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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/22/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-13 is/are pending in this application, of which claims 1-6 are examined herein. Claim(s) 7-13 is/are withdrawn. Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are amended.
The rejection(s) under 35 USC 112(b) to claim(s) 2 as indefinite regarding the term “layer number” and claim 6 is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim(s) 2 and 6 respectively.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“an one-to-one” in lines 3 and 5 should read “a one-to-one”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "layer number… is 2 to 8" in lines 2 and 3-4. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how in the case that the layer number refers to the number of layers in the adsorption and desorption zones, that the number of layers could be two when parent claim 1 already requires the number of layers to be three or more. The claim is further indefinite as it is unclear if claim 2 is only further limiting of claim 1 in the case that the “at least two of the plurality of zones” in claim 1 is a zone distinct from the adsorption and desorption zones disclosed in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 111826531 A, supplied with IDS filed 11/11/2024) in view of Lang et al. (US 5170631 A).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a lithium extraction apparatus (Title, [0037], Fig. 1-4) comprising a frame 10, and a transmission mesh belt 11 installed on the frame (Fig. 1-4, [0037, 0042]) wherein the transmission mesh belt has a ventilation volume of 500 L/m2s [0043], which indicates it comprises water permeable holes. Li teaches the transmission mesh belt is configured to carry a filter cake [0016], which comprises an adsorbent [0013, 0017]. Li teaches the frame comprises a plurality of zones 2, 3, and 4 (Fig. 1-4, [0042, 0048-0050]), comprising a brine separation zone 2 where brine is mixed with adsorbent to adsorb lithium (i.e., an adsorption zone) (Fig. 1-4, [0002, 0048]), and a desorption zone 4 along the transmission mesh belt 11 (Fig. 1-4, [0042]), where as the adsorbent moves along the belt 11 from the adsorption zone 2 to the desorption zone 4 [0042, 0055], the zones are disposed sequentially along a traveling direction of the transmission belt 11. Li teaches a mixing mechanism 6 which dispenses the filter cake containing brine (i.e., a brine spraying device) is disposed above the transmission mesh belt 11 in the adsorption zone 2 ([0048], Fig. 2). Li teaches a desorbing liquid spraying device 41 is disposed above the transmission mesh belt in the desorption zone 4 ([0037, 0045], Fig. 2). Li teaches a lithium extract collecting device 12 is disposed below the transmission mesh belt 1 in the desorption zone 4 (Fig. 1-4, [0053]).
Li teaches the transmission mesh belt 11 forms a ring [0042], therefore in the adsorption zone 2 the belt is folded into a multi-layer structure in the vertical direction, as the belt both comprises a top and a bottom of the loop. Li teaches the transmission mesh belt 11 in the adsorption zone 2 (Fig. 1-4), which would intrinsically include an inlet apart from the brine spraying device by a first distance, and an outlet apart from the brine spraying device by a second distance.
Li teaches the transmission mesh belt 11 forms a ring [0042], therefore in the desorption zone 4 the belt is folded into a multi-layer structure in the vertical direction, as the belt both comprises a top and a bottom of the loop. Li teaches the transmission mesh belt 11 in the adsorption zone 4 (Fig. 1-4), which would intrinsically include an inlet apart from the brine spraying device by a third distance, and an outlet apart from the brine spraying device by a fourth distance.
Li does not teach wherein in at least two of the plurality of zones the multi-layer structure comprises three or more layers.
Lang teaches a cryogenic and mechanical freezer apparatus (title), where an open spiral conveyor moving from a bottom to a top of the apparatus is sprayed with cryogenic liquid (i.e., a transmission belt configured to be suitable for moving upward layer by layer) Col. 3 lines 35-43), where the belt is of an open mesh construction (Col. 5 lines 16-18), thus Lang and Li are analogous as both are directed to apparatuses comprising mesh conveyor belts sprayed with a liquid. Lang teaches the spiral conveyor to have 4 layers of conveyor 15f underneath a top row of nozzles 42 (analogous to sprayers) (i.e., a mesh belt folded into a multi-layer structure, layers of the multi-layer structure are arranged in a vertical direction and are at least partially overlapped with each other horizontally under the spraying device, wherein the multi-layer structure comprises three or more layers) Fig. 4, Col. 7 lines 1-26). Lang teaches the headers and nozzles (i.e., sprayers) to uniformly distribute liquid (claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a multi-layer structure as taught by Lang in the adsorption and desorption zones of Li as doing so would uniformly spray liquid onto the belts, which would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to increase the amount and degree of sorption and desorption of lithium performed in each zone for a complete rotation of the belt.
Further, it has long been held that it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 (II). As in the instant case Li only differs from claim 1 in that in the instant claim the at least two of the plurality of zones the multi-layer structure comprises three or more layers arranged in the vertical direction are at least partially overlapped with each other horizontally under the brine or desorbing liquid spraying devices, while Li uses a transmission mesh belt folded into a multi-layer structure with two layers, and Lang uses a multi-layer structure with four layers arranged in the vertical direction at least partially overlapped with each other horizontally under a liquid spraying device, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have substituted the spiral conveyor with four layers under a spraying device of Lang into the apparatus of Li to spray brine or desorbing liquid on the transmission mesh belt.
Li in view of Lang is silent to wherein the first distance is longer than the second distance and wherein the third distance is longer than the fourth distance, however the Examiner notes that it has long been held that rearrangement of parts of a device known in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C). As in the instant case Li in view of Lang only differs from claim 1 in that the distances from the input and output of the belt in each of the adsorption and desorption zones to the brine and desorbing liquid spraying devices are specified so that the output of each zone is closer to its respective spraying device than the input, while no distances are specified between these components in Li in view of Lang; a prima facie case of obviousness exists as it would have been obvious to have rearranged the positions of the spraying devices, as doing so would not be expected to modify the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Lang teaches wherein in the adsorption zone, a first layer number of the layers of the multi-layer structure is 4 (Lang: Fig. 4, Col. 7 lines 1-26), and in the desorption zone, a second layer number of the layers of the multi-layer structure is 4 (Lang: Fig. 4, Col. 7 lines 1-26).
Li teaches a vacuum pump that collects filtrate and separates it into solid and liquid (i.e., a filter) [0058]; whereas brine is aqueous, the vacuum pump would necessarily comprise a well-known and used water permeable filter.
Li in view of Lang does not teach wherein the filter is detachably connected to a surface of the transmission mesh belt. However, it has long been held that if making a component separable would be desirable for any reason, doing so would be obvious. See MPEP §2144.04 (V) C. As making the filter removable would make performing maintenance or replacement of the filter of the apparatus of Li easier, making the filter removable would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches wherein the frame 10 further comprises a washing area 3 which rinses the filter cake obtained (i.e., a rinsing zone) (Fig. 1-4, [0049]). Li teaches the rinsing zone 3 is located between the adsorption zone 2 and the desorption zone 4 [0042]. Li teaches a first liquid delivery mechanism 31 (i.e., a rinsing liquid) spraying device is disposed above the transmission mesh belt 11 in the rinsing zone 3 (Fig. 1-4, [0044, 0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches wherein the frame 10 further comprises a salt washing return water zone 5 where the salt washing return water zone produces a regenerated adsorbent (i.e., a regeneration zone) (Fig. 2, [0071, 0078]). Li teaches the regeneration zone 5 is located between the desorption zone 4 and the adsorption zone 2 (Fig. 2, [0053, 0071]), thus an input end of the transmission mesh belt in the regeneration zone is in an one-to-one correspondence to the output end of the transmission mesh belt in the desorption zone, and an output end of the transmission mesh belt in the regeneration zone is in an one-to-one correspondence to the input end of the transmission mesh belt in the adsorption zone. Li teaches eluting the filter cake in the regeneration zone 5 [0061], and shows an unlabeled liquid dispensing device above the regeneration zone (Fig. 2), thus Li teaches a regeneration liquid spraying device disposed above the transmission mesh belt 11 in the regeneration zone 5.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gannon (WO 2000067873 A1, original English language document supplied with Office Action dated 08/19/2025).
Li does not teach wherein the transmission mesh belt comprises a baffle mechanism.
Gannon teaches an apparatus to separate components from a fluid feed stream (Title), where the apparatus incorporates a means where host materials which trap a component of a liquid source (analogous to an adsorbent) are brought into contact with liquid sources (pg. 6 lines 1-3), where the material is provided in an endless conveyor which moves through a plurality of stations for applying a liquid feed, contacting the liquid feed and host material, and a stripping station where the component is removed from the host material (pg. 7 line 30 – pg. 8 line 9), therefore Gannon and Li are analogous to the instant application, as both are directed to apparatuses for removing a component from a liquid by contacting the liquid with a sorbent material on an endless conveyor, and then removing the component from the sorbent material. Gannon teaches in one form a plurality of pockets in which the host material (analogous to adsorbent) is placed (i.e., the baffle mechanism comprises an internal space for accommodating the adsorbent), which comprise porous mesh or membranes (pg. 9 lines 16-20). Gannon teaches the liquid has a residence time in the host material (pg. 10 lines 15-18), where the liquid feed is applied from above the host material (pg. 8 lines 2-3, pg. 14 lines 3-5, Fig. 1), therefore as the liquid feed is diverted from flowing directly through pockets, the baffle mechanism turns a flow of liquid therein. Gannon teaches liquid feed stream can pass efficiently through the pockets and through the host material (pg. 9 lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a plurality of pockets as taught by Gannon in the conveyor capable of transporting filter cake (comprising adsorbent) in Li, as doing so would allow efficient flow of liquid stream through the filter cake.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered with the following effect:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., by adopting a multi-layer structure of the transmission belt, multiple desorption processes of the lithium containing adsorbent can be achieved) (see pg. 7-8 of remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument (see pg. 8-9 of remarks), with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under Li in view of Alsadah alone, or in view of additional art as failing to teach horizontal layers overlapping each other in the multi-layer structure of the transmission mesh belt in the adsorption and desorption zones has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lang as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights