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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 3-16 in the reply filed on 14 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 May 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the compound Al2(SO4)3 (lines 24-25) should be named as aluminum sulfate and not “sulfuric acid Aluminum”
the compound H2SO2 (line 18) should be named as hyposulphurous acid, not “hyposulphite”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the remaining process water is recovered and used to adjust a pH for water treatment.” The specification provides no definition or examples of what is meant by the phrase “to adjust a pH for water treatment.” Therefore this limitation in the claim will be interpreted broadly and encompass any use of the water in a process in which the pH of an aqueous mixture is adjusted.
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 3-16 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 term “a sulfuric acid compound”, but it is unclear what compounds are encompassed by this term. While pages 6-7 of the specification provide some example of compounds that may be sulfuric acid compounds in certain embodiments, it is not clear what other compounds would qualify and which would not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 and dependent claims 3-12 and 14-16 are unclear and the claims are rejected. Claim 13 recites a defined list of compounds that the sulfuric acid compound must be selected from and is therefore not rejected for use of this term.
Claims 1-16 each recite the terms “lithium sludge” and “fluoride sludge,” but it is unclear precisely what is meant by these terms. The term “sludge” seems to be used by the claims to mean any waste material, including solids and homogenous solutions (as in claims 4 and 5), while the accepted meaning is a semi-solid slurry and usually refers to materials obtained from wastewater or sewage treatment plants (see “Sludge”, Wikipedia,<URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sludge>, Retrieved 9 April 2026). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
For the purposes of further examination, the term “sludge” is interpreted as any waste-derived material.
Claim 1 further recites the limitations “the reaction filtrate” in step (a-2), “the filtrate remaining after precipitation of the Li-Al layered double hydroxide” and “the filtrate” in step (a-6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the content ratio of lithium” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation “the remaining process water.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the solid/liquid ratio” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The lithium concentrate of claim 1 is generated by water leaching of lithium. It will therefore always comprise lithium ions as an ionic component, and so any lithium concentrate that is formed by the method of claim 1 will meet the limitations of claim 12. Claim 12 therefore fails to further limit claim 1 and is rejected.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112430736 A) in view of Ryu et al. (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2014156648 A), Ming et al. (CN 103073031 A) and Yaws' Handbook of Properties for Environmental and Green Engineering (Solubility in Water - Inorganic Compounds, 2008, Retrieved from <URL: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpYHPEGE01/id:kt005XW7X1/yaws-handbook-properties/solubility-in-water-inorganic> ). The previously provided English machine translations of Xu and Ming, and the newly provided English machine translations of Ryu (KR 102033607 B1) and Yamaguchi (JP 2014156648 A) are referenced in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a method for recovery of high value-added resources from lithium sludge and a fluoride source comprising:
adding a fluoride precipitant to lithium sludge, followed by precipitation and separation, to prepare lithium fluoride, which is an insoluble lithium compound (Sodium fluoride is added to the filtrate after impurity removal [from waste lithium ion battery powder slurry], and lithium fluoride residue is obtained by filtration; [0006]-[0007]).
Xu does not teach the fluoride source being a fluoride sludge, which is interpreted as being a fluoride-containing waste material (see Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112), or the remaining steps (a-2) to (a-6) recited in the instant claim.
However, Ryu al teaches a method for recovery of high value-added resources from lithium sludge comprising:
reacting a lithium-containing solution with an aluminum compound to prepare Li-Al layered double hydroxide (LDH), which is an insoluble lithium compound (adding an aluminum compound to a lithium solution to form a lithium-aluminum layered double hydroxide and separating an unreacted aluminum containing liquid; [0033]);
subjecting the Li-Al layered double hydroxide (LDH), which is an insoluble lithium compound, to a sulfation reaction with a sulfuric acid compound to prepare a conversion product (sulfating the lithium-aluminum layered double hydroxide to produce lithium sulfate and separating an aluminum compound residue; [0022]); and,
water leaching the lithium contained in the conversion product to prepare a lithium concentrate (A high-concentration lithium sulfate aqueous solution can be prepared by dissolving the lithium sulfate formed through step (b) above in water; [0054]).
Ryu also teaches that the lithium recovery rate by lithium phosphate precipitation is limited because lithium phosphate has a solubility in water of 0.034 g/100 mL, and that the method of using lithium-aluminum compounds can increase recovery of lithium ([0015]).
