DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, paragraph 1, line 3, “wherein:” should read “the cycling steps comprising:”
In Claim 1, paragraph 8, lines 24-25, remove the phrase “a mother liquor” from “is a mother liquor obtained by filtration after precipitation”.
In Claim 1, paragraph 9, line 29, “which comprising a lithium ion adsorption section” should read “which comprises a lithium ion adsorption section”.
In Claim 1, paragraph 11, line 38, “4 resin column arranged in series connection” should read “4 resin columns arranged in series connection”.
In Claim 1, paragraph 12, line 42, “the multi-way valve” should read “the multi-way valve device”.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adsorption effect" in paragraph 5, lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cycling" in paragraph 6, line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests removing the phrase “, during the cycling,”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a solution with a high sodium-to-lithium ratio” in paragraph 6, line 17. The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no reference value, or standard for comparison, for “high”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a special functional group” in paragraph 7, line 20. The term “special” is subjective and thus the metes and bounds are unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(b).IV.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the method achieves an adsorption efficiency of 90% or more” in paragraph 10, line 33. However, Claim 1 also recites the limitation “reaching an adsorption rate of 90% or more” in paragraph 2, line 6. It is unclear whether “an adsorption efficiency of 90% or more” refers to “an adsorption rate of 90% or more” or if “an adsorption efficiency” is a distinct limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the above mentioned steps" in paragraph 12, lines 42-43. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an effluent discharged from the displacement section” in paragraph 12, lines 44-45. It is unclear whether “an effluent” is a new limitation or the already defined effluent disclosed in paragraph 9, line 31. For purposes of examination, “an effluent” refers to the already defined effluent of paragraph 9, line 31.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adsorption effect" in paragraph 12, line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device" in paragraph 12, line 46. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a high adsorption rate” in paragraph 12, lines 46-47. It is unclear whether “a high adsorption rate” refers to “an adsorption rate of 90% or more” as disclosed in paragraph 2, line 6. For purposes of examination, “a high adsorption rate” refers to the already defined adsorption rate in paragraph 2, line 6.
Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependence on the rejected Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Li et al. (CN 108893605 A), Li et al. (CN 108421539 A), Tiihonen (US 2011/0318253 A1), Takano et al. (JP 2019099874 A), and Harrison et al. (US 8287829 B2) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
None of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, a method for recovering lithium from a mother liquor after lithium carbonate precipitation reaction, comprising cycling steps of adsorption, displacement, desorption and transformation, wherein the method achieves an adsorption efficiency of 90% or more, the qualified desorption solution has a lithium content of 7g/L or more, and a lithium-sodium ratio of 2 or more;
wherein the lithium adsorption section comprises 4 resin columns arranged in series connection and running in a backward feeding mode, the displacement section comprises 3 resin columns arranged in series connection and running in a forward feeding mode, the desorption section comprises 4 resin columns arranged in series connection and running in a forward feeding mode, and the transformation section comprises 2 resin columns arranged in series connection and running in a backward feeding mode, and wherein the method is carried out by using a multi-way valve device, comprising packing resin columns of the multi-way valve with the lithium-sodium separation resin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhu et al. (CN 105797428 A) teaches an apparatus for removing impurities from a high-lithium solution, comprising adsorption, elution, and regeneration modules arranged in a ring. It discloses a hydrochloric acid solution used in the elution with a mass percentage of 7% to 8%.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights