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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “examination without election would not present an undue search burden as all the claims are sufficiently related. Notably, independent claim 6 of Invention II includes similar limitations of independent claim 1 of Invention I. Thus, all of the groups of claims are sufficiently related to each other such that an undue burden would not be placed upon the Patent Office by maintaining all groups in a single application.” (Applicants’ response pages 1-2). This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons.
It is considered the inventions of Group I and Group II are different from each other because Group I is directed to a method for recovering lithium from lithium-containing mother liquor and Group II is directed to a device for recovering lithium from lithium-containing mother liquor. The device of Group II requires a search for a refining unit (20), a filtering unit (21), a precipitation reaction unit (9), a lithium carbonate filter unit (10), a rinsing unit (11), a sodium carbonate preparation unit (12), a neutralization reaction unit and adsorption/desorption unit (17), which search does not require in the method of Group I. Therefore, a search and examination for both Groups would be a serious burden on the Examiner due to two different search areas being required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
2. Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/11/2026.
Status of Application
3. This application was filed on 07/04/2023.
Claims 1-10 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending in this application for examination.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2024 has been made of record and entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. An initial copy accompanies this office action.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 1, step (S1) and step (S3) contain “.” This appears improper. The claim should be amended follow the guideline as set forth and outlined in the MPEP, 37 CFR 1.75.
B. In claim 1, “will be” (all occurrences) should change to --is--.
C. In claim 2, line 3, “will be” should change to --is--.
D. In claim 3, last line, “will be” should change to --and--.
E. In claim 4, line 3, “will be” should change to --is--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (Second Paragraph)
7. 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 1-5 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. Regarding claim 1, it would appear that the claim is not positively reciting the process steps for the claimed method in S1, S2, S3, and S4. The way the claim is written is unclear and refusing as to what is being required in the claim. The following is suggested.
--A method for recovering lithium from lithium-containing mother liquor in the process for preparing lithium carbonate, comprising the following steps:
S1. Providing a lithium chloride solution obtained from refined and filtered lithium chloride feed liquor, subjecting to lithium precipitation reaction with sodium carbonate solution, filtering to obtain lithium-precipitation mother liquor (M1) and crude lithium carbonate, and rinsing the crude lithium carbonate with water to obtain rinsed mother liquor (M2) and refined lithium carbonate; etc.--.
B. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lithium chloride feed" in line 1 of step (S1). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
C. Regarding claim 1, step (S2), the claim recites “M2 is used as the solvent for preparing sodium carbonate solution”. It would appear that the limitation in step (S2) is further defining how the sodium carbonate solution in step (S1) is made, but at the same time it is confusing as it uses the M2 solvent in step (S1) after the lithium precipitation reaction with the lithium chloride solution.
D. The Claim 2 recites the limitation "the gas (G1)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
E. The Claim 3 recites the limitation "the saline lake” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
F. Regarding claim 1 & 4, in (S4), the claim recites “one is used as the solvent for preparing sodium carbonate solution” is considered unclear because it does not particularly point out how the solvent is used in this step for preparing the sodium carbonate solution.
G. The Claim 5 recites the limitation "the water generated by concentration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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) 1 & 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkert et al. (US 3,523,751), hereinafter “Burkert et al. ‘751” taken together with Li et al. (US 2024/0026494 A1) or Boryta et al. (US 7,449,161 B2), hereinafter “Boryta et al. ‘161”.
Burkert et al. ‘751 discloses a process for producing lithium carbonate, comprising simultaneous steps of adding an aqueous lithium chloride composition and an aqueous sodium carbonate composition to a reaction vessel; precipitating said lithium carbonate; filtering and washing (see col. 6, claim 1). See also entire reference for further details.
Regarding claim 1, step (S1), the reference teaches the claimed method for recovering lithium from lithium-containing mother liquor in the process of preparing lithium carbonate comprising the process step as recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 1, step (S2), the reference teaches adding a solution containing LiCl, NaCl, and H2O and a Na2CO3 solution simultaneously to the mother liquor from a previous precipitation (see col. 5, Example 1), which appears meeting the claimed limitation in step (S2).
Regarding claim 1, step (S3), Burkert et al. does not teach step (S3) of the instant claim. However, Li et al. is in the same field of art, a method for recovering lithium from a lithium precipitation mother liquor, and teaches to neutralize the lithium-precipitation mother liquor with an acid solution in the adsorption step (see Abstract and p. 7, claim 1).
Regarding claim 1, step (S3), Burkert et al. does not teach step (S3), “M1-2 is to be neutralized by acid solution to obtain pure lithium chloride solution (M1-3)”. Boryta et al. ‘161 teaches a process for preparing high purity chloride by reacting lithium carbonate containing sodium with hydrochloric acid (see col. 20, claim 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a skilled person in the art (before the effective date of the claimed invention) to modify the process of Burkert et al. follow the teaching as taught by Li et al. or Boryta et al. ‘161 to effectively recovering lithium from a lithium precipitation mother liquor and producing lithium chloride because using an acid solution for neutralization to adjust the pH of the reaction mixture is common in the chemical art, as shown by Li et al. and Boryta et al. ‘161.
Regarding claims 1 & 4, step (S4) and claims 1 & 3, step (S3), it is considered recycling of the lithium chloride solution by precipitating it with sodium carbonate to form lithium precipitation to produce lithium carbonate or return it back to the lithium chloride feed liquor is obvious to a killed person in the art to reduce the production cost and increase the product yields. This does not involve technical skill or special technique and it could be done in the disclosed process as well.
Regarding claim 5, the instant claim further defined “the water generated by concentration returns to step (S3) as a desorption agent for elution treatment after M1-2 adsorption”. It is expected that the same reaction step would occur in view of the same step (S3) being modified by neutralization with an acid taught by Li et al. or Boryta et al. ‘161.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
*The claim would be allowed if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and Claim Objection are overcome.
The prior art discloses a method for recovering lithium from lithium-containing mother liquor in the process of preparing lithium carbonate comprising steps (S1), (S2), (S3), and (S4) as set forth in the instant claim 1, however the prior art does not appear to teach the claimed feature as further defined in this claim, “in step (S3), the gas (G1) generated by neutralization reaction is rinsed, condensed, dried and compressed to obtain industrial grade carbon dioxide (G2)”.
There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
US 2019/0276328 (a process for extracting lithium from lithium-bearing salt brines).
US 5,993,759 (a method for producing lithium carbonate from natural or industrial brines).
US 8,287,829 (a method of producing high purity lithium carbonate).
US 9,994,930 (a process for preparing lithium carbonate from concentrated brines).
US 11,174,532 B1 (a method for extracting lithium from lithium containing solution).
US 12,054,807 B2 (a method for refining lithium from a crude brine).
US 12,540,368 B2 (a method of extracting lithium from a lithium-containing solution).
Conclusion
11. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-5 are rejected. Claims 6-10 are withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
May 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights