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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by El-Eswed “Solvent Extraction of Li+ using organophosphorous ligands in presence of ammonia”.
Regarding claim 1, 13-14, and 16-17, CN ‘566 teaches a liquid-liquid extraction of lithium (Abstract). The process includes an extraction composition that includes an organic phase including pentanol (Preparation of Organic and Aqueous Solutions). The extraction composition may further include a co-extractant an organophosphate (Preparation of Organic and Aqueous Solutions). The aqueous solution may contain salts of multiple metals such as sodium and potassium (Influence of Competing Ions (Na+ and K+) on Li+ Extraction: A Selectivity Study). The aqueous phase may include a base as ammonia (Abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 5, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Eswed “Solvent Extraction of Li+ using organophosphorous ligands in presence of ammonia”.
Regarding claim 5, El-Eswed does not expressly give an example of the organic solvent being chloroform. However, the introduction of El-Eswed expressly teaches the chloroform is a known solvent in similar processes of liquid-liquid extraction (Introduction). At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to use chloroform as a suitable solvent with predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, El-Eswed does not expressly give an example of the organophosphate being phosphine oxide. However, the introduction of El-Eswed expressly teaches phosphine oxide is a known organophosphate in similar processes of liquid-liquid extraction (Introduction). At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to use phosphine oxide as a suitable organophosphate with predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 13-14, and 16-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
