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 the Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 05/08/2026. Claims 1-19 and 21-24 are pending in the current Office action. Claims 1, 5-8, and 15-19 were amended by Applicant. Claim 20 was cancelled by Applicant. Claims 21-24 are new claims.
Status of the Rejection
The objections to claims 1, 5-8, 16, and 18-19 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 15-16 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1 and 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
New rejections of claims 15-16, 18-19, and 21-24 are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
The objection to claim 3 is maintained.
The objections to claims 2-4 for depending from a rejected claim are maintained, however the cumulative limitations of these claims remain allowable for the reasons enumerated in the previous Office action.
Claim 17 is now objected to for depending from a rejected claim, but would be allowable if amended into independent form for the reasons enumerated in the previous Office action.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that Applicant did not confirm the telephonic election of group I in the response filed 05/08/2026. However, Applicant cancelled each of the claims corresponding to group II in this response, which is considered an implicit affirmation of the telephonic election. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 22-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 5 recites “the lithium-recovery solution”, but should recite “the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” to be consistent with the terminology used in claims 1-3;
Claims 22-24 recite “comprises the” in line 1, but should recite “comprises [[the]]” to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Mantia (DE 102012212770 A1) in view of Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902).
Regarding claim 1, La Mantia teaches a method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium (“a method for the efficient extraction of lithium from salt solutions” para. 2), the method comprising:
contacting an aqueous leachate solution (para. 21) with a lithium-storage electrode (“a lithium iron phosphate electrode (LFP)” Id.) and carrying out an electrochemical lithium ion extraction from the aqueous leachate solution using the lithium-storage electrode, whereby the lithium-storage electrode becomes lithiated (“lithium ions were stored in the FePO4 cathode at a constant current density of -0.5 mA cm-2” para. 21, see also para. 22); and
contacting the lithiated lithium-storage electrode with an aqueous lithium-recovery solution, wherein the aqueous lithium-recovery solution is not the same solution as the aqueous leachate solution (“the two electrodes (LFP and Ag) were transferred to the recovery cell … The recovery solution was a 50 mM aqueous KCl solution” para. 23), and carrying out an electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby lithium ions from the lithiated lithium-storage electrode are released into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“a constant current density of 0.5 mA cm-2 at the LiFePO4 cathode was set, causing the battery electrodes to release the stored Li+ and Cl- ions (reverse reaction) into the recovery solution” Id.).
La Mantia does not teach the method is a method of extracting lithium from lithium iron phosphate, wherein the method comprises a step of leaching lithium ions from lithium iron phosphate into the aqueous leachate solution.
However, Chen teaches a method of recovering lithium from spent lithium iron phosphate (SLFP) (see e.g., abstract), wherein the recovery method comprises leaching lithium ions from lithium iron phosphate into an aqueous leachate solution (“extraction efficiency of Li, Fe, and P when using an H2SO4 concentration ranging from 0.2 mol L-1 to 0.6 mol L-1” § 2.1.1. and “All solutions were prepared using ultrapure water” § 3.1.), which is desirable for recovering lithium from lithium iron phosphate batteries (e.g., abstract).
As La Mantia teaches a method for the electrochemical recovery of lithium from aqueous solutions, La Mantia is analogous art to the instant invention. As Chen teaches a method for the extraction and recovery of lithium ions from lithium iron phosphate, Chen is analogous art for the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia such that it is a method for extracting lithium ions from lithium iron phosphate, by adding a step of leaching lithium ions from lithium iron phosphate into the aqueous leachate solution, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium from spent lithium iron phosphate batteries, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, La Mantia further teaches carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“an additional amount of energy is needed to transfer lithium into the recovery solution. This difference is due to energy losses in the transfer process, which is caused by … water splitting …” para. 43; as evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, water splitting during the delithiation corresponds to hydrogen evolution at the cathode, which results in the formation of hydroxide ions and the formation/accumulation of lithium hydroxide, see para. 50 and eq. 6).
Regarding claim 6, modified La Mantia does not teach a step of introducing carbon dioxide, a bicarbonate salt, or a carbonate salt into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution to recover lithium as LiHCO3 or Li2CO3 from the aqueous lithium-recovery solution.
However, Chen further teaches a step of introducing a carbonate salt (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4. and Fig. 6) to recovered lithium hydroxide (§ 3.2.3. and Fig. 6), which provides the predictable benefit of producing lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production (see e.g., abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia by adding a step of introducing sodium carbonate, a carbonate salt, into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution to recover lithium as Li2CO3 from the lithium-recovery solution, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 7, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
La Mantia further teaches carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“an additional amount of energy is needed to transfer lithium into the recovery solution. This difference is due to energy losses in the transfer process, which is caused by … oxygen reduction” para. 43, as evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, oxygen reduction during delithiation results in the formation of hydroxide ions and the formation/accumulation of lithium hydroxide, see para. 51 and eq. 7).
Regarding claim 8, modified La Mantia does not teach a step of introducing carbon dioxide, a bicarbonate salt, or a carbonate salt into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution to recover lithium as LiHCO3 or Li2CO3 from the aqueous lithium-recovery solution.
However, Chen further teaches a step of introducing a carbonate salt (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4. and Fig. 6) to recovered aqueous lithium hydroxide (§ 3.2.3. and Fig. 6), which provides the predictable benefit of producing lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production (see e.g., abstract).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia by adding a step of introducing sodium carbonate, a carbonate salt, into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution to recover lithium as Li2CO3 from the lithium-recovery solution, as taught by Chen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Mantia in view of Chen as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Kanoh (US Pat. No. 5198081).
Regarding claim 9, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified La Mantia does not teach carrying out an electrochemical oxygen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical lithium ion extraction, whereby water molecules in the aqueous leachate solution are oxidized to form protons in the aqueous leachate solution.
However, Kanoh teaches a method of electrochemically recovering lithium ions from an aqueous solution (abstract), wherein during the lithium ion extraction an electrochemical oxygen evolution reaction is simultaneously performed, whereby water molecules in the aqueous leachate solution are oxidized to form protons in the aqueous leachate solution (while Kanoh does not explicitly teach the counter reaction during intercalation, this reaction is oxidation of water to oxygen, as evidenced by La Mantia para. 9 “Kanoh et al. were the first to propose an electrochemical process for the extraction of lithium from aqueous solutions … At the counter electrode, oxidation to O2 occurs during the anodic pass” para. 9).
As Kanoh teaches a method for electrochemically recovering lithium ions from an aqueous solution, Kanoh is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia, such that during the lithium ion extraction an electrochemical oxygen evolution reaction is simultaneously performed, whereby water molecules in the aqueous leachate solution are oxidized to form protons in the aqueous leachate solution, as taught by Kanoh. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Kanoh teaches electrochemical oxygen evolution is a suitable anodic counter reaction to the electrochemical intercalation of lithium ions in a lithium-storage cathode. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 10, modified La Mantia, via Chen, further teaches the aqueous leachate solution further comprises sulfate ions (“extraction efficiency of Li, Fe, and P when using an H2SO4 concentration ranging from 0.2 mol L-1 to 0.6 mol L-1” § 2.1.1.).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Mantia in view of Chen as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Choi (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0246998 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified La Mantia does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 3.
However, Choi teaches that LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, is a suitable lithium-storage electrode material for the recovery of lithium ions via intercalation from an aqueous solution (“suitable materials for Li-storage electrode 1 include … LiTi2(PO4)3” para. 49).
As Choi teaches a method for the electrochemical recovery of lithium ions from an aqueous solution, Choi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia by using LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, as the lithium-storage electrode material, as taught by Choi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Choi teaches LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, is a suitable lithium-storage electrode material for the recovery of lithium ions via intercalation from an aqueous solution. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, as a lithium-storage electrode material) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 12, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified La Mantia does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises TiP2O7.
However, Choi teaches that TiP2O7 is a suitable lithium-storage electrode material for the recovery of lithium ions via intercalation from an aqueous solution (“suitable materials for Li-storage electrode 1 include … TiP2O7 …” para. 49).
As Choi teaches a method for the electrochemical recovery of lithium ions from an aqueous solution, Choi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia by using TiP2O7 as the lithium-storage electrode material, as taught by Choi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Choi teaches TiP2O7 is a suitable lithium-storage electrode material for the recovery of lithium ions via intercalation from an aqueous solution. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., TiP2O7 as a lithium-storage electrode material) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Mantia in view of Chen as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Yao et al. (“Crystalline polycyclic quinone derivatives as organic positive-electrode materials for use in rechargeable lithium batteries” Materials Science and Engineering B 177 (2012) 483).
Regarding claim 13, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified La Mantia does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone.
However, Yao teaches that 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode (see e.g., abstract).
As Yao teaches materials for lithium-storage electrodes, Yao is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia, such that the lithium-storage electrode comprises 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, as taught by Yao. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yao teaches 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Mantia in view of Chen as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Wu et al. (“An organic cathode material based on a polyimide/CNT nanocomposite for lithium ion batteries” J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013, 1, 6366).
Regarding claim 14, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Modified La Mantia does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises polyimide.
However, Wu teaches a polyimide material that is suitable for a lithium-storage electrode (see title and para. bridging p. 6369-6370) and shows enhanced cycling stability (para. bridging p. 6369-6370).
As Wu teaches a material for lithium-storage electrodes, Wu is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia, such that the lithium-storage electrode comprises polyimide, as taught by Wu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Wu teaches polyimide is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode, and polyimide composites provide enhanced cycling stability. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 15-16, 18-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Mantia (DE 102012212770 A1) in view of Choi (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0246998 A1) and Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902).
Regarding claim 15, La Mantia teaches a method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium from a lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“a method for the efficient extraction of lithium from salt solutions” para. 2), the method comprising:
contacting the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (para. 21) with a lithium-storage electrode (“a lithium iron phosphate electrode (LFP)” Id.) and a counter electrode (“a silver/silver chloride electrode (Ag) as the anode” Id.);
carrying out an electrochemical lithium ion extraction from the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution using the lithium-storage electrode, whereby the lithium-storage electrode becomes lithiated (“lithium ions were stored in the FePO4 cathode at a constant current density of -0.5 mA cm-2” para. 21, see also para. 22);
carrying out an electrochemical oxidation in the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution simultaneously with the electrochemical lithium ion extraction (“a chloride capture electrode (Ag) as the anode” para. 12, see also paras. 21-22); and
contacting the lithiated lithium-storage electrode with an aqueous lithium-recovery solution comprising anions, wherein the lithium-recovery solution is not the same solution as the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“the two electrodes (LFP and Ag) were transferred to the recovery cell … The recovery solution was a 50 mM aqueous KCl solution” para. 23), and carrying out an electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium- storage electrode, whereby lithium ions from the lithiated lithium-storage electrode are released into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“a constant current density of 0.5 mA cm-2 at the LiFePO4 cathode was set, causing the battery electrodes to release the stored Li+ and Cl- ions (reverse reaction) into the recovery solution” Id.).
LaMantia does not explicitly teach recovering lithium-containing chemicals produced by a reaction of the anions with the released lithium ions.
However, Chen teaches a step of introducing a carbonate salt (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4. and Fig. 6) to electrochemically recovered lithium hydroxide (§ 3.2.3. and Fig. 6), which provides the predictable benefit of producing lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production (see e.g., abstract).
As Chen and LaMantia each teach methods of recovering lithium ions from aqueous solutions, Chen and LaMantia are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of LaMantia by including carbonate anions in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution, such that Li2CO3, a lithium-containing chemical, is produced by a reaction of the carbonate ions with the released lithium ions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium as Li2CO3, a valuable starting material in battery production, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
La Mantia does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 3, TiP2O7, 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, or polyimide.
However, Choi teaches that LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, and TiP2O7 are suitable lithium-storage electrode materials for the recovery of lithium ions via intercalation from an aqueous solution (“suitable materials for Li-storage electrode 1 include … TiP2O7 … LiTi2(PO4)3” para. 49).
As Choi teaches a method for the electrochemical recovery of lithium ions from an aqueous solution, Choi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia by using LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, or TiP2O7 as the lithium-storage electrode material, as taught by Choi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Choi teaches LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, and TiP2O7 are suitable lithium-storage electrode materials for the recovery of lithium ions via intercalation from an aqueous solution. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 16, modified La Mantia further teaches, via Choi, the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1 (“suitable materials for Li-storage electrode 1 include … LiTi2(PO4)3” para. 49).
Regarding claim 18, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
La Mantia further teaches carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“an additional amount of energy is needed to transfer lithium into the recovery solution. This difference is due to energy losses in the transfer process, which is caused by … water splitting …” para. 43. As evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, water splitting during the delithiation is due to hydrogen evolution, which results in the formation of hydroxide ions and the formation/accumulation of lithium hydroxide, see para. 50 and eq. 6).
Regarding claim 19, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
La Mantia further teaches carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“an additional amount of energy is needed to transfer lithium into the recovery solution. This difference is due to energy losses in the transfer process, which is caused by … oxygen reduction” para. 43, as evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, oxygen reduction during delithiation results in the formation of hydroxide ions and the formation/accumulation of lithium hydroxide, see para. 51 and eq. 7).
Regarding claim 24, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Modified La Mantia further teaches, via Choi, the lithium-storage electrode comprises TiP2O7. (“suitable materials for Li-storage electrode 1 include … TiP2O7 …” para. 49).
Claims 15, 18-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Mantia (DE 102012212770 A1) in view Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902) and Yao et al. (“Crystalline polycyclic quinone derivatives as organic positive-electrode materials for use in rechargeable lithium batteries” Materials Science and Engineering B 177 (2012) 483).
Regarding claim 15, La Mantia teaches a method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium from a lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“a method for the efficient extraction of lithium from salt solutions” para. 2), the method comprising:
contacting the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (para. 21) with a lithium-storage electrode (“a lithium iron phosphate electrode (LFP)” Id.) and a counter electrode (“a silver/silver chloride electrode (Ag) as the anode” Id.);
carrying out an electrochemical lithium ion extraction from the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution using the lithium-storage electrode, whereby the lithium-storage electrode becomes lithiated (“lithium ions were stored in the FePO4 cathode at a constant current density of -0.5 mA cm-2” para. 21, see also para. 22);
carrying out an electrochemical oxidation in the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution simultaneously with the electrochemical lithium ion extraction (“a chloride capture electrode (Ag) as the anode” para. 12, see also paras. 21-22); and
contacting the lithiated lithium-storage electrode with an aqueous lithium-recovery solution comprising anions, wherein the lithium-recovery solution is not the same solution as the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“the two electrodes (LFP and Ag) were transferred to the recovery cell … The recovery solution was a 50 mM aqueous KCl solution” para. 23), and carrying out an electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium- storage electrode, whereby lithium ions from the lithiated lithium-storage electrode are released into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“a constant current density of 0.5 mA cm-2 at the LiFePO4 cathode was set, causing the battery electrodes to release the stored Li+ and Cl- ions (reverse reaction) into the recovery solution” Id.).
LaMantia does not explicitly teach recovering lithium-containing chemicals produced by a reaction of the anions with the released lithium ions.
However, Chen teaches a step of introducing a carbonate salt (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4. and Fig. 6) to electrochemically recovered lithium hydroxide (§ 3.2.3. and Fig. 6), which provides the predictable benefit of producing lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production (see e.g., abstract).
As Chen and LaMantia each teach methods of recovering lithium ions from aqueous solutions, Chen and LaMantia are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of LaMantia by including carbonate anions in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution, such that Li2CO3, a lithium-containing chemical, is produced by a reaction of the carbonate ions with the released lithium ions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium as Li2CO3, a valuable starting material in battery production, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
La Mantia does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 3, TiP2O7, 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, or polyimide.
However, Yao teaches that 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode (see e.g., abstract).
As Yao teaches materials for lithium-storage electrodes, Yao is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia, such that the lithium-storage electrode comprises 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, as taught by Yao. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yao teaches 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
La Mantia further teaches carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“an additional amount of energy is needed to transfer lithium into the recovery solution. This difference is due to energy losses in the transfer process, which is caused by … water splitting …” para. 43, as evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, water splitting during the delithiation is due to hydrogen evolution, which results in the formation of hydroxide ions and the formation/accumulation of lithium hydroxide, see para. 50 and eq. 6).
Regarding claim 19, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
La Mantia further teaches carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“an additional amount of energy is needed to transfer lithium into the recovery solution. This difference is due to energy losses in the transfer process, which is caused by … oxygen reduction” para. 43, as evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, oxygen reduction during delithiation results in the formation of hydroxide ions and the formation/accumulation of lithium hydroxide, see para. 51 and eq. 7).
Regarding claim 22, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Modified La Mantia further teaches, via Yao, the lithium-storage electrode comprises 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone (see e.g., abstract).
Claims 15, 18-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over La Mantia (DE 102012212770 A1) in view Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902) and Wu et al. (“An organic cathode material based on a polyimide/CNT nanocomposite for lithium ion batteries” J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013, 1, 6366).
Regarding claim 15, La Mantia teaches a method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium from a lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“a method for the efficient extraction of lithium from salt solutions” para. 2), the method comprising:
contacting the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (para. 21) with a lithium-storage electrode (“a lithium iron phosphate electrode (LFP)” Id.) and a counter electrode (“a silver/silver chloride electrode (Ag) as the anode” Id.);
carrying out an electrochemical lithium ion extraction from the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution using the lithium-storage electrode, whereby the lithium-storage electrode becomes lithiated (“lithium ions were stored in the FePO4 cathode at a constant current density of -0.5 mA cm-2” para. 21, see also para. 22);
carrying out an electrochemical oxidation in the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution simultaneously with the electrochemical lithium ion extraction (“a chloride capture electrode (Ag) as the anode” para. 12, see also paras. 21-22); and
contacting the lithiated lithium-storage electrode with an aqueous lithium-recovery solution comprising anions, wherein the lithium-recovery solution is not the same solution as the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“the two electrodes (LFP and Ag) were transferred to the recovery cell … The recovery solution was a 50 mM aqueous KCl solution” para. 23), and carrying out an electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium- storage electrode, whereby lithium ions from the lithiated lithium-storage electrode are released into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“a constant current density of 0.5 mA cm-2 at the LiFePO4 cathode was set, causing the battery electrodes to release the stored Li+ and Cl- ions (reverse reaction) into the recovery solution” Id.).
LaMantia does not explicitly teach recovering lithium-containing chemicals produced by a reaction of the anions with the released lithium ions.
However, Chen teaches a step of introducing a carbonate salt (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4. and Fig. 6) to electrochemically recovered lithium hydroxide (§ 3.2.3. and Fig. 6), which provides the predictable benefit of producing lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production (see e.g., abstract).
As Chen and LaMantia each teach methods of recovering lithium ions from aqueous solutions, Chen and LaMantia are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of LaMantia by including carbonate anions in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution, such that Li2CO3, a lithium-containing chemical, is produced by a reaction of the carbonate ions with the released lithium ions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium as Li2CO3, a valuable starting material in battery production, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
La Mantia does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 3, TiP2O7, 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, or polyimide.
However, Wu teaches a polyimide material that is suitable for a lithium-storage electrode (see title and para. bridging p. 6369-6370) and shows enhanced cycling stability (para. bridging p. 6369-6370).
As Wu teaches a material for lithium-storage electrodes, Wu is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of La Mantia, such that the lithium-storage electrode comprises polyimide, as taught by Wu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Wu teaches polyimide is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode, and polyimide composites provide enhanced cycling stability. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
La Mantia further teaches carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“an additional amount of energy is needed to transfer lithium into the recovery solution. This difference is due to energy losses in the transfer process, which is caused by … water splitting …” para. 43, as evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, water splitting during the delithiation is due to hydrogen evolution, which results in the formation of hydroxide ions and the formation/accumulation of lithium hydroxide, see para. 50 and eq. 6).
Regarding claim 19, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
La Mantia further teaches carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“an additional amount of energy is needed to transfer lithium into the recovery solution. This difference is due to energy losses in the transfer process, which is caused by … oxygen reduction” para. 43, as evidenced by e.g., the instant specification, oxygen reduction during delithiation results in the formation of hydroxide ions and the formation/accumulation of lithium hydroxide, see para. 51 and eq. 7).
Regarding claim 23, modified La Mantia teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Modified La Mantia further teaches, via Wu, the lithium-storage electrode comprises polyimide (see title and para. bridging p. 6369-6370).
Claims 15-16, 18-19, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (“Direct electrochemical lithium recovery from acidic lithium-ion battery leachate using intercalation electrodes” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105837 and SI) in view of Choi (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0246998 A1) and Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902).
Regarding claim 15, Jang teaches a method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium from a lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (abstract), the method comprising:
contacting the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“LIB leachate” § 3.2.1. para. 1 and see also § 2.3., and Table S1) with a lithium-storage electrode (“as-prepared MnO2 electrode as a working electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, see also § 2.1.) and a counter electrode (“the AC [activated carbon] electrode as a counter electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, see also § 2.1.);
carrying out an electrochemical lithium ion extraction from the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution using the lithium-storage electrode, whereby the lithium-storage electrode becomes lithiated (“lithium is gradually intercalated into the MnO2 lattice with time during the adsorption” § 3.2.1. para. 2);
carrying out an electrochemical oxidation in the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution simultaneously with the electrochemical lithium ion extraction (“the AC electrode as a counter electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, as evidenced by e.g., § 3.1. an electrochemical oxidation necessarily accompanies the reduction of the MnO2 during lithium incorporation); and
contacting the lithiated lithium-storage electrode with an aqueous lithium-recovery solution comprising anions, wherein the lithium-recovery solution is not the same solution as the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution, and carrying out an electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby lithium ions from the lithiated lithium-storage electrode are released into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“After the electrochemical adsorption, the reactor was washed with deionized water to remove the remaining solution in the reactor, and then the electrochemical desorption was carried out with a 0.03 M KCl solution as a supporting electrolyte.” § 2.3. para. 1).
Jang does not explicitly teach recovering lithium-containing chemicals produced by a reaction of the anions with the released lithium ions.
However, Chen teaches a step of introducing a carbonate salt (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4. and Fig. 6) to electrochemically recovered lithium hydroxide (§ 3.2.3. and Fig. 6), which provides the predictable benefit of producing lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production (see e.g., abstract).
As Chen and Jang each teach methods of recovering lithium ions from aqueous solutions, Chen and Jang are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jang by including carbonate anions in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution, such that Li2CO3, a lithium-containing chemical, is produced by a reaction of the carbonate ions with the released lithium ions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium as Li2CO3, a valuable starting material in battery production, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Jang does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 3, TiP2O7, 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, or polyimide.
However, Choi teaches that LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, and TiP2O7 are suitable lithium-storage electrode materials for the recovery of lithium ions via intercalation from an aqueous solution (“suitable materials for Li-storage electrode 1 include … TiP2O7 … LiTi2(PO4)3” para. 49).
As Choi teaches a method for the electrochemical recovery of lithium ions from an aqueous solution, Choi is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jang by using LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, or TiP2O7 as the lithium-storage electrode material, as taught by Choi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Choi teaches LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1, and TiP2O7 are suitable lithium-storage electrode materials for the recovery of lithium ions via intercalation from an aqueous solution. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jang further teaches, via Choi, the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where x = 1 (“suitable materials for Li-storage electrode 1 include … LiTi2(PO4)3” para. 49).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (see below).
While Jang is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the electrochemical delithiation, Jang teaches the delithiation solution is an aqueous solution (§ 2.3.). As evidenced by e.g., para. 84 of the instant specification, application of a cathodic potential to a counter electrode immersed in an aqueous solution during an electrochemical delithiation necessarily produces at least some hydrogen gas by proton reduction, resulting in the production of hydroxide ions and the accumulation of at least some lithium hydroxide in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. It is therefore considered that Jang necessarily teaches at least some electrochemical hydrogen evolution simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Jang therefore reads on the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution”.
Alternatively, because Jang teaches the delithiation occurs in aqueous solution and is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the delithiation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the cathodic counter reaction of Jang includes at least some electrochemical hydrogen evolution, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Therefore, Jang renders the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” obvious.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (see below).
While Jang is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the electrochemical delithiation, Jang teaches the delithiation solution is an aqueous solution (§ 2.3.), and does not describe any procedures for the exclusion of oxygen from the system. As evidenced by e.g., para. 84 of the instant specification, application of a cathodic potential to a counter electrode immersed in an aqueous solution comprising dissolved oxygen gas during an electrochemical delithiation necessarily results in at least some reduction of said dissolved oxygen gas, resulting in the production of hydroxide ions and the accumulation of at least some lithium hydroxide in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. It is therefore considered that Jang necessarily teaches at least some electrochemical oxygen reduction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Jang therefore reads on the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution”.
Alternatively, because Jang teaches the delithiation occurs in aqueous solution, does not describe any means for removing oxygen from the system, and is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the delithiation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the cathodic counter reaction of Jang includes at least some electrochemical oxygen reduction, whereby oxygen molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Therefore, Jang renders the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” obvious.
Regarding claim 21, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution is an acidic solution (“acidic lithium-ion battery leachate” title, see also § 4).
Modified Jang further teaches, via Chen, the aqueous lithium-recovery solution is a basic solution (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4., as evidenced by e.g., para. 53 of the instant specification, solutions of carbonate ion are basic).
Regarding claim 24, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Modified Jang further teaches, via Choi, the lithium-storage electrode comprises TiP2O7 (“suitable materials for Li-storage electrode 1 include … TiP2O7 …” para. 49).
Claims 15, 17-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (“Direct electrochemical lithium recovery from acidic lithium-ion battery leachate using intercalation electrodes” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105837 and SI) in view of Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902) and Yao et al. (“Crystalline polycyclic quinone derivatives as organic positive-electrode materials for use in rechargeable lithium batteries” Materials Science and Engineering B 177 (2012) 483).
Regarding claim 15, Jang teaches a method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium from a lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (abstract), the method comprising:
contacting the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“LIB leachate” § 3.2.1. para. 1 and see also § 2.3., and Table S1) with a lithium-storage electrode (“as-prepared MnO2 electrode as a working electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, see also § 2.1.) and a counter electrode (“the AC [activated carbon] electrode as a counter electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, see also § 2.1.);
carrying out an electrochemical lithium ion extraction from the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution using the lithium-storage electrode, whereby the lithium-storage electrode becomes lithiated (“lithium is gradually intercalated into the MnO2 lattice with time during the adsorption” § 3.2.1. para. 2);
carrying out an electrochemical oxidation in the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution simultaneously with the electrochemical lithium ion extraction (“the AC electrode as a counter electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, as evidenced by e.g., § 3.1. an electrochemical oxidation necessarily accompanies the reduction of the MnO2 during lithium incorporation); and
contacting the lithiated lithium-storage electrode with an aqueous lithium-recovery solution comprising anions, wherein the lithium-recovery solution is not the same solution as the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution, and carrying out an electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby lithium ions from the lithiated lithium-storage electrode are released into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“After the electrochemical adsorption, the reactor was washed with deionized water to remove the remaining solution in the reactor, and then the electrochemical desorption was carried out with a 0.03 M KCl solution as a supporting electrolyte.” § 2.3. para. 1).
Jang does not explicitly teach recovering lithium-containing chemicals produced by a reaction of the anions with the released lithium ions.
However, Chen teaches a step of introducing a carbonate salt (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4. and Fig. 6) to electrochemically recovered lithium hydroxide (§ 3.2.3. and Fig. 6), which provides the predictable benefit of producing lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production (see e.g., abstract).
As Chen and Jang each teach methods of recovering lithium ions from aqueous solutions, Chen and Jang are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jang by including carbonate anions in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution, such that Li2CO3, a lithium-containing chemical, is produced by a reaction of the carbonate ions with the released lithium ions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium as Li2CO3, a valuable starting material in battery production, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Jang does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 3, TiP2O7, 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, or polyimide.
However, Yao teaches that 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode (see e.g., abstract).
As Yao teaches materials for lithium-storage electrodes, Yao is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jang, such that the lithium-storage electrode comprises 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, as taught by Yao. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Yao teaches 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (see below).
While Jang is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the electrochemical delithiation, Jang teaches the delithiation solution is an aqueous solution (§ 2.3.). As evidenced by e.g., para. 84 of the instant specification, application of a cathodic potential to a counter electrode immersed in an aqueous solution during an electrochemical delithiation necessarily produces at least some hydrogen gas by proton reduction, resulting in the production of hydroxide ions and the accumulation of at least some lithium hydroxide in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. It is therefore considered that Jang necessarily teaches at least some electrochemical hydrogen evolution simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Jang therefore reads on the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution”.
Alternatively, because Jang teaches the delithiation occurs in aqueous solution and is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the delithiation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the cathodic counter reaction of Jang includes at least some electrochemical hydrogen evolution, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Therefore, Jang renders the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” obvious.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (see below).
While Jang is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the electrochemical delithiation, Jang teaches the delithiation solution is an aqueous solution (§ 2.3.), and does not describe any procedures for the exclusion of oxygen from the system. As evidenced by e.g., para. 84 of the instant specification, application of a cathodic potential to a counter electrode immersed in an aqueous solution comprising dissolved oxygen gas during an electrochemical delithiation necessarily results in at least some reduction of said dissolved oxygen gas, resulting in the production of hydroxide ions and the accumulation of at least some lithium hydroxide in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. It is therefore considered that Jang necessarily teaches at least some electrochemical oxygen reduction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Jang therefore reads on the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution”.
Alternatively, because Jang teaches the delithiation occurs in aqueous solution, does not describe any means for removing oxygen from the system, and is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the delithiation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the cathodic counter reaction of Jang includes at least some electrochemical oxygen reduction, whereby oxygen molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Therefore, Jang renders the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” obvious.
Regarding claim 21, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution is an acidic solution (“acidic lithium-ion battery leachate” title, see also § 4).
Modified Jang further teaches, via Chen, the aqueous lithium-recovery solution is a basic solution (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4., as evidenced by e.g., para. 53 of the instant specification, solutions of carbonate ion are basic).
Regarding claim 22, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Modified Jang further teaches, via Yao, the lithium-storage electrode comprises 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone (see e.g., abstract).
Claims 15, 17-19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (“Direct electrochemical lithium recovery from acidic lithium-ion battery leachate using intercalation electrodes” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105837 and SI) in view of Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902) and Wu et al. (“An organic cathode material based on a polyimide/CNT nanocomposite for lithium ion batteries” J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013, 1, 6366).
Regarding claim 15, Jang teaches a method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium from a lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (abstract), the method comprising:
contacting the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution (“LIB leachate” § 3.2.1. para. 1 and see also § 2.3., and Table S1) with a lithium-storage electrode (“as-prepared MnO2 electrode as a working electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, see also § 2.1.) and a counter electrode (“the AC [activated carbon] electrode as a counter electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, see also § 2.1.);
carrying out an electrochemical lithium ion extraction from the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution using the lithium-storage electrode, whereby the lithium-storage electrode becomes lithiated (“lithium is gradually intercalated into the MnO2 lattice with time during the adsorption” § 3.2.1. para. 2);
carrying out an electrochemical oxidation in the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution simultaneously with the electrochemical lithium ion extraction (“the AC electrode as a counter electrode” § 2.3. para. 1, as evidenced by e.g., § 3.1. an electrochemical oxidation necessarily accompanies the reduction of the MnO2 during lithium incorporation); and
contacting the lithiated lithium-storage electrode with an aqueous lithium-recovery solution comprising anions, wherein the lithium-recovery solution is not the same solution as the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution, and carrying out an electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby lithium ions from the lithiated lithium-storage electrode are released into the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (“After the electrochemical adsorption, the reactor was washed with deionized water to remove the remaining solution in the reactor, and then the electrochemical desorption was carried out with a 0.03 M KCl solution as a supporting electrolyte.” § 2.3. para. 1).
Jang does not explicitly teach recovering lithium-containing chemicals produced by a reaction of the anions with the released lithium ions.
However, Chen teaches a step of introducing a carbonate salt (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4. and Fig. 6) to electrochemically recovered lithium hydroxide (§ 3.2.3. and Fig. 6), which provides the predictable benefit of producing lithium carbonate, a valuable starting material in battery production (see e.g., abstract).
As Chen and Jang each teach methods of recovering lithium ions from aqueous solutions, Chen and Jang are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jang by by including carbonate anions in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution, such that Li2CO3, a lithium-containing chemical, is produced by a reaction of the carbonate ions with the released lithium ions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of recovering lithium as Li2CO3, a valuable starting material in battery production, as taught by Chen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Jang does not teach the lithium-storage electrode comprises LixTi2(PO4)3, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 3, TiP2O7, 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, or polyimide.
However, Wu teaches a polyimide material that is suitable for a lithium-storage electrode (see title and para. bridging p. 6369-6370) and shows enhanced cycling stability (para. bridging p. 6369-6370).
As Wu teaches a material for lithium-storage electrodes, Wu is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Jang, such that the lithium-storage electrode comprises polyimide, as taught by Wu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Wu teaches polyimide is a suitable material for a lithium-storage electrode, and polyimide composites provide enhanced cycling stability. Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (see below).
While Jang is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the electrochemical delithiation, Jang teaches the delithiation solution is an aqueous solution (§ 2.3.). As evidenced by e.g., para. 84 of the instant specification, application of a cathodic potential to a counter electrode immersed in an aqueous solution during an electrochemical delithiation necessarily produces at least some hydrogen gas by proton reduction, resulting in the production of hydroxide ions and the accumulation of at least some lithium hydroxide in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. It is therefore considered that Jang necessarily teaches at least some electrochemical hydrogen evolution simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Jang therefore reads on the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution”.
Alternatively, because Jang teaches the delithiation occurs in aqueous solution and is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the delithiation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the cathodic counter reaction of Jang includes at least some electrochemical hydrogen evolution, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Therefore, Jang renders the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby water molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced and hydroxide ions are produced, and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” obvious.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution (see below).
While Jang is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the electrochemical delithiation, Jang teaches the delithiation solution is an aqueous solution (§ 2.3.), and does not describe any procedures for the exclusion of oxygen from the system. As evidenced by e.g., para. 84 of the instant specification, application of a cathodic potential to a counter electrode immersed in an aqueous solution comprising dissolved oxygen gas during an electrochemical delithiation necessarily results in at least some reduction of said dissolved oxygen gas, resulting in the production of hydroxide ions and the accumulation of at least some lithium hydroxide in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. It is therefore considered that Jang necessarily teaches at least some electrochemical oxygen reduction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Jang therefore reads on the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution”.
Alternatively, because Jang teaches the delithiation occurs in aqueous solution, does not describe any means for removing oxygen from the system, and is silent as to the specific cathodic counter reaction that occurs during the delithiation, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the cathodic counter reaction of Jang includes at least some electrochemical oxygen reduction, whereby oxygen molecules in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution. Therefore, Jang renders the limitation “carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation of the lithiated lithium-storage electrode, whereby oxygen molecules present in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution are reduced to form hydroxide ions and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” obvious.
Regarding claim 21, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Jang further teaches the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution is an acidic solution (“acidic lithium-ion battery leachate” title, see also § 4).
Modified Jang further teaches, via Chen, the aqueous lithium-recovery solution is a basic solution (sodium carbonate, § 3.2.4., as evidenced by e.g., para. 53 of the instant specification, solutions of carbonate ion are basic).
Regarding claim 23, modified Jang teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above.
Modified Jang further teaches, via Wu, the lithium-storage electrode comprises polyimide (see title and para. bridging p. 6369-6370).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 2 and its base claim. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or disclose “a method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium ions from lithium ion phosphate” (claim 1), wherein the method further comprises “carrying out an electrochemical phosphate ion extraction from the aqueous leachate solution” (claim 2).
The closest prior art is considered to be La Mantia (DE 102012212770 A1), Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902), and Jang et al. (“Direct electrochemical lithium recovery from acidic lithium-ion battery leachate using intercalation electrodes” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105837).
La Mantia in combination with Chen renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, La Mantia does not teach the counter reaction to the lithium intercalation is phosphate intercalation, but rather chloride intercalation. Furthermore, the lithium containing aqueous solution La Mantia does not comprise phosphate, and the lithium leaching process of Chen specifically avoids introduction of phosphate into the solution (“the extraction efficiency of Fe and P is close to 0%” § 2.1.1.). It therefore cannot reasonably be considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a motivation to modify the method of La Mantia, or modified La Mantia, by adding a step of carrying out an electrochemical phosphate ion extraction from the lithium ion solution, nor would a person having ordinary skill in the art have a reasonable expectation of success making this modification (i.e., it would likely not be possible to recover phosphate given the leachate solution has a minimal concentration of phosphate to start).
Jang teaches a method comprising leaching lithium ions from lithium batteries, and intercalating said lithium into a lithium storage electrode. However, Jang does not teach a step of electrochemical phosphate recovery, and the lithium containing aqueous solution of Jang does not necessarily comprise phosphate ions.
It is therefore considered that the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 2 and its base claim. Claim 2 would therefore be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2, and would therefore be allowable if claim 2 were rewritten in independent form for the same reasons enumerated for claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 17 and its base claim. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or disclose “A method for electrochemically extracting and recovering lithium ions from a lithium ion-containing aqueous solution, the method comprising: contacting the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution with a lithium-storage electrode comprising LixTi2(PO4)3, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 3, TiP2O7, 5,7,12,14-pentacenetetrone, or polyimide” (claim 15), wherein the method further comprises “carrying out an electrochemical phosphate ion extraction from the lithium ion-containing aqueous solution” (claim 17).
The closest prior art is considered to be Choi (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0246998 A1), La Mantia (DE 102012212770 A1), Chen et al. (“Recovery of Li2CO3 from Spent LiFePO4 by Using a Novel Impurity Elimination Process” Molecules 2023, 28, 3902), Geng et al. (“Synthesis of layered double hydroxide-based hybrid electrode for efficient removal of phosphate ions in capacitive deionization” Water Science & Technology (2022) Vol 86 No 11, 3014), Jang et al. (“Direct electrochemical lithium recovery from acidic lithium-ion battery leachate using intercalation electrodes” Resources, Conservation & Recycling 175 (2021) 105837), and Nam and Choi (“Electrochemical Bi/BiPO4 Cells for a Sustainable Phosphate Cycle” ACS Energy Lett. 2023, 8, 802).
It will be noted that Nam is a disclosure by an inventor or joint inventor within the grace period under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1), and therefore does not constitute prior art.
La Mantia or Jang in view of Chen and Choi render the limitations of claim 15 obvious, as described above. However, none of La Mantia, Jang, Chen and Choi teach the counter reaction to the lithium intercalation is phosphate intercalation. Furthermore, the lithium containing aqueous solutions of La Mantia, Chen, and Choi do not comprise phosphate, and Jang is silent as to whether or not the solution comprises phosphate. It therefore cannot reasonably be considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a motivation to modify the method of La Mantia by adding a step of carrying out an electrochemical phosphate ion extraction from the lithium ion solution, nor would a person having ordinary skill in the art have a reasonable expectation of success making this modification (i.e., it would likely not be possible to recover phosphate given the leachate solution has a minimal concentration of phosphate to start).
It is therefore considered that the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 17. Claim 17 would therefore be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1, 5-8, and 18-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 5-8, and 18-19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6-7, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claim 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 6, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the objections to claim 3 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7-12, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5-16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 6 that Applicant’s amendments have addressed each of the objections to claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 18-19 established in the Office action mailed 02/10/2026.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner agrees in part. Examiner acknowledges the objections to claims 1, 5-8, and 18-19 have been cured by Applicant’s amendments. However, the objection to claim 3 has not been cured by Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 7 that the proposed combination of La Mantia with Chen is inappropriate, because it would render La Mantia unsuitable for its intended use. Specifically, Applicant argues that because the solution used by Chen to leach lithium from LFP reacts with LFP, it cannot be used as the solution from which lithium is recovered by the iron phosphate electrodes of La Mantia.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether the teachings of Chen can reasonably be considered to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a solution of lithium formed by leaching of lithium iron phosphate as the solution from which lithium is recovered in the method of La Mantia.
In response to applicant's argument that the aqueous leachate solution of Chen could not be used as the solution from which lithium is recovered in the method of La Mantia, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the instant case, while Applicant has argued that the leachate of Chen degrades LFP and would therefore not be compatible with the method of La Mantia, as described in the rejection of claim 1, Chen teaches that leaching of lithium from LFP is a suitable source of lithium for the recovery of lithium ions, which provides the predictable benefit of recycling the lithium in spent lithium-ion batteries. It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of La Mantia, such that the solution from which the lithium is recovered is formed by leaching of lithium ions from lithium iron phosphate, regardless of whether the aqueous leachate solution is that of Chen or not. I.e., Chen renders the use of an aqueous leachate solution formed from LFP as the feed to La Mantia obvious in general, and is not limited to the aqueous solution initially formed by Chen.
Furthermore, while Chen teaches the solution is an acidic aqueous solution, as noted in the reasons for indication of allowable subject matter, Chen further explicitly teaches the leachate solution has been specifically optimized to avoid degradation of iron phosphate (“the extraction efficiency of Fe and P is close to 0%” § 2.1.1.). Additionally, as evidenced by e.g., para. 32 of the instant specification, leaching of the lithium from the LFP by a mixture of sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, as taught by Chen, both requires and consumes the hydrogen peroxide. Furthermore, after the leaching step Chen teaches adjusting the pH to a more basic value (Fig. 6) Thus, after the leaching step, Chen’s solution no longer comprises hydrogen peroxide and is no longer strongly acidic. Therefore, the aqueous leachate solution of Chen would not react with the LFP formed during the intercalation step of La Mantia.
Based on these facts, it cannot reasonably be considered that the aqueous leachate formed in the method of Chen would negatively react with the electrode materials used in La Mantia. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s assertion, addition of the step of leaching lithium ions from lithium iron phosphate into an aqueous leachate solution taught by Chen to the method of La Mantia would not render the method of La Mantia unsuitable for its intended use . Therefore, the combination of La Mantia and Chen may also be considered a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that La Mantia does not teach steps of hydrogen evolution or oxygen evolution occurs simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation such that “lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution”, as required by claims 5 and 7, respectively. Specifically, Applicant argues that while La Mantia teaches hydrogen evolution or oxygen evolution occurs simultaneously with the electrochemical delithiation, it teaches that these reactions are undesirable side reactions, and that therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of La Mantia to minimize these reactions such that lithium hydroxide is not “accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution”.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether La Mantia teaches the limitations “carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution reaction … and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” or “carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction … and lithium hydroxide is accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution” as recited in claims 5 and 7.
In the instant case, Applicant has acknowledged that La Mantia teaches steps of carrying out an electrochemical hydrogen evolution and carrying out an electrochemical oxygen reduction reaction. As evidenced by e.g., Applicant’s specification, electrochemical hydrogen evolution and electrochemical oxygen reduction, by definition, result in the production of hydroxide ions (see e.g., para. 84). Therefore, as La Mantia teaches the solution comprises lithium released from the electrodes, La Mantia necessarily teaches at least some lithium hydroxide accumulates in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution.
Whether or not a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to eliminate these steps from La Mantia, as argued by Applicant, is irrelevant.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #4
Applicant argues on p. 9 that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to add carbonate to the aqueous lithium-recovery solution of La Mantia, as required by claims 6 and 8. Specifically Applicant argues that since the lithium hydroxide accumulated in the aqueous lithium-recovery solution of La Mantia is not the desired product, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have considered reacting it with carbonate as taught by Chen.
Examiner’s Response #4
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to modify the method of La Mantia such that the aqueous lithium-recovery solution comprises carbonate ions based on the teachings of Chen.
In the instant case, Chen teaches that it is desirable to recover lithium as lithium carbonate, because lithium carbonate is useful in the production of lithium ion batteries. Therefore, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add carbonate ions to the lithium-recovery solution of La Mantia, thereby producing lithium carbonate.
Applicant’s argument appears to be predicated on the necessity of the lithium in the lithium-recovery solution to be in the form of lithium hydroxide prior to the addition of carbonate ions to result in the formation of lithium carbonate. However, this is not required. So long as sufficient carbonate ions are present in solution with a lithium salt, lithium carbonate will form as product.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #5
Applicant argues on p. 9 that claims 9-14 are not rendered obvious by La Mantia in view of Chen and Kanoh, Choi, Yao, or Wu, because the limitations of claim 1 are not rendered obvious by La Mantia in view of Chen.
Examiner’s Response #5
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, claim 1 is still considered to be rendered obvious by La Mantia in view of Chen. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #6
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the system of La Mantia based on the teachings of Choi. Specifically, Applicant argues that while La Mantia teaches a method for recovering lithium via intercalation into the electrodes, Choi instead teaches a reversible charging/discharging process for energy storage, wherein the lithium is not recovered.
Examiner’s Response #6
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Respectfully, Applicant’s assertion is factually incorrect. While Examiner acknowledges many of the methods described in Choi are directed to reversible charging/discharging processes for energy storage, Choi also explicitly teaches lithium recovery methods (“ESSs for Lithium Extraction” para. 47 et seq.), which are the basis for the rejections.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #7
Applicant argues on p. 10-11 that, as described by e.g., Choi, different lithium intercalation materials have different properties, and therefore the mere indication that such materials are suitable for use as lithium recovery electrodes cannot be used to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Examiner’s Response #7
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether or not an art recognized suitability for a purpose can be used to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
As noted in MPEP §§ 2143(I)(B) and 2144.07, use/substitution of a material recognized in the prior art for a purpose it is known to be suitable for establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #8
Applicant argues on p. 11 that only the lithium ion storage materials taught by Choi as suitable for “Li-storage electrode 2”, not those taught as suitable for “Li-storage electrode 1” would have been considered by a person having ordinary skill in the art as suitable for use in Li-storage electrodes, because LFP, the material used by La Mantia, is listed as suitable for “Li-storage electrode 2” rather than “Li-storage electrode 1”.
Examiner’s Response #8
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether or not Choi is relevant for all it contains.
As described in MPEP § 2123(I), patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain. In the instant case, Choi explicitly teaches that LiTi2(PO4)3 and TiP2O7 are suitable materials for the intercalation of lithium. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized these materials as suitable for the intercalation of lithium.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #9
Applicant argues on p. 11-12 that the particular materials claimed in claims 15 and those depending therefrom provide the beneficial effect of allowing the electrodes to remain stable under both alkaline and acidic conditions. Therefore, even if the limitations of claim 15 are considered prima facie obvious over the prior art, they should not be considered obvious on the basis of secondary considerations.
Examiner’s Response #9
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether or not the materials claimed in claim 15 provide an unexpected benefit sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness.
In order for unexpected results to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must provide evidence that has a nexus to the claimed invention (MPEP § 716.01(b)), such evidence must be commensurate in scope with the claims (MPEP § 716.02(d)), the evidence must demonstrate a benefit over the closest prior art (MPEP § 716.02(e)), and Applicant must demonstrate that any such demonstrated benefit is, in fact, unexpected (MPEP § 716.02(b)(I) and 716.02(c)).
In the instant case, Applicant’s asserted benefit is the ability to function in methods requiring the use of both acidic and alkaline media. However, as currently claimed, claim 15 does not require the use of both acidic and alkaline media. Therefore, Applicant’s asserted benefit is not commensurate in scope with claim 15.
While Applicant does require the use of both acidic and alkaline media in claim 21, applicant has not provided evidence that the recited materials provide an advantage over the prior art of record. Specifically, while Applicant has asserted the iron phosphate used in La Mantia is not stable under acidic conditions, such as those used by Chen, Chen explicitly teaches the acidic conditions are selected to prevent degradation of the iron phosphate. Furthermore, Jang explicitly teaches lithium ion extraction under acidic conditions, with lithium ion release under neutral conditions.
Therefore, absent additional evidence, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights