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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 13-14 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. Regarding claim 13. The claim recites the limitation "said condenser separator" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if referencing, “said condenser separator”, for which proper antecedent basis has been established. The claim also recites the limitation "said direct steam gas generator" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if referencing, “said direct steam oxy-combustion gas generator”, for which proper antecedent basis has been established. 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. Claim (s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140000880 A1 to Anderson in view of the attached NPL to International Mining, Lithium to be extracted from SAGD oil sands wastewater , published 2017 , and US 20200399735 A1 to Sams. Regarding claim 1: Anderson teaches a system for concentration of brine using a reactor producing an increased concentration brine (fig. 5, outlet of separator 14 labeled “brine”) suitable for feedstock to a lithium extraction plant (intended use that the device of Anderson is capable of) , the system comprising in combination: a reactor (system of fig. 5) that operates using carbon-based fuel and oxygen (fig. 5, fuel and oxygen are inputs of the gas generator 12) to concentrate brine (fig. 5, output of separator 12) and output additional energy (fig. 5, output of turbine 90) . But fails to explicitly teach the brine being a lithium brine, and Both the concentrated brine and additional energy being supplied to a lithium extraction plant. International Mining teaches SAGD heavy oil wastewater containing lithium (“ MGX Minerals Inc reports that the company has successfully extracted lithium from heavy oil wastewater. Results are part of an ongoing optimization for completion and deployment of a pilot plant in support of its 487,000 ha Alberta lithium project ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Anderson to extract lithium as a product within the heavy oil wastewater of the SAGD process. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of generating revenue from lithium production, as suggested by International Mining, “ This technology is the first of its kind, reducing production time of lithium from brine by 99% compared with conventional lithium brine production times that use solar evaporation. Process time is reduced from approximately 18 months to 1 day using MGX’s process. Heavy oil evaporator blowdown wastewater (EBD) is one of the byproducts of steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) during production of heavy oil. EBD was specifically targeted as the wastewater contains mid-level concentrations of lithium and has the potential to generate high environmental revenue based on current disposal costs. ” Further, it is known in the art to process lithium brine using electrical energy, as taught by Sams (abstract, “ Apparatus and methods for lithium extraction from aqueous sources are described herein. ” Where brine containing lithium would be an aqueous source and the method involves electrical separation, para. 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Anderson to comprise a lithium extraction plant, as taught by Sams, in which the supplied power could be used to further process the lithium brine. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing lithium extraction, as suggested by Sams in paras. 9-10. Regarding claim 2: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the device that supplies concentrated lithium brine includes a steam and brine separator (Anderson fig. 5, separator 14 where steam is output upwards and brine is output downwards) . Regarding claim 3: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the reactor includes a combustion device (Anderson fig. 5, gas generator 12) . Regarding claim 4: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein a gas expander is powered by the stream from the reactor (Anderson fig. 5, turbine 90 is powered by the steam and CO 2 working fluid) and outputs energy to the lithium extraction plant (as per the modification by Sams, it would have been obvious to use the generated power in the further lithium extraction) . Regarding claim 5: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system as set forth in claim 1, further comprising, a separator assembly (Anderson fig. 5, separator 14) that is operatively connected to an exhaust outlet of the reactor (Anderson fig. 5, the separator 14 is connected to the outlet of the gas generator 12) and/or the gas expander to separate CO 2 and water (The separator 14 separates steam and CO 2 from water, i.e. brine). Regarding claim 8: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the carbon-based fuel is taken from the group including: at least one of a biogas or biomethane sourced from a renewable fuel source (optional limitation, see mapping to alternative), a carbon-based fuel from a fossil fuel source, and a carbon-based fuel from synthetic chemical processes (Anderson para. 2, “ this invention relates to methods of direct steam generation and utilization which generate both steam and carbon dioxide as products of combustion of a hydrogen and carbon containing fuel with oxygen ” Where the hydrogen and carbon containing fuel is either a fossil fuel source or synthetic). Claim (s) 9-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of International Mining . Regarding claim 9 : Anderson teaches a system for separating at least a portion of water from a first brine to produce a second brine with a higher concentration than the first brine ( fig. 5 ) , the system comprising in combination: a separator (fig. 5, separator 14) having a hot gas mixture inlet (fig. 5, left side inlet of the separator labeled, “Steam and CO 2 working fluid”) for a mixture of at least water/steam, CO2 and salt (para. 31, “ If the water is "dirty" such as being brackish, a salt separator, such as a cyclone type separator 14 (FIGS. 2 and 3) can be utilized for separation of such contaminants before utilization of the steam/CO.sub.2 mixture. ”) ; said separator having a first outlet for said second brine (fig. 5, downward outlet of separator 14 labeled “brine”) and a second outlet for at least water/steam (fig. 5, upward outlet of separator 14 labeled “steam and CO 2 ”) ; an oxy-combustion gas generator (fig. 5, gas generator 12) having a hydrocarbon fuel inlet (fig. 5, fuel inlet shown on left side of gas generator 12, described in para. 31) , an oxygen containing oxidizer inlet (fig. 5, oxygen inlet shown on left side of gas generator 12, described in para. 31) and at least one cooling fluid inlet (fig. 5, dirty water inlets 13, where the water is a cooling fluid, per se) , with said gas generator combusting the oxygen with the hydrocarbon fuel to produce an exhaust gas of at least steam and carbon dioxide (para. 31, “ a gas generator 2, 12 which is configured to combust an oxygen rich oxidizer with a hydrogen containing fuel, and with water inlets, resulting in the output of a high temperature steam and carbon dioxide mixture ”) , at least some of the steam of said gas generator exhaust comprised of water entering said gas generator through said at least one cooling fluid inlet (it is understood that the steam is produced by the water from the water inlets) , and an outlet for the exhaust of said gas generator (fig. 5, gas generator 12 outlet on the right side labeled “steam and CO 2 working fluid”) ; a source of said first brine upstream of said at least one cooling fluid inlet of said gas generator (the first brine, i.e. the brackish water, is sourced from the recovery plant 60) , such that said exhaust gas includes steam, carbon dioxide and salt (fig. 5, the exhaust gas from the gas generator is shown as including steam and CO 2 and further in para. 43, any salts would also be present, “ In the case of brackish water, or conceivably even high salinity water sources, such as sea water, salts within the water would typically remain and enter the gas generator 12 through the water inlets 13. Downstream of the gas generator 12, a separator 14 is provided for removal of brine and to allow lower salinity water to be discharged through a high pressure outlet 16 through utilization within an appropriate process. ” ) ; and routing said exhaust gas of said gas generator upstream of said hot gas mixture inlet of said separator (fig. 5, the outlet of the gas generator 12 is routed to the hot gas mixture inlet of the separator) . But fails to explicitly teach the brine being a lithium brine , and the salt being lithium , per se. International Mining teaches SAGD heavy oil wastewater containing lithium (“ MGX Minerals Inc reports that the company has successfully extracted lithium from heavy oil wastewater. Results are part of an ongoing optimization for completion and deployment of a pilot plant in support of its 487,000 ha Alberta lithium project ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Anderson to extract lithium as a product within the heavy oil wastewater of the SAGD process. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of generating revenue from lithium production , as suggested by International Mining, “ This technology is the first of its kind, reducing production time of lithium from brine by 99% compared with conventional lithium brine production times that use solar evaporation. Process time is reduced from approximately 18 months to 1 day using MGX’s process. Heavy oil evaporator blowdown wastewater (EBD) is one of the byproducts of steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) during production of heavy oil. EBD was specifically targeted as the wastewater contains mid-level concentrations of lithium and has the potential to generate high environmental revenue based on current disposal costs. ” Regarding claim 10: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system of claim 9 wherein a turbine expander is located downstream of said second outlet of said separator (Anderson fig. 5, turbine 90). Regarding claim 15: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system of claim 9 wherein said source of said first lithium brine includes a subterranean space containing lithium therein (International Mining, “ Heavy oil evaporator blowdown wastewater (EBD) is one of the byproducts of steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) during production of heavy oil. EBD was specifically targeted as the wastewater contains mid-level concentrations of lithium and has the potential to generate high environmental revenue based on current disposal costs. ” Where SAGD is conducted in a subterranean space). Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of International Mining as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sams. Regarding claim 11: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system of claim 10 wherein said turbine outputs power (Anderson para. 55, “ The turbine 90 could output additional power, either in the form of shaft power to drive equipment directly, or coupled to an electric generator to output electric power from the system 310. ”) But fails to explicitly disclose a lithium extraction plant which receives turbine output power and said second lithium brine therein, which lithium extraction plant outputs marketable lithium. However, it is known in the art to process lithium brine using electrical energy, as taught by Sams (abstract, “ Apparatus and methods for lithium extraction from aqueous sources are described herein. ” Where brine containing lithium would be an aqueous source and the method involves electrical separation, para. 62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Anderson to comprise a lithium extraction plant, as taught by Sams, in which the supplied power could be used to further process the lithium brine. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing lithium extraction, as suggested by Sams in paras. 9-10. Regarding claim 12: The device of modified Anderson teaches the system of claim 11 wherein said turbine powers an electric generator, said electric generator supplying electric power to said lithium extraction plant (as noted in Anderson para. 55, the turbine 90 can be coupled to an electric generator to supply electric power) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim s 6-7 and 16 -20 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 6: The combination of Anderson in view of International Mining and Sams, applied to claim 5, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “ wherein the separator assembly includes a condenser that condenses the water from water vapor in the exhaust. ”, in addition to the rest of the claim. Instead, the combination teaches a separator not having a condenser . Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Anderson to have a condenser , as claimed , since it is desired to have a heated stream of steam and CO 2 for the turbine and/or SAGD operation, see para. 49 of Anderson . Regarding claim 13 . The combination of Anderson in view of International Mining, applied to claim 9, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “ wherein said separator includes a cooling fluid circuit for receiving heat from the hot gas mixture to a cooling fluid passing through the cooling fluid circuit; and wherein said source of said first lithium brine is routed along said cooling fluid circuit of said separator, upstream of said cooling fluid inlet of said oxy-combustion gas generator. ”, in addition to the rest of the claim. Instead, the combination teaches directly supplying the brackish water from the SAGD operation to the gas generator, with no cooling fluid circuit included in the separator . Furthermore , it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separator of Anderson to have a cooling fluid circuit , as claimed , since it is desired to have a heated stream of steam and CO 2 for the turbine and/or SAGD operation , see para. 49 of Anderson . Furthermore, while it is known in the art to preheat a boiler’s feedwater, as shown in US 20190049104 A1 to Yu (fig. 1, economizer 26 preheats the BFW inlet using the exhaust gas prior to being exhausted), it would only have been obvious to apply such an economizer 26 in a boiler in which the exhaust stream and steam are not mixed, and where the economizer 26 is not part of a separator, per se. Regarding claim 16 . Anderson in view of International Mining, as applied to claim 15, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “ wherein a condenser is located downstream of said second outlet of said separator, said condenser having a cooling fluid circuit in heat transfer relationship with the steam and carbon dioxide entering said condenser through a condenser inlet; said condenser having a liquid outlet for a liquid of mostly water and a gaseous outlet for a gas containing more CO 2 than said liquid outlet; and wherein said gaseous outlet routes said CO 2 into the same subterranean space from which a portion of said first lithium brine originated. ”, in addition to the rest of the claim. Instead, the system of Anderson does not have a condenser downstream of the separator . Furthermore , it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a condenser , as claimed , since it is desired to have a heated stream of steam and CO 2 for the turbine and/or SAGD operation, see para. 49 of Anderson . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9945 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael G Hoang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6460 . 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. /KURT J WOLFORD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762