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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buaale et al. (CN-108472645-A), in view of Yongkang et al. (Science & Technology, November 30, 2011, pp. 57 and 83, Vol. 11, as supplied by applicants).
Regarding claims 1-8
Buaale discloses a crystallized solid material of formula LiXx*2AL(OH)3*nH2O used to extract lithium from a saline solution and a preparation method thereof, wherein x = 0.5 and n is 0.1-5 when X is selected from SO42- (paras 0025-0032, 0050 and 0069).
As the n values of the reference overlap the claimed n values, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q. 549.
Although Buaale does not disclose that the material is coated with Al(OH)3, Buaale does disclose the claimed Lithium compound. However, Yongkang discloses a similar lithium compound and discloses that by coating the compound with aluminum hydroxide (i.e., Al(OH)3) the cycle performance was significantly improved and the thin stable barrier coating isolated the cathode material from the electrolyte, which could effectively prevent the mutual malignant interaction between the two, inhibit the Jahn-Teller effect, and improve the electrochemical properties (abstract). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Buaale by coating the lithium compound with aluminum hydroxide, with a reasonable expectation of success, and the expected benefit of improving the characteristics of the material, as suggested by Yongkang.
With respect to the limitations on making the material it is noted that this is a product-by-process limitation which does not add to the patentabi9lity of a composition claim unless it can be shown that the process used will result in a materially different product.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buaale et al. (CN-108472645-A), in view of Yongkang et al. (Science & Technology, November 30, 2011, pp. 57 and 83, Vol. 11, as supplied by applicants), as applied to claims 1-8 above, in view of Li et al. (CN-108046368).
Regarding claim 9
Yongkang discloses that the material can be used to extract lithium from a saline solution, and thus it would have been obvious to apply the same to lithium containing industrial wastewater.
As to the use of a resin column, Li discloses that it is known to use an absorbtion/desorption column for adsorption and separation of lithium ion salts (Novelty). As such the use of a resin column loaded with the material of Yongkang to and contacting with lithium containing wastewater is obvious, and the counter-current washing is a conventional way to remove the absorbed material from the sieve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734