Yaws teaches that the solubility of lithium fluoride is 0.134 g/ 100 mL, which is even greater than that of lithium phosphate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of Ryu to the filtrate obtained following lithium fluoride precipitation according to the method of Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to recover lithium from the filtrate that would otherwise remain unrecovered by the method of Xu due to the significant solubility of lithium fluoride.
Ryu also teaches that the lithium concentrate can serve as a raw material to prepare lithium salts, such as lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recirculate the lithium concentrate as a lithium raw material in the step of preparing the lithium fluoride in the method of modified Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would enable them to convert the lithium to lithium fluoride and then to lithium hydroxide, as taught by Xu ([0008]-[0009]), which is a use suggested by Ryu.
Ryu further teaches that the filtrate remaining after the precipitation of the Li-Al layered double hydroxide can be processed in subsequent steps to make it reusable ([0042]), but does not teach reacting the filtrate with calcium fluoride.
However, Yamaguchi is also interested in recovery of metals from waste battery materials (abstract) and teaches that fluoride impurities can be removed by adding a calcium compound to separate the mixture into a calcium fluoride precipitate and a solution ([0036] and [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to react the filtrate remaining after the preparation of the Li-Al layered double hydroxide (LDH) in the method of modified Xu with a calcium compound to separate the filtrate into a calcium fluoride precipitate and residual process water, as taught by Yamaguchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to remove fluoride ions from this solution so that it can be reused, as suggested by Ryu.
Regarding the fluoride precipitant being a fluoride sludge, Ming also teaches a method of preparing lithium fluoride by precipitation, and further teaches that the sodium fluoride precipitant is derived from a by-product of phosphate fertilizer ([0008]-[0010]); the of fertilizer-derived sodium fluoride is considered a fluoride sludge (see Claim Note). Ming further teaches that using the by-product of fertilizer production reduces production costs and saves fluorite, a strategic resource ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use as the fluoride precipitant in the method of modified Xu a fluoride sludge, as taught by Ming. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce production costs and save the strategic resource of fluorite, as taught by Ming.
Regarding claim 4, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, where Xu teaches the lithium sludge is formed by treatment of battery powder with sulfuric acid ([0011]) and filtered, and will therefore be a solution which comprises lithium sulfate.
Regarding claim 5, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, where Ming teaches the fluoride sludge comprises sodium fluoride ([0023]) and the sludge (sodium fluoride) is mixed with water, thereby forming a solution or a slurry, before adding the lithium source to precipitate lithium fluoride ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a solution or slurry of the fluoride sludge in the analogous precipitation reaction being carried out by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ming teaches that it is appropriate to add water to the fluoride before mixing with a lithium solution in a analogous reaction.
Regarding claim 8, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, where the mass ratio of lithium in the lithium sludge to sodium fluoride in the fluoride sludge is 1:7-9, which corresponds to a molar ratio of lithium to fluoride of 1:(1.16-1.49), which lies in the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, where Ryu teaches the aluminum compound is sodium aluminate ([0065]), and can also be aluminum sulfate, aluminum hydroxide, alumina, or combinations thereof ([0039]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xu teaches the process of claim 1, where Yamaguchi teaches that the use of calcium compounds to precipitate calcium fluoride can reduce the concentration of fluoride ions to below 0.001 g/L ([0059] and Table 5), which is equivalent to less than 1 ppm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of modified Xu where the calcium compound is added in an amount such that the remaining process water after the precipitation of calcium fluoride is 1 ppm or less. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to remove substantially all the fluoride from solution prior to reusing it.
It is also noted that the courts have also found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed range of fluoride concentration in the remaining process water merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the values of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 11, modified Xu teaches the process of claim 1, where Ryu teaches that the filtrate remaining after the precipitation of the Li-Al layered double hydroxide can be processed in subsequent steps to make it reusable ([0042]). The water remaining after precipitation is interpreted as remaining process water consistent with the specification p. 15 (lines 20-27), though it is unclear if this is what is meant by the term in the claim.
Xu teaches various steps in which the pH of aqueous mixture are adjusted ((e.g., [0026] and [0027]). It is also noted that simple use of this recovered water is likely to alter the pH of nearly any solution to which it is added.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recover and use the remaining process water to adjust a pH for water treatment by reusing it in the process of modified Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce resource use and because Ryu suggests reusing the water obtained following precipitation.
Regarding claim 12, modified Xu teaches the process of claim 1, where Ryu teaches the lithium concentrate comprises lithium and sulfate ions as an ionic component (A high-concentration lithium sulfate aqueous solution can be prepared by dissolving the lithium sulfate formed through step (b) above in water; [0054]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Xu teaches the process of claim 1, where Ryu teaches the sulfuric acid compound is sulfuric acid or sulfuric acid aluminum (aluminum sulfate; [0045]).
Regarding claim 14 and 15, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, where Ryu teaches the reaction temperature during the sulfation reaction between the Li-Al double layered hydroxide and the sulfuric acid compound is 290 °C and the reaction time is 2 hours ([0066]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112430736 A) in view of Ryu et al. (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2014156648 A), Ming et al. (CN 103073031 A) and Yaws' Handbook of Properties for Environmental and Green Engineering (Solubility in Water - Inorganic Compounds, 2008, Retrieved from <URL: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpYHPEGE01/id:kt005XW7X1/yaws-handbook-properties/solubility-in-water-inorganic>), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (KR 20160122031 A) and Lipson (US 2021/0320293 A1). The previously provided English machine translations of Xu and Ming, and the newly provided English machine translations of Ryu (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi (JP 2014156648 A), and Choi (KR 20160122031 A) are referenced in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 3, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, where Xu teaches the lithium sludge is generated in the process of recycling waste lithium secondary batteries ([0001] and [0006]), and Ming teaches the fluoride sludge is generated from in the fertilizer industry. Neither Ming nor Xu teach the lithium sludge being generated in the process of manufacturing lithium secondary batteries or the fluoride sludge being generated in the semiconductor and display industries.
However, Choi teaches that fluoride sludge generated in the semiconductor and display industries is also a useful sources of fluoride ions that can be recycled ([0009], [0011], [0037]). Choi further teaches that these waste materials can be converted to sodium fluoride ([0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace in the method of modified Xu the fluoride sludge (waste-derived sodium fluoride) from the fertilizer industry taught by Ming with the fluoride sludge (waste-derived sodium fluoride) from the semiconductor and display industries taught by Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to recycle this useful resource, as taught by Choi, while also preserving the strategic resource of fluorite, as taught by Ming.
Additionally, Lipson teaches that it is important to recover cathode active materials, which include lithium, from not only recycled battery waste, but also from the lithium battery manufacturing process ([0006] and [0008]-[0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of modified Xu not only to sludge generated from the process of recycling waste lithium secondary batteries, but also to sludge generated in the manufacture of lithium secondary batteries. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lipson teaches that there is an ongoing need to recover materials from such waste ([0006]).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112430736 A) in view of Ryu et al. (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2014156648 A), Ming et al. (CN 103073031 A) and Yaws' Handbook of Properties for Environmental and Green Engineering (Solubility in Water - Inorganic Compounds, 2008, Retrieved from <URL: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpYHPEGE01/id:kt005XW7X1/yaws-handbook-properties/solubility-in-water-inorganic>), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110668473 A). The previously provided English machine translations of Xu and Ming, and the newly provided English machine translations of Ryu (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi (JP 2014156648 A), and Zhang (CN 110668473 A) are used in the analysis below.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, modified Xu teaches the process of claim 1, but Xu is combining solid fluoride precipitant with the lithium sludge in their method.
However, Zhang teaches a similar method for precipitating lithium fluoride by combining lithium sludge and a fluoride precipitant, where that fluoride precipitant is provided as a 3 M NaF solution ([0035]). A solution that is 3 M in NaF will contain 57 g fluoride per liter of solution, which corresponds to approximately 57,000 ppm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the addition of solid fluoride sludge in the method of modified Xu with a solution of fluoride sludge containing 57,000 ppm fluoride, as taught by Zhang, thereby meeting the limitations of claims 5 and 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Zhang teaches that their method is successful at achieving high-purity lithium fluoride powder ([0035]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112430736 A) in view of Ryu et al. (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2014156648 A), Ming et al. (CN 103073031 A) and Yaws' Handbook of Properties for Environmental and Green Engineering (Solubility in Water - Inorganic Compounds, 2008, Retrieved from <URL: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpYHPEGE01/id:kt005XW7X1/yaws-handbook-properties/solubility-in-water-inorganic>), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jafari et al. (Journal of Energy Storage, 2020, 31, 101564). The previously provided English machine translations of Xu and Ming, and the newly provided English machine translations of Ryu (KR 102033607 B1) and Yamaguchi (JP 2014156648 A) are used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 6, modified Xu teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach the concentration of lithium ion in the lithium sludge.
However, Xu does teach that the lithium sludges is prepared from 1 kg or waste lithium ion battery powder, 3 L (3 kg) of water, 1.3 kg of sulfuric acid and 1.2 kg of hydrogen peroxide solution ([0036]).
Furthermore, Jafari teaches a method for recovering lithium-containing battery powder that is 3.6% lithium by mass. Using Jafari’s battery powder in the method of Xu would give a lithium sludge that contains 3.6 g of lithium in a 6.5 kg mixture, which is equivalent to a lithium ion concentration of 550 ppm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of modified Xu a lithium sludge with a lithium ion concentration of 550 pm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because while Xu is silent on the preparation of the battery powder, Jafari teaches a method of generating said powder and preparing the mixture taught by Xu using Jafari’s battery powder would provide a mixture with this ion concentration.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112430736 A) in view of Ryu et al. (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2014156648 A), Ming et al. (CN 103073031 A) and Yaws' Handbook of Properties for Environmental and Green Engineering (Solubility in Water - Inorganic Compounds, 2008, Retrieved from <URL: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpYHPEGE01/id:kt005XW7X1/yaws-handbook-properties/solubility-in-water-inorganic>), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (KR 102242686 B1; hereinafter “Ryu ‘686”). The previously provided English machine translations of Xu and Ming, and the newly provided English machine translations of Ryu (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi (JP 2014156648 A), and Ryu ‘686 (KR 102242686 B1) are referenced in the analysis below.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, modified Xu teaches the process of claim 1, but does not teach the concentration of the lithium ion in the lithium sludge or the fluoride ion in the fluoride sludge.
However, Ryu ‘686 teaches a similar method of precipitating lithium from battery waste using a sodium fluoride precipitant, and further teaches that the concentration of lithium ion in the lithium sludge is 1000 ppm, and that 300 mL of this 1000 ppm lithium solution is combined with 50 mL of fluoride precipitant, where the molar ratio of Li:F is 1:2 (entry B-3, Table 2, translated below). This means that the concentration of the fluoride in the 50 mL NaF slurry must have been 12,000 ppm. Ryu ‘686 further teaches that these concentrations lead to greater than 80% recovery of LiF residual lithium concentrations of less than 200 ppm (Table 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
English machine translation of Table 2 from Ryu ‘686. (The table header is an apparent typographical error, as the table contents and accompanying [0159] reveal the precipitant is NaF, not NH4F, in these examples.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use in the method of modified Xu a lithium sludge with a concentration of 1000 ppm and a fluoride sludge with a concentration of 12,000 ppm, thereby arriving at the inventions of claims 6 and 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ryu ‘686 teaches that these concentrations can be used to effectively recover lithium fluoride.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 112430736 A) in view of Ryu et al. (KR 102033607 B1), Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2014156648 A), Ming et al. (CN 103073031 A) and Yaws' Handbook of Properties for Environmental and Green Engineering (Solubility in Water - Inorganic Compounds, 2008, Retrieved from <URL: https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpYHPEGE01/id:kt005XW7X1/yaws-handbook-properties/solubility-in-water-inorganic>), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2615-2621). The previously provided English machine translations of Xu and Ming, and the newly provided English machine translations of Ryu (KR 102033607 B1) and Yamaguchi (JP 2014156648 A) are used in the analysis below.
Regarding claim 16, modified Xu teaches the method of claim 1, where Ryu teaches water leaching of the conversion product. Ryu does not teach a solid/liquid ratio of the conversion product to water during this step.
However, it is well known in the art that the amount of product that can be leached will depend upon the ratio of the leaching solvent to the material being leached, with higher solid-to-liquid ratios generally resulting in less material leached from the solid. For example, Li teaches that as the as the solid-liquid ratio increases from 16 to 33 g/L the leaching efficiency of lithium in a waste leaching process decreases from ~100% to ~70% (Fig. 8, copied below) . However, lower solid/liquid ratios will result in more solvent waste for a given amount of solids to be leached, and also provide diminishing returns on leaching efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize by routine experimentation the solid/liquid ratio during the water leaching, including into the instantly claimed range, as suggested by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to balance the recovery of lithium from the conversion product with the use of resources in the process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas A Piro whose telephone number is (571)272-6344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00 am-5:00 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PIRO/
Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights