carbon precipitates as taught by WO (‘130) because WO (‘130) teaches that other means for precipitating and recovering lithium products known to those skilled in the art may be used without deviating from the scope of the present invention (Paragraph [0341]), and because US (‘416) teaches that lithium precipitates from metal-containing solutions as a silicate in applications directed to metals removal from aqueous solutions.
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 CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 24 April 2026
Prosecution Insights