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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2 and 4 each appear to introduce a new apparatus to the claimed system, not previously claimed. As such, immediately following the preamble of each claim should include the language “further including.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 of claim 4 should include a comma after “claim 1” and before “comprising,” to read in part “claim 1, comprising.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crocker et al (“Lithium and Its recovery from low-grade Nevada clays,” of record in IDS filed January 3, 2024, noting that a copy is of record in parent application serial no. 17/539,775, filed March 8, 2022).
Claim 1 essentially requires the components of a mixer, a dryer, a roaster, and a leach tank, capable of performing at least the intended functions, as claimed.
Crocker teaches methods of extracting lithium from lithium bearing material (title) involving mixing of the lithium-containing clay with limestone ( a calcium-containing material) and gypsum (both a calcium-containing material and a sulfur-containing material) (page 22, Feed preparation). Crocker further teaches that mixed material may comprise up to 20 wt% moisture, wherein the mixed material (pellets) are dried prior to roasting (page 23, col. 1, lines 1-3). Finally, Crocker teaches leaching with wash water (page 23, Calcine Particle Size and Leach Time). As Crocker teaches mixing of feed material and subsequent drying, roasting, and leaching of said feed material, the physical device components in which these processes take place are considered to satisfy the limitations of the claimed “mixer,” “dryer,” “roaster,” and “leach tank.” The system disclosed by Crocker is considered to be capable of operating, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Crocker teaches that an evaporator was fed with leach solution (page 24, Evaporation). Such an evaporator is considered to be capable of increasing the concentration of leachate to be treated, as claimed, and Crocker expressly teaches that the evaporation concentrates the solution (page 24, Evaporation).
Regarding claim 4, Crocker teaches pelletization of the mixed feed material (pages 22-23, Feed Preparation). The pelletization means is considered to constitute the claimed “granulator.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker et al (“Lithium and Its recovery from low-grade Nevada clays,”) as applied to claim 1 above.
Crocker teaches an apparatus according to instant claim 1, as shown above.
Regarding claim 4, insomuch as the teachings of pelletization of Crocker are insufficient to anticipate the claimed “granulator,” pelletization and granulation are often used interchangeably as they are both particle size enlargement techniques used to convert fine powders into larger, free-flowing, and dense agglomerates. As such, it would have been obvious to utilize a granulator in place of a pelletizer in order to achieve a substantially similar result. In other words, as Crocker teaches pelletization, to otherwise use granulation instead of pelletization would have been an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling of the claimed invention as both techniques are conventionally known and achieve substantially similar results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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: Crocker is considered to represent the closest related prior art to the claimed invention, as described above. While the general notion to recycle downstream materials to upstream processes that may utilize such materials is considered to be prima facie obvious, Crocker fails to teach or suggest that any material from the roaster, including alkali metal sulfate, should be recycled back to the mixer. Furthermore, Crocker fails to teach that alkali metal sulfate is desirable in the mixer. It is noted that the instant Specification teaches that a crystallizer may be used to separate sodium sulfate from the roasted mixture from the roaster, allowing for the sulfur-containing material to be recycled back to the mixer (page. 18, lines 24-27), as claimed. While Crocker does teach that a crystallizer may be used to isolate these salts, the intention is for removal from the system so that the leaching solution may be recycled (back to the evaporator, not the mixer) (Fig. 16 and page 25, Crystallization).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights