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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 01/16/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-12, and 14-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant has canceled claims 3-5, 8, and 13, and therefore the 112(b) rejections of claims 5 and 13 are withdrawn. The amendment filed 02/09/2026 includes an amended, non-canceled version of claim 13; this claim is not examined further in this office action, since it has been canceled by applicant. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 6 2025. Additionally, claim 21 has been added. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 01/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections for claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-12, and 14-15 have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the amendments made to claim 1 and the addition of claim 21.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites, inter alia, the limitations "the solid salt deposit" and "the extraction process." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given the dependency upon claim 4.
To proceed with examination, it is interpreted that claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govind et al. 2014, US 20140158616 A1 (referred to herein as Govind), in view of Sams et al. US 20200399735 A1 (referred to herein as Sams), Rhode et al. 2021, WO 2021099333 A1 (referred to herein as Rhode), and in further view of Grant et al. 2019, US 20190256987 A1 (referred to herein as Grant).
Regarding claim 1, Govind teaches a process (including apparatus) used to precipitate salts via the addition of an organic solvent (0057), comprising:
routing a loaded solvent stream to a solvent recovery unit that removes and recovers the organic solvent (0013-0014)
wherein the solvent recovery unit removes the organic solvent from the loaded solvent stream by evaporation (application of lowered pressure aids in the evaporation of the water miscible solvent from the slurry, 0077)
wherein the solvent recovery unit recovers the organic solvent by condensation (the organic solvent is condensed and collected via path 80 and condensed via condenser 84, 0077)
and wherein the solvent recovery unit removes residual organic solvent from the solid lithium-containing salts (“Salt slurry, that is, the underflow 74,” 0077) by heating the solid lithium-containing salts (jacketed area 66 surrounding vessel 54, 0077-0078)
under reduced pressure, 0077.
Govind does not teach:
contacting a solid salt deposit comprising lithium with an organic solvent comprising an alcohol to selectively dissolve the lithium and form a loaded solvent stream;
yielding solid lithium-containing salts;
dissolving the solid lithium-containing salts in an aqueous medium to form a reclaimed lithium solution;
and extracting lithium from the reclaimed lithium solution using an extraction process selective for the lithium to yield a lithium concentrate.
However, regarding limitations I and II, Sams discloses known methods of extracting lithium (0005) including contacting a lithium-bearing brine with an organic solvent (0005), and additionally discloses a method of recovering alkali metals from an aqueous source (0012) wherein contacting with an organic solvent yields a loaded solvent stream (0012) that is rich in lithium (0028). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the ion-rich solvent taught by Govind with a lithium loaded solvent stream formed by the process disclosed by Sams; this would be obvious to one skilled in the art because of the known solubility of monovalent cations including lithium and sodium, as Govind teaches (0006). See MPEP 2143 I (B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), regarding the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. One skilled in the art would be motivated to make this substitution in order to obtain lithium for commercial demand, with a scalable and economically advantageous process, as Sams teaches (0004, 0008). One skilled in the art would therefore obtain lithium-containing salts as required by the instant claim.
Sams does not teach that the organic solvent is an alcohol. However, Rhode teaches a process for the purification of lithium salts (title) wherein the lithium hydroxide solid is dissolved with methanol or ethanol (abstract). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the solvent CYANEX 936® taught by Sams (0028) with methanol or ethanol, as Rhode teaches; one would be motivated to do so to achieve good separation of lithium in high purity, as Rhode teaches (abstract).
Regarding limitations III and IV, Grant teaches an integrated process for generating a purified lithium salt from a liquid resource (0037) wherein the liquid resource provided is a dissolved salt flat (0326) or is produced by leaching material with water, solvent, or other liquid (0326). This meets the requirement of a reclaimed lithium solution as required by the instant claim. Grant further teaches an embodiment wherein the liquid resource is subjected to a lithium-selective ion exchange (0397) followed by stripping the lithiated ion exchange material (0419); this meets the requirement of extracting lithium from the reclaimed lithium solution using an extraction process selective for the lithium, as required by the instant claim. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to leach or dissolve the material provided by the invention of Govind modified by Sams (lithium-containing salts) with water, solvent, or other liquid, as taught by Grant, and apply the lithium-selective extraction process as taught by Grant; one would be motivated to do so in order to obtain concentrated lithium in solution for use in the battery industry, as Grant teaches (0002, 0003).
Lastly, while the source of salt taught by Sams is a liquid brine and not a solid salt deposit as required by the instant claim, Grant teaches an integrated process for generating a purified lithium salt from a liquid resource (0037) wherein the liquid resource provided is a dissolved salt flat (0326) or is produced by leaching material with water, solvent, or other liquid (0326); it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that the modification taught by Sams would operate equally effectively with a solid salt deposit as a starting material, by dissolving it, as Grant teaches, in order to create a solution that can be contacted with the organic solvent, as Sams teaches. While neither Sams nor Grant teaches a motivation for starting with a solid salt deposit as a raw material, it is prima facie obvious for one skilled in the art to combine known elements in the art (in this case, a leaching solvent with a solid salt deposit) according to known methods to yield predictable results; see MPEP 2143, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), regarding the obviousness of combining elements according to known methods. One skilled in the art would therefore reasonably contact a solid salt deposit with a leaching solvent and an organic solvent, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Grant teaches that the obtained concentrated lithium ion solution can be further processed into chemicals for the battery industry (0003).
Regarding claim 6, Govind modified by Sams and Grant does not teach routing an impurity stream from the extraction process to the contacting vessel. However, Sams teaches an analogous extraction process to remove lithium from aqueous media (0028) wherein an aqueous salt deposit (divalent-depleted stream 116, 0028) is contacted with an organic solvent (organic solvent with entrained and dissolved aqueous material in the dehydrator 150, 0040) in a contacting vessel (dehydrator/stripper 150, 0040) and an impurity stream (aqueous brine stream 158, 0040) can be routed back to the contacting step (“the aqueous brine stream 158 may be combined with the lithium-depleted aqueous stream 128,” 0040); see Figure 1. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Govind modified by Sams and Grant by routing an impurity stream of the extraction process to the contacting vessel as Sams teaches; one would be motivated to do so to maximize solvent recovery, as Sams teaches (0040). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, the extraction process taught by Grant does not teach a stream comprising an alcohol being produced from the extraction process. However, Sams teaches an analogous extraction process that yields a stream comprising an organic solvent (loaded solvent stream 126 is sent to dehydrator 150 to yield aqueous brine stream 158 that can be combined with stream 128, 0040, Figure 1). With the invention of Govind modified by Rhode as applied to claim 1, this organic solvent comprises an alcohol such as methanol or ethanol, thus meeting the limitations required of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, in the invention of Govind modified by Sams and Grant, Grant teaches a depleted stream depleted of lithium is yielded from the extraction process (protonated acidified brine, 0096). Govind and Grant do not teach that the depleted stream is returned to the environment. However, Sams teaches an analogous extraction process that removes lithium and returns an environmentally benign aqueous medium to the environment (0023). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Govind modified by Sams and Grant by further treating the depleted streams in order to return them to the environment, as Sams teaches; one would be motivated to do so in order to minimize the impact of the invention on the environment, as Sams teaches (0023). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Grant teaches contacting the reclaimed lithium solution with a material selective for the lithium (ion exchange material, 0397) to remove the lithium from the reclaimed lithium solution and unloading the lithium from the selective material using a stripping material to form an intermediate (0419).
Regarding claim 14, Grant teaches an embodiment of the dissolving (leaching to produce the liquid resource, 0326) comprising using acid with a concentration of greater than about 0.1 N and an embodiment comprising heating (0326); this meets the requirements of setting a composition, temperature, or both of the fluid, as required by the instant claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govind, Sams, and Grant, as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Featherstone 1984, US 4429535 A, referred to herein as Featherstone.
Govind, Sams, and Grant teach the method as applied to claim 9. They do not teach injecting the depleted stream underground at a depth selected such that a temperature at the depth is above a precipitation temperature of the depleted stream.
However, Featherstone teaches in analogous art a system for processing geothermal brine (paragraph 1) in which the clarified, spent brine is returned to the aquifer through a reinjection well (C10/L49-55). Featherstone teaches that the reinjection occurs at a temperature and depth (C10/L67) sufficient to bring the brine above a saturation point (C11/L1) in order to prevent scaling (C11/L1-3). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Govind, Sams, and Grant by adopting the reinjection at a temperature and depth taught by Featherstone, and thus arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date, motivated to also prevent impurities present in the depleted stream, which may comprise of silica, from precipitating and scaling, as Featherstone teaches (C11/L1-3).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govind, Sams, and Grant, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wei et al. CN 109824067 A, referred to herein as Wei. The translation of the specification and translated Figure 1 as provided with the Office Action mailed on 01/08/2026 is cited herein.
Regarding claim 11, Govind, Sams, and Grant teach the method as applied to claim 1. They do not teach that the solid salt deposit is a byproduct of an atmospheric evaporation recovery process that yields an evaporation concentrate. However, Wei discloses an analogous process (41) of obtaining lithium wherein the concentrate is an extraction concentrate (this [coarse ore M2 to concentrate M2] is the second lithium extraction path, 52); the salt deposit is a byproduct of an atmospheric evaporation (natural evaporation, see Pool #1 and Pool #2 in translated Figure 1) recovery process (see Pool #4 in translated Figure 1) that yields an evaporation concentrate (4#The pool is re-evaporated by X2% and the obtained sediment has more hetero salts, which is called the superior lithium coarse ore M2, 50); and converting target ions in the evaporation concentrate and the extraction concentrate to a product (waiting for CO2 to extract lithium after collection, 50; the CO2 transformation to create LiHCO3, translated Figure 1).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Govind modified by Sams and Grant by substituting the solid salt deposit starting material with a solid salt deposit obtained from the natural evaporation process taught by Wei (Pool #1 and #2, translated Figure 1) and further convert the lithium in the evaporation concentrate and extraction concentrate to a product, as Wei teaches; one would be motivated to do so in order to solve current constraints of effectively obtaining lithium from lithium-abundant salt lakes, as Wei teaches (13).
It is noted that the language of “wherein the lithium concentrate is an extraction concentrate” is not interpreted as a further limitation on claim 1, since the language of claim 1 reads “extracting lithium… using an extraction process… to yield a lithium concentrate,” and therefore the lithium concentrate yielded is necessarily an extraction concentrate.
Regarding claim 15, Govind, Sams, and Grant teach the method as applied to claim 1. They do not teach that the solid salt deposit is a waste salt deposit from an evaporation process and the method is a part of a process to remediate the waste salt deposit. However, Wei teaches that the salt deposit is a waste salt deposit from an evaporation process (see pool #5 and pool #8, translated Figure 1, wherein the wastewater is recycled into pool #2 and pool #3 to yield lithium sediments, including lithium ore M2), and that the method is part of a process to remediate the waste salt deposit (“This patent … effectively solves the current constraints of lithium extraction from the salt and helps the salt lake in China,” 13).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention of Govind modified by Sams and Grant by substituting the solid salt deposit starting material with a waste salt deposit obtained from the natural evaporation process taught by Wei (Pool #2, translated Figure 1) and therefore necessarily include the process as part of a process to remediate the waste salt deposit, as Wei teaches; one would be motivated to do so in order to solve current constraints of effectively obtaining lithium from lithium-abundant salt lakes, as Wei teaches (13).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govind, in view of Sams, Rhode, Grant, Featherstone, and Wei, as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9-15 above, and in further view of Marcin et al. 2013, US 20130313199 A1, referred to herein as Marcin.
Govind, modified by Sams, Rhode, Grant, Featherstone, and Wei as discussed for claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9-15 above, teaches each and every limitation of claim 21 except the following:
wherein contacting comprises controlling selectivity of the organic solvent for dissolving lithium by setting a composition, a temperature, or both, of the organic solvent
removing residual organic material from the reclaimed lithium solution by passing the reclaimed lithium solution through an activated carbon filter
Regarding limitation I, Rhode teaches that the solubility of lithium is controlled by the alcohol:LiOH ratio added in the step (B) of combining LiOH with a lower alcohol (p. 2 line 31-37). It would therefore be obvious to one skilled in the art to control selectivity of the organic solvent used in Govind modified by Rhode by setting a composition of the organic solvent.
Regarding limitation II, Marcin teaches a system and method for treatment of waters (title) analogous to the claimed invention, in which activated carbon is used (0085) to remove trace contaminants including organic substances (0085) from a water that has been passed through an organics removal step (0084). It would be obvious to combine the invention taught by modified Govind by passing the reclaimed lithium solution through an activated carbon filter; one would be motivated to do in order to remove any additional impurities including organic impurities, as Marcin teaches (0085). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date with reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738