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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
Four (4) information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were submitted on 09/05/2024, 09/26/2024 (two submissions), and 01/16/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, the term “lithiumion” (line 2) appears to be two words merged into one word. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as “lithium ion.” However, appropriate correction is still required.
Further regarding claim 13, the term “lithiumt” (line 3) appears to be misspelled.
Regarding claim 18, the article “a” in the phrase “a extraction process” (line 6) should be “an” so that the phrase reads “an extraction process.”
Regarding claim 19, the term “sourcet” (line 7) appears to be misspelled.
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 2-9 and 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is indefinite because it is ambiguous. The placement of the conjunction “or” (line 2) between cobalt and magnesium leads to multiple claim interpretations. It is unclear whether the target ion is an element from a first grouping (lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt), a second grouping (magnesium, zinc, aluminum, copper, molybdenum, vanadium), or combinations thereof, or whether the target ion is any single one of the elements recited in claim 2. Since the scope cannot be determined, the claim lacks definiteness.
Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the selective extraction process,” as there is no prior mention of this term. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as referring to the “extraction process” or the “extracting” step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Further regarding claim 3, the claim is further indefinite because it recites a process step that does not appear to be temporally possible. The claim requires that material from a future step be used in a current step. Specifically, the claim recites that the leaching step, which produces a target solution from earth material, includes a step of contacting the earth material with material from a (subsequent) extraction process (extracting step). The extraction process extracts target ion from the target solution originating from the (previous) leaching step. Thus, for material from the extraction process to be available, the extracting step would have to have been already been executed. But the claim, as drafted, does not specify that an extraction step has taken place before the leaching step. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as stating that a material from the extracting step is reused, recycled, or returned to the leaching step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the selective extraction process,” as there is no prior mention of this term. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as referring to the “extraction process” or the “extracting” step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the claims are likewise rejected, as they incorporate all limitations of rejected claim 4.
Further regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the extraction feed,” as there is no prior mention of this term.
Regarding claim 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the selective extraction process,” as there is no prior mention of this term. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as referring to the “extraction process” or the “extracting” step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Further regarding claim 7, the claim is further indefinite because it recites a process step that does not appear to be temporally possible. The claim requires that material from a future step be used in a current step. Specifically, the claim recites that the leaching step, which produces a target solution from earth material, includes a step of contacting the earth material with material from a (subsequent) extraction process (extracting step). The extraction process extracts target ion from the target solution originating from the (previous) leaching step. Thus, for material from the extraction process to be available, the extracting step would have to have been already been executed. But the claim, as drafted, does not specify that an extraction step has taken place before the leaching step. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as stating that a material from the extracting step is reused, recycled, or returned to the leaching step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the selective extraction process,” as there is no prior mention of this term. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as referring to the “extraction process” or the “extracting” step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Further regarding claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the aqueous solution,” as there is no prior mention of this term.
Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the selective extraction process,” as there is no prior mention of this term. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as referring to the “extraction process” or the “extracting” step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Regarding claim 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the selective extraction process,” as there is no prior mention of this term. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as referring to the “extraction process” or the “extracting” step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Further regarding claim 11, the claim is further indefinite because it recites a process step that does not appear to be temporally possible. The claim requires that material from a future step be used in a current step. Specifically, the claim recites that the leaching step, which produces a dilute lithium solution from earth material, includes a step of contacting the earth material with material from a (subsequent) extraction process (extracting step). The extraction process extracts target ion from the target solution originating from the leaching step. Thus, for material from the extraction process to be available, the extracting step would have to have been already been executed. But the claim, as drafted, does not specify that an extraction step has taken place before the leaching step. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted such that a material from the extracting step is reused, recycled, or returned to the leaching step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Regarding claims 12-17, the claims are likewise rejected, as they incorporate all limitations of rejected claim 11.
Further regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the step of “extracting the lithium ion from the aqueous solution.” In parent claim 11, the “extracting” step (lines 3-4) make no mention of an aqueous solution. Parent claim 11 recites “concurrently extracting the lithium ion from an aqueous source using the extraction stage,” but “concurrently extracting” (lines 5-6) appears to be a step different from the “extracting” step (line 3-4).
Further regarding claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the concentrate,” as there is no prior mention of this term.
Regarding claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the selective extraction process,” as there is no prior mention of this term. For examination purposes, the term will be interpreted as referring to the “extraction process” or the “concurrently extracting” step. However, appropriate correction is still required.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the claims are likewise rejected, as they incorporate all limitations of rejected claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/228936 (A1) to Binnemans (“Binnemans”).
Regarding claim 1, Binnemans discloses processes (methods) related to refining lithium chloride. Abstract; p. 1 – lines 5-11. The process includes a step of obtaining lithium chloride from spodumene (earth material) by sodium carbonate pressure leaching and then selectively dissolving the lithium chloride (leaching a target ion from an earth material to form a target solution). Page 6 – lines 23-26; p. 17 – lines 2-5, 12-14.
The process further includes a step of adding a solution of alkali metal hydroxide in an organic solvent to the selectively dissolved lithium chloride (p. 19 – lines 14-16); purifying organic solution by non-aqueous ion exchange (p. 20 – lines 17-20); dissolving the of lithium chloride in water (p. 22 – lines 34-36); converting lithium chloride to lithium hydroxide by solvent extraction (p. 23 – lines 15-18); and crystallizing the lithium hydroxide solution into lithium hydroxide monohydrate (p. 28 – lines 33-36; p. 29 – lines 1-5) (extracting the target ion from the target solution using an extraction process selective for the target ion to yield a concentrate).
Regarding claim 2, Binnemans discloses obtaining lithium chloride and converting it to lithium hydroxide monohydrate, the common ion between the compounds being lithium (target ion is lithium). Page 1 – lines 5, 14-21.
Regarding claim 4, Binnemans discloses concurrent conversion of lithium carbonate into lithium hydroxide monohydrate (concurrent extraction of the target ion using the selective extraction process). Page 5 – lines 9-10, 18-20; Figure 3. The lithium carbonate can be produced from salt lake brines or geothermal brines and treated with hydrochloric acid (aqueous sources). Page 17 – lines 4-7; p. 30 – lines 7-12. Binnemans also discloses using both solid lithium chloride or an aqueous lithium chloride solution as input materials. Page 5 – lines 17-20; Figure 1 – Input A and B.
Regarding claim 5, Binnemans illustrates in Figure 1 that the input feeds may be combined (blending material from the aqueous source with the target solution to form an extraction feed and extracting the target ion from the extraction feed).
Regarding claim 8, Binnemans discloses extraction processes where the lithium from aqueous lithium chloride solution is removed in a second extraction circuit via contact with solvent from a first solvent extraction circuit (extracting target ion using selective extraction process includes contacting target solution with material selective for target ion to remove target ion from aqueous solution). Page 23 – lines 15-35. The lithium becomes lithium hydroxide solution as the second extraction circuit is completed, with an additional ion exchange being performed for final purification of the lithium hydroxide solution (target ion is unloaded from the selective material using stripping material to form lithium intermediate). Page 27 – lines 13-34; p. 28 – lines 5-10, 27-31.
Regarding claim 9, Binnemans discloses stopping the process at step 4 (organic-to-aqueous conversion) without further conversion to lithium hydroxide in one embodiment. Page 11 – lines 16-17. The solid lithium chloride obtained by evaporating water. Page 11 – lines 17-18. Anhydrous lithium chloride is formed after drying and then used as a starting material for the preparation of high-purity lithium metal by molten salt electrolysis (extracting target ion using selective extraction includes performing electrochemical separation selective for the target ion to yield a concentrate). Page 11 – lines 19-22.
Regarding claim 10, Binnemans discloses extraction processes where the lithium from aqueous lithium chloride solution is removed in a second extraction circuit via contact with solvent from a first solvent extraction circuit (extracting target ion from target solution using an extraction process selective for the target ion). Page 23 – lines 15-35. The lithium becomes lithium hydroxide solution as the second extraction circuit is completed, with an additional ion exchange being performed for final purification of the lithium hydroxide solution (yield an intermediate and concentrate by using an extraction process selective for the target ion). Page 27 – lines 13-34; p. 28 – lines 5-10, 27-31. Organic impurities can be removed, and the solution is sent to the crystallization step, where the solution is concentrated by evaporation and removal of water (extraction process includes purification process that removes water, impurities, or both to yield concentrate from the intermediate, the purification process including one or more of water removal and impurity removal). Page 28 – lines 27-36; p. 29 – lines 1-27.
Regarding claim 18, Binnemans discloses processes (methods) related to refining lithium chloride. Abstract; p. 1 – lines 5-11. The process includes a step of obtaining lithium chloride from spodumene (earth material) by sodium carbonate pressure leaching and then selectively dissolving the lithium chloride (leaching a target ion from an earth material to form a target solution, the target ion being lithium). Page 6 – lines 23-26; p. 17 – lines 2-5, 12-14.
The process further includes a step of adding a solution of alkali metal hydroxide in an organic solvent to the selectively dissolved lithium chloride (p. 19 – lines 14-16); purifying organic solution by non-aqueous ion exchange (p. 20 – lines 17-20); dissolving the of lithium chloride in water (p. 22 – lines 34-36); converting lithium chloride to lithium hydroxide by solvent extraction (p. 23 – lines 15-18); and crystallizing the lithium hydroxide solution into lithium hydroxide monohydrate (p. 28 – lines 33-36; p. 29 – lines 1-5) (adding material derived from the target solution to a selective extraction process).
Binnemans discloses concurrent conversion of lithium carbonate into lithium hydroxide monohydrate (concurrently extracting target ion distinct from the target solution using an extraction process selective for the target ion). Page 5 – lines 9-10, 18-20; Figure 3. The lithium carbonate can be produced from salt lake brines or geothermal brines and treated with hydrochloric acid (aqueous sources). Page 17 – lines 4-7; p. 30 – lines 7-12. Binnemans also discloses using both solid lithium chloride or an aqueous lithium chloride solution as input materials. Page 5 – lines 17-20; Figure 1 – Input A and B.
Regarding claim 19, Binnemans discloses extraction processes where the lithium from aqueous lithium chloride solution is removed in a second extraction circuit via contact with solvent from a first solvent extraction circuit (extraction process includes an extraction stage, the extraction stage selectively extracts target ion from the aqueous source). Page 23 – lines 15-35. The lithium becomes lithium hydroxide solution as the second extraction circuit is completed, with an additional ion exchange being performed for final purification of the lithium hydroxide solution (concentrate containing target ion from the target solution and the aqueous source). Page 27 – lines 13-34; p. 28 – lines 5-10, 27-31. Organic impurities can be removed, and the solution is sent to the crystallization step, where the solution is concentrated by evaporation and removal of water (extraction process includes a purification stage that removes water or impurities from an intermediate obtained in the extraction stage). Page 28 – lines 27-36; p. 29 – lines 1-27.
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binnemans, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 12,412,940 (B1) to Dougherty (“Dougherty”).
Regarding claim 3, Binnemans does not disclose a step of contacting the earth material with a material from the selective extraction process.
Dougherty is directed to systems and methods for recovering lithium and various non-lithium components from lithium ion battery waste materials. Abstract; col. 1, lines 11-16; col. 2, lines 7-13. The method includes steps of creating a leachate slurry by leaching (col. 4, lines 61-67; col. 5, lines 1-3); passing the leachate to an ion-exchange system (col. 5, lines 60-67; col. 6, lines 1-11); and recovering lithium by precipitation (Fig. 1). After the ion exchange and lithium is removed, the leach solution is recycled back to the leach circuit (leaching target ion comprises contacting with a material from a selective extraction process). Col. 6, lines 22-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have returned one or more substances from the liquids resulting from the extraction processes of Binnemans to its step of leaching ores and brines (earth materials) because it would provide an opportunity to extract additional lithium from solution by re-exposing it to further leaching and extraction, thereby yielding additional target metal ion. Furthermore, the return of solutions from an extraction process would make the process more efficient by conserving materials and reducing costs through the reuse any useful substances contained in the treated solution.
Regarding claim 7, Binnemans does not disclose a step of contacting the earth material with a plurality of materials from the selective extraction process in stages according to target ion content of the materials in the selective extraction process.
Duogherty is directed to systems and methods for recovering lithium and various non-lithium components from lithium ion battery waste materials. Abstract; col. 1, lines 11-16; col. 2, lines 7-13. The method includes steps of creating a leachate slurry by leaching (col. 4, lines 61-67; col. 5, lines 1-3); passing the leachate to an ion-exchange system (col. 5, lines 60-67; col. 6, lines 1-11); and recovering lithium by precipitation (Fig. 1). After the ion exchange and lithium is removed, the leach solution is recycled back to the leach circuit, and if the solution is to be reused, the solution is reconditioned to recover acid (leaching target ion comprises contacting with a plurality of materials from the selective extraction process in stages). Col. 6, lines 22-44; Fig. 1. Since the leach solution returned to the leach circuit is reduced in lithium ion content, it is returned to the leach circuit deleted in lithium content (leaching comprises contact according to target ion content, i.e., depleted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have returned one or more substances from the liquids resulting from the extraction processes of Binnemans to its step of leaching ores and brines (earth materials) because it would provide an opportunity to extract additional lithium from solution by re-exposing it to further leaching and extraction, thereby yielding additional target metal ion. Furthermore, the return of solutions from an extraction process would make the process more efficient by conserving materials and reducing costs through the reuse in the leaching step of any useful substances (e.g., acid) contained in the treated solution.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binnemans, as applied to claims 5 and 18, respectively, above.
Regarding claim 6, Binnemans does not explicitly disclose monitoring a property of the target solution and material from the aqueous source and then basing blending on a target for property in an extraction feed. However, Binnemans conducts tests on the selective dissolution of chloride salts in ethanol (Example 1); dissolution of low-grade LiCl (Example 2); and dissolution of LiCl from mixtures mimicking brine compositions (Example 3).
Observing the dissolution behavior (property) of the solution that is fed to the extraction process (extraction feed) implies that the materials submitted to the extraction should be monitored. In addition, solubility implicitly dictates and affects characteristics of input solution fed to the extraction steps (blending is performed based on target for the property in the extraction feed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have checked or tested the materials submitted to the extraction step because initial checking or testing permits the user to maximize yield.
Regarding claim 20, Binnemans does not explicitly disclose monitoring a property of the target solution and selecting a location to add the target solution to the selective extraction process based on property.
Binnemans discloses the possibility of magnesium and calcium concentrations in lithium chloride derived from brines and reducing them by addition of sodium hydroxide. Page 18 – lines 13-21. Depending on the precipitation of magnesium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide, certain steps, such as step 3, can be omitted and the solution is transferred directly to step 4. Page 20 – lines 8-15.
To determine whether a step can be omitted, the composition (property) of the target solution must be tested (monitored). Deciding whether to omit a step requires the user to select where (location) the target solution is added based on the solution composition (property). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have monitored the composition of the target solution in Binnemans so that the user is informed of the chemical makeup of the solution and understands where in the extraction process to add target solution.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binnemans, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0011123 (A1) to Dinn et al. (“Dinn”).
Regarding claim 9, Binnemans does not disclose performing electrochemical separation.
Dinn is directed to a methods of recycling elements such as lithium. Abstract; para. [0002]. The method includes a step of subjecting lithium-rich solution or concentrated lithium-rich solution to create a LiCl (lithium chloride) stream. Para. [0020]. In an embodiment, the LiCl stream is subject to electrolysis and produces H2 and Cl2. Para. [0149]. The generated H2 and Cl2 may be used to generate HCl, which may be recycled back to Li solvent extraction, ion exchange, and delithiation steps. Para. [0150]; claim 20. Electrolysis may also produce NaOH, which may also be recycled back to Li solvent extraction, ion exchange, and delithiation steps. Para. [0049], [0150].
Given that Binnemans relies on NaOH and NaCl in the solvent exchange step (Figs. 1 and 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated an electrolysis step in the process of Binnemans to treat at least of portion of the lithium chloride because an electrolysis step would produce substances used for the solvent exchange step, thereby enhancing the self-sustainability and efficiency of the process.
Claims 11, 12-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binnemans in view of Dougherty.
Regarding claim 11, Binnemans discloses processes (methods) related to refining lithium chloride. Abstract; p. 1 – lines 5-11. The process includes a step of obtaining lithium chloride from spodumene (earth material) by sodium carbonate pressure leaching and then selectively dissolving the lithium chloride (leaching a lithium ion from an earth material to form a dilute lithium solution). Page 6 – lines 23-26; p. 17 – lines 2-5, 12-14.
The process further includes a step of adding a solution of alkali metal hydroxide in an organic solvent to the selectively dissolved lithium chloride (p. 19 – lines 14-16); purifying organic solution by non-aqueous ion exchange (p. 20 – lines 17-20); dissolving the of lithium chloride in water (p. 22 – lines 34-36); converting lithium chloride to lithium hydroxide by solvent extraction (p. 23 – lines 15-18); and crystallizing the lithium hydroxide solution into lithium hydroxide monohydrate (p. 28 – lines 33-36; p. 29 – lines 1-5) (extracting lithium ion from the dilute lithium solution using an extraction stage of an extraction process selective for lithium ion).
Binnemans discloses concurrent conversion of lithium carbonate into lithium hydroxide monohydrate (concurrent extraction of lithium ion using the extraction stage). Page 5 – lines 9-10, 18-20; Figure 3. The lithium carbonate can be produced from salt lake brines or geothermal brines and treated with hydrochloric acid (aqueous sources). Page 17 – lines 4-7; p. 30 – lines 7-12. Binnemans also discloses using both solid lithium chloride or an aqueous lithium chloride solution as input materials. Page 5 – lines 17-20; Figure 1 – Input A and B.
Binnemans does not disclose a step of contacting the earth material with a material from the selective extraction process.
Dougherty is directed to systems and methods for recovering lithium and various non-lithium components from lithium ion battery waste materials. Abstract; col. 1, lines 11-16; col. 2, lines 7-13. The method includes steps of creating a leachate slurry by leaching (col. 4, lines 61-67; col. 5, lines 1-3); passing the leachate to an ion-exchange system (col. 5, lines 60-67; col. 6, lines 1-11); and recovering lithium by precipitation (Fig. 1). After the ion exchange and lithium is removed, the leach solution is recycled back to the leach circuit (leaching target ion comprises contacting with a material from a selective extraction process). Col. 6, lines 22-26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have returned one or more substances from the liquids resulting from the extraction processes of Binnemans to its step of leaching ores and brines (earth materials) because it would provide an opportunity to extract additional lithium from solution by re-exposing it to further leaching and extraction, thereby yielding additional target metal ion. Furthermore, the return of solutions from an extraction process would make the process more efficient by conserving materials and reducing costs through the reuse any useful substances contained in the treated solution.
Regarding claim 12, Binnemans discloses extraction processes where the lithium from aqueous lithium chloride solution is removed in a second extraction circuit via contact with solvent from a first solvent extraction circuit (extracting lithium ion from aqueous solution). Page 23 – lines 15-35. The lithium becomes lithium hydroxide solution as the second extraction circuit is completed, with an additional ion exchange being performed for final purification of the lithium hydroxide solution (concurrent extraction from the aqueous source forms an intermediate). Page 27 – lines 13-34; p. 28 – lines 5-10, 27-31. Organic impurities can be removed, and the solution is sent to the crystallization step, where the solution is concentrated by evaporation and removal of water (purifying the intermediate to form a concentrate). Page 28 – lines 27-36; p. 29 – lines 1-27.
Regarding claim 13, Binnemans illustrates in Figure 1 that the input feeds may be combined (combining dilute lithium solution and aqueous source into a feed and routing the feed to the extraction stage).
Regarding claim 14, Binnemans discloses extraction processes where the lithium from aqueous lithium chloride solution is removed in a second extraction circuit via contact with solvent from a first solvent extraction circuit (extraction stage includes contacting feed with material selective for lithium ion in the extraction stage to remove lithium ion from the feed). Page 23 – lines 15-35. The lithium becomes lithium hydroxide solution as the second extraction circuit is completed, with an additional ion exchange being performed for final purification of the lithium hydroxide solution (lithium ion is unloaded from the selective material using stripping material to form a concentrate). Page 27 – lines 13-34; p. 28 – lines 5-10, 27-31.
Regarding claim 16, Binnemans does not disclose a step of contacting the earth material with a plurality of materials from the selective extraction process in stages according to target ion content of the materials in the selective extraction process.
Duogherty is directed to systems and methods for recovering lithium and various non-lithium components from lithium ion battery waste materials. Abstract; col. 1, lines 11-16; col. 2, lines 7-13. The method includes steps of creating a leachate slurry by leaching (col. 4, lines 61-67; col. 5, lines 1-3); passing the leachate to an ion-exchange system (col. 5, lines 60-67; col. 6, lines 1-11); and recovering lithium by precipitation (Fig. 1). After the ion exchange and lithium is removed, the leach solution is recycled back to the leach circuit, and if the solution is to be reused, the solution is reconditioned to recover acid (leaching lithium ion comprises contacting with a plurality of materials from the selective extraction process in stages). Col. 6, lines 22-44; Fig. 1. Since the leach solution returned to the leach circuit is reduced in lithium ion content, it is returned to the leach circuit deleted in lithium content (leaching comprises contact according to lithium ion content, i.e., depleted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have returned one or more substances from the liquids resulting from the extraction processes of Binnemans to its step of leaching ores and brines (earth materials) because it would provide an opportunity to extract additional lithium from solution by re-exposing it to further leaching and extraction, thereby yielding additional target metal ion. Furthermore, the return of solutions from an extraction process would make the process more efficient by conserving materials and reducing costs through the reuse in the leaching step of any useful substances (e.g., acid) contained in the treated solution.
Regarding claim 17, Binnemans teaches converting the input material (e.g., brines, ore) into lithium chloride (p. 11 – lines 16-18), which can be further converted to lithium carbonate (p. 6 – lines 6-9; p. 11 – lines 23-26), lithium hydroxide (p. 28 – lines 3-4, 27-31, 33-36; p. 29 – lines 1-8), and/or lithium metal (p. 11 – lines 19-22).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binnemans in view of Dougherty, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Dinn.
Regarding claim 15, Binnemans does not disclose performing electrochemical separation.
Dinn is directed to a methods of recycling elements such as lithium. Abstract; para. [0002]. The method includes a step of subjecting lithium-rich solution or concentrated lithium-rich solution to create a LiCl (lithium chloride) stream. Para. [0020]. In an embodiment, the LiCl stream is subject to electrolysis and produces H2 and Cl2. Para. [0149]. The generated H2 and Cl2 may be used to generate HCl, which may be recycled back to Li solvent extraction, ion exchange, and delithiation steps. Para. [0150]; claim 20. Electrolysis may also produce NaOH, which may also be recycled back to Li solvent extraction, ion exchange, and delithiation steps. Para. [0049], [0150].
Given that Binnemans relies on NaOH and NaCl in the solvent exchange step (Figs. 1 and 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated an electrolysis step in the process of Binnemans to treat at least of portion of the lithium chloride because an electrolysis step would produce substances used for the solvent exchange step, thereby enhancing the self-sustainability and efficiency of the process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, Keith D. Hendricks, can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
March 04, 2026