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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 05/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search and examination of the entire application would not place a serious search burden on the Examiner because the claims of the present invention would appear to be part of an overlapping search area. Claims 15-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The applicant’s grounds for traversal is not found persuasive because while the examiner acknowledges some overlap between the inventions of the two groups, the Examiner must respectfully disagree with Applicants’ contention that a search for one group is of the same scope as required for the other. Specifically, it is noted that an apparatus is limited by the structural limitations of the claims and not the manner of operating the device or what it does (see MPEP §2114(II)). As such, the apparatus requires structural features of the cell that are recited or structural components capable of operating in the recited manner but not the operation of the method steps. Consequently, it is the Examiner’s opinion that a search of one group would not necessarily include a search of the other group as asserted.
Furthermore, Applicants’ contention that the Examiner has failed to establish a persuasive basis for the conclusion of a serious search burden are also found unpersuasive. A search burden is established based upon the need to use differing search strategies and queries based on differing statutory classes of the inventions. Restriction was made on the basis of unity of invention; and the claimed inventions in the instant application lack unity with one another because of the absence of a shared special technical feature, as explained in the restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
In the instant case, claims 1-23 are pending and under examination. Claims 15-23 have been withdrawn from further consideration.
Specification and Drawings
The specification and drawings are objected to due to being improper because of inconsistent labelling and the drawings display a numbered item that is undescribed in the specification.
Item 140 is labelled as both an acid (par. 43) and the third compartment in Figure 4 (par. 41) in the specification. However, it appears that item 104 is the third compartment in Figure 4. Each item in the specification and drawings must be labelled clearly and consistently.
Figure 4 includes item 400 which is not described or referenced in the specification. Each item in the specification and drawings must be labelled clearly and consistently.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 2 recites, “the dense, lithium selective membrane.” However, claim 2 should read, “the dense lithium selective membrane.”
Appropriate correction is required for claim 2.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.018), in view of Yang (DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.07.006).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshino discloses a dialysis cell with a lithium separation membrane that allows lithium-ion transport while blocking the transport of other ions is located in a housing that is divided into two compartments by the membrane (graphical abstract and Fig. 1) with a positively charge electrode in one compartment and a negatively charged electrode in another compartment, which are equivalent to an anode electrode and a cathode electrode (Fig. 1). The instant specification defines that a lithium selective membrane is dense if it is impermeable to gas and water (par. 30). Hoshino teaches that in the presence of water (par. 11-14) and gas (par. 111), only metal ions selectively permeate through the metal ion selective permeable membrane (abstract generally). Thus, the teachings of Hoshino are equivalent to a cell comprising: a housing; a dense lithium selective membrane located in the housing and dividing the housing into a first compartment and a second compartment; a cathode electrode located in the first compartment; an anode electrode located in the second compartment as claimed.
Hoshino discloses tubing connected to supply fluid to the anode and another set of tubing to circulate a stream where Li is concentrated, which is equivalent to lithium enrichment (graphical abstract). This is equivalent to a first piping circuit fluidly connected to the second compartment and configured to supply a feed stream to the second compartment; a second piping circuit fluidly connected to the first compartment and configured to circulate an enrichment stream through the first compartment a claimed.
Hoshino discloses a lithium ion separation membrane with a thickness of 0.25 mm and 0.18 mm. This is equivalent to a dense lithium selective membrane that has a thickness less than 400 µm as claimed.
Hoshino discloses a potentiostat for applying a voltage to the cell between the positive and negative electrodes (pg. 60/par. 6 and graphical abstract) which are equivalent to the anode and cathode electrodes. This is equivalent to a power source configured to apply a voltage between the cathode electrode and anode electrode as claimed.
Hoshino does not disclose an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode.
However, Yang discloses an oxidative electrochemical reaction at the anode and a reductive electrochemical reaction at the cathode (Fig. 2A and pg. 1650/par. 2) in an analogous electrochemical device with a lithium selective membrane for lithium extraction (Fig. 2A). This is equivalent to an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode taught by Yang with the cell taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode to make the lithium extraction process faster and more controllable while directly obtaining metallic lithium (see Yang pg. 1651/conclusion section). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using a known technique to improve a similar device because:
Hoshino teaches a “base” electrochemical device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement.”
Yang teaches a known technique of using an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode that is applicable to the “base” electrochemical device taught by Hoshino.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique using an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode taught by Yang would have the yielded predictable result of and of making the lithium extraction process faster and more controllable while directly obtaining metallic lithium (see Yang pg. 1651/conclusion section) resulting in an improved system.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
432
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
546
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hoshino discloses providing 0.1 M HCl to the negative electrode side (pg. 60/par. 6 and Fig.1), which is equivalent to a cathode electrode that is located in a first compartment in the instant application (clam 1), where Li is being concentrated (Fig. 1), which is equivalent to lithium enrichment as claimed. Hoshino also discloses a fluidly connected port on the negative electrode side (graphical abstract). Providing 0.1 M HCl to the negative electrode side would require a fluidly connected port capable of acting as claimed. The claimed result of maintaining a pH between 4.5 and 7.0 is not a structural element and simply describes the intended use of the cell and thus, is not limiting. Therefore, the teachings of Hoshino are equivalent to a port fluidly connected to the first compartment to inject an acid into the enrichment stream to maintain a pH between 4.5 and 7.0.
PNG
media_image5.png
447
535
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.018), in view of Yang (DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.07.006) and in further view of Cho (DOI: 10.1007/s10853-012-6500-5).
Regarding claim 2, the instant specification defines that a lithium selective membrane is dense if it is impermeable to gas and water (par. 30). Hoshino teaches that in the presence of water (par. 11-14) and gas (par. 111), only metal ions selectively permeate through the metal ion selective permeable membrane (abstract generally). Hoshino also teaches a Li ion conductive glass-ceramic (pg. 60/par. 5). Thus, the teachings of Hoshino are equivalent to a dense lithium selective membrane that is glass-type as claimed.
Hoshino does not disclose a LiXLa2/3-X/3TiO3 (LLTO) membrane, where x is from 0.23 to 0.67.
However, Cho discloses a Li0.33La0.57TiO3 (LLTO) lithium-ion conducting membrane (abstract generally) in the same field of endeavor of conducting lithium ions in an electrochemical cell. The teaching of Cho is equivalent to a LiXLa2/3-X/3TiO3 (LLTO) membrane, where x is from 0.23 to 0.67.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the Li0.33La0.57TiO3 (LLTO) lithium-ion conducting membrane taught by Cho with the dense lithium selective membrane taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to substitute the Li0.33La0.57TiO3 (LLTO) lithium-ion conducting membrane taught by Cho with the dense lithium selective membrane taught by Hoshino to promote ionic conductivity (see Cho pg. 5970/par. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results because:
The claimed invention can be arrived at by substituting the Li0.33La0.57TiO3 (LLTO) lithium-ion conducting membrane taught by Cho with the dense lithium selective membrane taught by Hoshino.
The substituted Li0.33La0.57TiO3 (LLTO) lithium-ion conducting membrane and its function of promoting ionic conductivity (see Cho pg. 5970/par. 2) taught by Cho was known in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another to achieve the predictable result of promoting ionic conductivity (see Cho pg. 5970/par. 2).
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.018), in view of Yang (DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.07.006) and in further view of Nagarale (DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2005.09.005).
Regarding claim 4, Hoshino discloses a dialysis device (abstract generally) with two compartments, one compartment with a negative electrode which is equivalent to a cathode, and one compartment with a positive electrode which is equivalent to an anode (Fig. 1). Hoshino also discloses a Li separation membrane (abstract generally). This is equivalent to the first membrane in a compartment and an anode electrode in a compartment as claimed.
Hoshino does not disclose a first anion exchange membrane placed in the second compartment to form a third compartment so that the anode electrode is located in the third compartment.
However, Nagarale discloses that electrodialysis operates under the principle of using a cell arrangement of a series of cation- and anion-exchange membranes arranged in an alternating pattern between an anode and cathode to form individual cells (pg. 116/par. 4 and Fig. 16) which is capable of having an anion exchange membrane separate a cell into two compartments that can be numbered as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dialysis device taught by Hoshino with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the dialysis device taught by Hoshino with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale to achieve industrial application (see Nagarale pg. 116/par. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because:
The dialysis device taught by Hoshino can be combined with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination, achieving industrial application, were predictable (see Nagarale pg. 116/par. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
432
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
381
679
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hoshino discloses a dialysis device with a stream on the positive electrode side of the cell which is equivalent to the anode, that is separate from a stream on the negative electrode side of the cell, which is equivalent to a cathode where lithium concentration (or lithium enrichment) occurs (Fig. 1). The anode is supplied with a stream of seawater (Fig. 1) containing NaCl, thus preventing the absorption of chlorine once saturated which is equivalent to being configured to not absorb generated chlorine. Hoshino’s teaching of a stream on the anode requires an outlet which is equivalent to a port capable of acting as claimed. Thus, the teachings of Hoshino are equivalent to an anode stream supplied to a compartment and the anode stream being configured to not absorb chlorine generated by the anode electrode so that the chlorine is a captured at a port.
Hoshino does not disclose a third compartment or a separate feed, enrichment, and anode stream as claimed.
However, Nagarale discloses that electrodialysis operates under the principle of using a cell arrangement of a series of cation- and anion-exchange membranes arranged in an alternating pattern between an anode and cathode to form individual cells (pg. 116/par. 4 and Fig. 16) which allows for a configuration having a third compartment and being capable of having a feed, enrichment, and anode stream as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dialysis device with an anode stream being configured to not absorb chlorine generated by the anode electrode so that the chlorine is a captured at a port taught by Hoshino with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the dialysis device with an anode stream being configured to not absorb chlorine generated by the anode electrode so that the chlorine is a captured at a port taught by Hoshino with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale to achieve industrial application (see Nagarale pg. 116/par. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because:
The dialysis device with an anode stream being configured to not absorb chlorine generated by the anode electrode so that the chlorine is a captured at a port taught by Hoshino can be combined with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination, achieving industrial application, were predictable (see Nagarale pg. 116/par. 3).
PNG
media_image7.png
441
552
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
381
679
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Hoshino discloses a negatively charged electrode (Fig. 1), which is equivalent to a cathode, along with a lithium-ion separation membrane in an electrodialysis device with two compartments on either side of the membrane (Fig. 1). This is equivalent to a membrane placed in a compartment and a cathode electrode as claimed.
Hoshino does not disclose a second anion exchange membrane and a fourth compartment as claimed.
However, Nagarale discloses that electrodialysis operates under the principle of using a cell arrangement of a series of cation- and anion-exchange membranes arranged in an alternating pattern between an anode and cathode to form individual cells (pg. 116/par. 4 and Fig. 16) which are capable of being configured to have a second anion exchange membrane to form a fourth compartment containing a cathode electrode.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the dialysis device taught by Hoshino with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the dialysis device taught by Hoshino with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale to achieve industrial application (see Nagarale pg. 116/par. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because:
The dialysis device taught by Hoshino can be combined with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination, achieving industrial application, were predictable (see Nagarale pg. 116/par. 3).
PNG
media_image9.png
664
759
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
390
691
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Hoshino discloses a stream on the positive electrode side of the cell which is equivalent to the anode, that is separate from a stream on the negative electrode side of the cell, which is equivalent to a cathode where lithium concentration (or lithium enrichment) occurs (Fig. 1). Thus, the teachings of Hoshino are equivalent to a cathode stream as claimed.
Hoshino does not disclose a fourth compartment and a separate cathode, feed, and enrichment stream as claimed.
However, Nagarale discloses that electrodialysis operates under the principle of using a cell arrangement of a series of cation- and anion-exchange membranes arranged in an alternating pattern between an anode and cathode to form individual cells (pg. 116/par. 4 and Fig. 16) which is capable of being supplied a cathode stream to a fourth compartment that is different from a feed and enrichment stream as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the cathode stream taught by Hoshino with the cell arrangement containing a fourth compartment and a cathode stream that is different from a feed and enrichment stream taught by Nagarale. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the cathode stream taught by Hoshino with the cell arrangement containing a fourth compartment and a cathode stream that is different from a feed and enrichment stream taught by Nagarale to achieve industrial application (see Nagarale pg. 116/par. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because:
The dialysis device taught by Hoshino can be combined with the cell arrangement taught by Nagarale to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination, achieving industrial application, were predictable (see Nagarale pg. 116/par. 3).
PNG
media_image9.png
664
759
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
381
685
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.018), in view of Yang (DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.07.006) and in further view of Zheng (DOI: 10.1021/cs501449y) and Nagarale (DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2005.09.005).
Regarding claim 6, Hoshino teaches a negativeelectrode which is equivalent to a cathode (Fig. 1).
Hoshino does not teach a cathode electrode made of coper hollow fibers.
However, Zheng discloses a copper nanotube for a catalyst in an electrochemical reaction (abstract generally) which is equivalent to an electrode made of copper hollow fibers as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino to enhance mass transport in the electrode (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives because:
Hoshino and Zheng teach an analogous electrochemical device for lithium extraction.
The enhancement of mass transport in the electrode and to promote bifunctional mechanisms or electronic effects (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2) provided a design incentive which would have prompted adaptation of the known device.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, could have implemented the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image12.png
441
552
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Hoshino teaches a negative electrode which is equivalent to a cathode (Fig. 1).
Hoshino does not teach a cathode electrode made of coper hollow fibers coated with Pt-Ru.
However, Zheng discloses platinum-ruthenium coated copper nanotubes for a catalyst in an electrochemical reaction (abstract generally) which is equivalent to an electrode made of coper hollow fibers coated with Pt-Ru as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the copper hollow fiber coated with Pt-Ru taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the copper hollow fiber coated with Pt-Ru taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino to enhance mass transport in the electrode and to promote bifunctional mechanisms or electronic effects (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives because:
Hoshino and Zheng teach an analogous electrochemical device for lithium extraction.
The enhancement of mass transport in the electrode and to promote bifunctional mechanisms or electronic effects (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2) provided a design incentive which would have prompted adaptation of the known device.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, could have implemented the copper hollow fiber electrode coated with Pt-Ru taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image12.png
441
552
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Hoshino teaches a negative electrode (Fig. 1) which is equivalent to a cathode which is located in a first compartment as claimed (claim 1).
Hoshino does not teach a cathode electrode made of coper hollow fibers.
However, Zheng discloses a copper nanotube for a catalyst in an electrochemical reaction (abstract generally) which is equivalent to an electrode made of copper hollow fibers as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the copper hollow fibers in a first compartment taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the copper hollow fibers in a first compartment taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino to enhance mass transport in the electrode (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives because:
Hoshino and Zheng teach an analogous electrochemical device for lithium extraction.
The enhancement of mass transport in the electrode and to promote bifunctional mechanisms or electronic effects (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2) provided a design incentive which would have prompted adaptation of the known device.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, could have implemented the copper hollow fibers in a first compartment taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image12.png
441
552
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hoshino teaches a negative electrode (Fig. 1) which is equivalent to a cathode which is located in a first compartment as claimed (claim 1).
Hoshino does not teach a cathode electrode made of coper hollow fibers coated with Pt-Ru.
However, Zheng discloses platinum-ruthenium coated copper nanotubes for a catalyst in an electrochemical reaction (abstract generally) which is equivalent to coper hollow fibers coated with Pt-Ru as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the copper hollow fibers coated with Pt-Ru taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the copper hollow fibers coated with Pt-Ru taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino to enhance mass transport in the electrode and to promote bifunctional mechanisms or electronic effects (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives because:
Hoshino and Zheng teach an analogous electrochemical device for lithium extraction.
The enhancement of mass transport in the electrode and to promote bifunctional mechanisms or electronic effects (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2) provided a design incentive which would have prompted adaptation of the known device.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, could have implemented the copper hollow fiber electrodes coated with Pt-Ru taught by Zheng into the cell taught by Hoshino, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image12.png
441
552
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.018), in view of Yang (DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.07.006) and in further view of Zheng (DOI: 10.1021/cs501449y), WO 2020203166, and Nagarale (DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2005.09.005).
Regarding claim 8, Hoshino teaches a housing (graphical abstract) and a negative electrode, which is equivalent to a cathode (Fig. 1).
Hoshino does not teach a cathode electrode made of coper hollow fibers that form an inner channel that receives CO2.
However, Zheng discloses a copper nanotube for a catalyst in an electrochemical reaction (abstract generally) which is equivalent to an electrode made of copper hollow fibers that form an inner channel as claimed which are capable of acting to receive CO2 from outside the housing. WO 2020203166 discloses supplying carbon dioxide gas with a gas bubbling device (item 104, Fig. 9) from outside of the housing of the electrochemical device (par. 45 and Fig. 9) as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng and the supply of carbon dioxide from outside the housing taught by WO 2020203166 into the cell taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng and the supply of carbon dioxide from outside the housing taught by WO 2020203166 into the cell taught by Hoshino to enhance mass transport in the electrode (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2) and to precipitate lithium carbonate which can be easily obtained from solution (see WO 2020203166, par. 51). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives because:
Hoshino, Zheng, and WO 2020203166 teach analogous electrochemical devices for lithium extraction.
The enhancement of mass transport in the electrode and to promote bifunctional mechanisms or electronic effects (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2) along with the ability to precipitate lithium carbonate which can be easily obtained from solution (see WO 2020203166, par. 51) provided a design incentive which would have prompted adaptation of the known device.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, could have implemented the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng with the supply of carbon dioxide from outside the housing taught by WO 2020203166 into the cell taught by Hoshino, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image13.png
334
360
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
664
759
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
810
975
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Hoshino teaches a housing (graphical abstract) and a negative electrode, which is equivalent to a cathode (Fig. 1), where lithium concentration occurs (Fig. 1), which is equivalent to lithium enrichment.
Hoshino does not teach a cathode electrode made of coper hollow fibers that form an inner channel that receives CO2 and releases the CO2 within the enrichment stream.
However, Zheng discloses a copper nanotube for a catalyst in an electrochemical reaction (abstract generally) which is equivalent to an electrode made of copper hollow fibers that form an inner channel as claimed which are capable of acting to receive CO2 from outside the housing and releasing the CO2 within the enrichment stream as claimed. WO 2020203166 discloses supplying carbon dioxide gas to the lithium ion recovery stream which is equivalent to the lithium enrichment stream as claimed and that this carbon dioxide is supplied with a gas bubbling device (item 104, Fig. 9) from outside of the housing of the electrochemical device (par. 45 and Fig. 9).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng and the supply of carbon dioxide to the lithium enrichment stream from outside the housing taught by WO 2020203166 into the cell taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to incorporate the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng and the supply of carbon dioxide to the lithium enrichment stream from outside the housing taught by WO 2020203166 into the cell taught by Hoshino to enhance mass transport in the electrode (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2) and to precipitate lithium carbonate which can be easily obtained from solution (see WO 2020203166, par. 51). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives because:
Hoshino, Zheng, and WO 2020203166 teach analogous electrochemical devices for lithium extraction.
The enhancement of mass transport in the electrode and to promote bifunctional mechanisms or electronic effects (see Zheng pg. 1468/par. 2) along with the ability to precipitate lithium carbonate which can be easily obtained from solution (see WO 2020203166, par. 51) provided a design incentive which would have prompted adaptation of the known device.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives, could have implemented the copper hollow fiber electrode taught by Zheng with the supply of carbon dioxide to the lithium enrichment stream from outside the housing taught by WO 2020203166 into the cell taught by Hoshino, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image13.png
334
360
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
664
759
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
570
686
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.018), in view of Yang (DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.07.006) and WO 2020203166.
Regarding claim 14, Hoshino discloses a dialysis cell with a lithium separation membrane that allows lithium-ion transport while blocking the transport of other ions that is located in a housing that is divided into two compartments by the membrane (graphical abstract and Fig. 1) with a positively charge electrode in one compartment and a negatively charged electrode in another compartment, which are equivalent to an anode electrode and a cathode electrode (Fig. 1). As evidenced by Nagarale, electrodialysis operates under the principle of using a cell arrangement of a series of cation- and anion-exchange membranes arranged in an alternating pattern between an anode and cathode to form individual cells (pg. 116/par. 4 and Fig. 16) which is equivalent to a multi-stage cell comprising plural cells connected in series with each other as claimed. Thus, the teachings of Hoshino, as evidenced by Nagarale, are equivalent to a multi-stage cell comprising: plural cells connected in series to each other, each cell of the plural cells including: a housing; a dense lithium selective membrane located in the housing and dividing the housing into a first compartment and a second compartment; a cathode electrode located in the first compartment; an anode electrode located in the second compartment as claimed.
Hoshino discloses tubing connected to supply fluid to the anode and another set of tubing to circulate a stream where Li is concentrated, which is equivalent to lithium enrichment (graphical abstract). This is equivalent to a first piping circuit fluidly connected to the second compartment and configured to supply a feed stream to the second compartment; a second piping circuit fluidly connected to the first compartment and configured to circulate an enrichment stream through the first compartment a claimed.
Hoshino discloses a lithium ion separation membrane with a thickness of 0.25 mm and 0.18 mm. This is equivalent to a dense lithium selective membrane has a thickness less than 400 µm as claimed.
Hoshino discloses a potentiostat for applying a voltage to the cell between the positive and negative electrodes (pg. 60/par. 6 and Fig. 1) which are equivalent to the anode and cathode electrodes.
Hoshino does not disclose an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode. Hoshino also does not disclose that the enrichment stream from a previous cell is the feed stream of current cell.
However, Yang discloses an oxidative electrochemical reaction at the anode and a reductive electrochemical reaction at the cathode (Fig. 2A and pg. 1650/par. 2) in an analogous electrochemical device with a lithium selective membrane for lithium extraction (Fig. 2A). This is equivalent to an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode as claimed. WO 2020203166 discloses a plurality of metal ion recovery devices connected in series where the metal ion recovery liquid, which is equivalent to an enrichment stream, is introduced to another metal ion recovery device (par. 76-81 and Fig. 10). This is equivalent to the enrichment stream from a previous cell is the feed stream of a current cell as claimed.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode taught by Yang and providing the enrichment stream from once cell to the feed stream of another cell as taught by WO 2020203166 with the cell taught by Hoshino. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to use an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode to make the lithium extraction process faster and more controllable while directly obtaining metallic lithium (see Yang pg. 1651/conclusion section). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to providing the enrichment stream from once cell to the feed stream of another cell to increase the concentration of the metal ion recovery liquid (see WO 2020203166 par. 76-81). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention by using known techniques to improve a similar device because:
Hoshino taught a “base” electrochemical device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement.”
Yang taught a known technique of using an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode while WO 2020203166 taught a known technique of providing the enrichment stream from once cell to the feed stream of another cell that is applicable to the “base” electrochemical device taught by Hoshino.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique using an oxidative electrochemical reaction on the anode electrode and a reductive electrochemical reaction on the cathode electrode taught by Yang and providing the enrichment stream from once cell to the feed stream of another cell taught by WO 2020203166 would have yielded the predictable result of making the lithium extraction process faster and more controllable while directly obtaining metallic lithium (see Yang pg. 1651/conclusion section) and increase the concentration of the metal ion recovery liquid (see WO 2020203166 par. 76-81) resulting in an improved system.
PNG
media_image9.png
664
759
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
589
975
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
594
1004
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradie S. Crandall whose telephone number is (571)272-9778. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm 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, Emily
Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/B.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights