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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 7/10/26 is acknowledged. 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)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22. 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40-46, 49, 50, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19, 21, 22-26, 29, 31-46, 49 of copending Application No.: 18/409721 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of ‘721 overlaps all the features of Claim 1 of this application. Similarly, the dependent claims listed above in ‘721 overlap the listed dependent claims of this application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the c(ontrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US Pub.: 2017/0333867) and in view of Cheng (CN 107949541), Cheng II.
Cheng I describes a process for recovering lithium values from brine (title). The process employs a granular sorbent with the formula:
(LIOH)a(LIX)1-a.2Al(OH)3 (para. 11). The sorbent is loaded with lithium by intercalation of lithium into granular aluminum hydroxide used to generate double aluminum lithium hydroxide (para. 19). In one example, Cheng I teaches treating a sorbent that intercalates lithium in the presence of an alkali hydroxide (para. 19). The reaction is then neutralized in order to convert LiOH in the sorbent to LiCl (para. 27). Cheng I does not specifically describe the sorbent as a spent sport, but Cheng states that the used sorbent may be regenerated (para. 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reuse the spent sorbent into the process described by Cheng I because regenerated sorbents are reusable.
As to the layered feature, Cheng II describes a means for recovering lithium from bring containing lithium (title). The process uses a hydrated alumina that can be in the form of either Al(OH)3 or Al2O3 or Al2O3-H2O (page 2, last para). Cheng II explains that the adsorbent used can fall under three main categories, which includes the first one, which is called: “inserting layers of hydrated alumina adsorbent by LiX, wherein X is the anion of the lithium salt (page 3, para. 1). The second type is a precursor sorbent with the formula: (LIOH)a(LiX)-Ca2Al(OH)3(page 3, para. 1) and the final, third type of adsorbent has the formula LiX, 2Al(OH)3 (page 3, para. 1).
The sorbent of Cheng I is similar to the third type of adsorbent, where (LiOH)a has an a value of zero. Therefore, since Cheng II explains that the three sorbents are known for use in lithium sorption, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a layered hydrated alumina adsorbent in place of the LiX, 2Al(OH)3 adsorbent of Cheng I because Cheng II explains that this is an effective alternative adsorbent to the other three known hydrated alumina adsorbents.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the LiX, 2Al(OH)3 adsorbent by its functional equivalent of a layered hydrated alumina adsorbent in Cheng I with reasonable expected success. See MPEP 2144.06.
As to Claim 2, Cheng I teaches that the intercalation is performed at 70 degrees C (see example 2).
As to Claim 7, Cheng I teaches that the intercalation solution is a solution of a lithium salt with NaOH (para. 32, 34, 38, 40).
As to Claims 8, 9, 11 and 12, Cheng I teaches that the lithium is in the form of LiCl (para. 33) and the alkali is NaOH (para. 33).
As to Claim 10, Cheng I teaches that the amount of lithium salt in the solution has a ratio of lithium salt to granular Al(OH)3 ranges from 0.3-1.0: 1 (para. 20). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claims 11 and 12, Cheng I teaches that the alkali hydroxide can be NaOH (para. 22).
As to Claims 13 and 14, Cheng I teaches that the ratio of alkali hydroxide to granular Al(OH)3 is from 0.3-1:1 molar (para. 20). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
As to Claim 15 and 16, Cheng I teahes that the alkali hydroxide to Al(OH)3 ratio can range from 0.3-1.0:1 molar (para. 20). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claim 17, Cheng I teaches that the solution used can include lithium hydroxide (para. 19). Although Cheng I does not specifically teach that the alkali hydroxide used is also lithium hydroxide. However, since the treatment solution includes adding a lithium hydroxide solution (para. 19), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that use of this solution can be considered to meet both the lithium salt and the alkali.
As to Claim 18, Cheng I teaches that the brine composition includes the compounds described in paragraph 47. Most of the composition of para. 47 includes chlorine.
As to Claim 19, Cheng I teaches that the brine includes NaCl (para. 47).
As to Claim 20, Cheng I teaches that the solution includes lithium chloride, sodium hydroxide and sodium chloride (para. 10).
As to Claim 21, Cheng I teaches that the brine can include NaCl (para. 47) and the lithium solution can include lithium hydroxide (para. 19). Although Cheng does not specifically teach that the alkali hydroxide is Li(OH), since Cheng I teaches feeding that the lithium solution include lithium hydroxide, However, since the treatment solution includes adding a lithium hydroxide solution (para. 19), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that use of this solution can be considered to meet both the lithium salt and the alkali.
As to Claims 22, 23 and 24, Cheng I teaches that the intercalation occurs for a time of 1-100 hours (para. 26). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
As to Claims 28, 29 and 30, Cheng I teaches that the neutralizing reaction is operated at a pH of 5 (para. 27).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng I and Cheng II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuk (KR 20210080083).
Cheng I describes reacting the contacting step to a temperature of 70 degrees C (see examples 1, 2, 3), but does not describe raising it further.
Kuk describes a lithium adsorbent (title) using a crystalline layered material (page 2, last para). Kuk explains that pH is related to the degree of adsorption and that increasing the temperature to 100 degrees C facilitates higher adsorption (page 2, second to last para). The reference explains that adsorption takes place at 70 degrees C (see page 3, para. 1), but that adjusting the pH using NaOH causes an exothermic reaction so that the reaction rises to 100 degrees C (page 3, para. 2 after “adjustment of pH”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the reaction to 100 degrees C, as taught by Kuk for use with the process of adsorbing lithium of Cheng I and Cheng II because Kuk explains that raising the pH of the solution at 70 degrees C causes the reaction to raise to 100 degrees C due to the exothermic reaction conditions caused.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng I and Cheng II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ban (CN 115155528).
The references do not describe the pH feature of Claims 5 and 6.
Ban describes a method of preparing a granular aluminum-based lithium adsorbent by combining the adsorbent with an aqueous lithium source (abstract). The process adds lye to the adsorption step (Description, para 1). Lye is NaOH. Ban describes that the pH of the treatment solution is adjusted to a pH of 6-9 (“description”, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of the contacting step to a pH of 6-9, as taught by Ban for use with the process of Cheng I and Cheng II because this pH range is effective for adsorption of lithium in the aluminum-based adsorption granule.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng I and Cheng II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung (KR 20170143313).
The references describe neutralization, but they do not describe a temperature of neuralization of 25-115 degrees C.
Chung describes a lithium ion absorbent used to adsorb lithium ions from a solution (abstract). Chung explains that the adsorbent is repeatedly adsorbed and desorbed (see “Description” para 1). The adsorbent is then treated with an acid treatment of HCl at 30 degrees C for 24 hrs (“Description”, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the neutralization step at a temperature of 30 degrees C, as taught by Chung for use with the process of Cheng I and Cheng II because Chung explains that operating the neutralization at this range is effective for this neutralization step.
Claim(s) 26, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng I, Cheng II and Chung, as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 104928471).
Chung teaches regenerated by acid treatment with 0.2 M HCl at 30 ° C for 24 hours (see rejection of Claim 25), but does not disclose elevating the temperature further to 65 to 80 degrees C.
Zhang describes a lithium ion absorbing column (title). In some instances, the lithium ion absorbing precursor can include a lithium-alumina-based composition (page 5, lines 4-6). Zhang teaches that these adsorbents may be eluted with an acid, to include HCl (page 5, lines 5-8). The elution can take place at 80 degrees C (see example 3, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to raise the contact step of HCl with the absorbent to 80 degrees C, as taught by Zhang for use with the process of Cheng I, Cheng II and Chung because this contact temperature is effective to neutralize the absorbent.
Claim(s) 17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng I and Cheng II as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Harrison (US Pat.: 8901032).
Harrison describes an activated alumina based sorbent for removing lithium from a solution (title and abstract). The lithium is intercalated into the solid aluminum sorbent (col. 2, lines 36-40).
Harrison explains that the lithium salt can be lithium hydroxide (col. 4, lines 45-49) and the alkaline hydroxide can be lithium hydroxide (col. 3, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use lithium hydroxide for the lithium-containing brine, as taught by Harrison for use with the process of Cheng I and Cheng II because this form of lithium is effectively adsorbed into an aluminum-based sorbent for the removal of sorbents.
Claim(s) 1, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US Pat.: 8901032).
Harrison describes a method for preparing a solid activated aluminum lithium intercalate sorbent (col. 2, lines 36-38) that includes contacting a lithium salt with an aluminum-based sorbent (col. 2, lines 38-42). Harrison explains that the aluminum hydroxide is known to include a layered one (col. 2, lines 1-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the aluminate sorbent is a layered one because they are known to be effective for use in lithium sorbents.
As to the used feature, Harrison teaches that the sorbent may be washed (col. 8, lines 7-11), which is used to remove lithium (col. 8, lines 23-27). After which, it is reused to adsorb additional lithium ions from brine (col. 8, lines 28-33).
The contacting step is performed under alkali conditions using an alkali-based compound (col. 3, lines 1-5). The solution is then neutralized (col. 9, lines 34-40 and col. 10, line 1) using an acid (col. 10, lines 1-5). Then a wash solution is supplied to the saturated sorbent material (col. 11, lines 42-45). As to the spent features, Harrison teaches that the rinsing removes lithium (col. 8, lines 20-28), which is then re-loaded with fresh lithium brine (col. 8, lines 27-32).
As to Claim 31, Harrison describes a method for preparing a lithium activated alumina intercalate solids (abstract). The process includes infusing lithium salts into an activated alumina (abstract). Harrison explains that the lithium aluminum intercalated solid can be neutralized with a weak acid buffer, such as acetic acid (col. 10, lines 1-5). Harrison explains that this solution does not significantly dissolve sorbent materials (col. 10, lines 27-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ acetic acid, as a neutralizing solution, as taught by Harrison for use with the sorbent of Cheng I and Cheng II because acetic acid is known to not significantly dissolvent sorbent materials in the lithium absorbent.
As to Claim 34, Harrison teaches that the acid content is about 30wt% (col. 9, lines 55-64).
As to Claims 35, 36 and 37, Harrison teaches that the neutralization treatment can run for about 2 hrs (see example 1).
As to Claim 38, Harrison shows the lithium content over time during sorbent preparation (see Fig. 2). The lithium content is measured over time (see Fig. 2). The time measured is between 0 to 5 hrs, but the second point of about a little under 6,000ppm is less than half the amount of 5 hrs (see Fig. 2). The amount of time used here is
Claim(s) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US Pat.: 8901032) and in view of Marston (US Pub.: 2019/0256368).
Harrison describes a method for preparing a solid activated aluminum lithium intercalate sorbent (col. 2, lines 36-38) that includes contacting a lithium salt with an aluminum-based sorbent (col. 2, lines 38-42). Harrison explains that the aluminum hydroxide is known to include a layered one (col. 2, lines 1-12). As to the used feature, Harrison teaches that the sorbent may be washed (col. 8, lines 7-11), which is used to remove lithium (col. 8, lines 23-27). After which, it is reused to adsorb additional lithium ions from brine (col. 8, lines 28-33).
The contacting step is performed under alkali conditions using an alkali-based compound (col. 3, lines 1-5). During use, excess brine can be removed that has lithium ions from the sorbent-containing vessel (col. 1, lines 35-37). This is considered decanting. The solution is then neutralized (col. 9, lines 34-40 and col. 10, line 1). Then a wash solution is supplied to the saturated sorbent material (col. 11, lines 42-45).
Harrison does not specifically state that this step occurs after the neutralization step, since the neutralization step occurs in the presence of the lithium chloride-containing solution (col. 10, lines 1-4) and is added to the activated alumina sorbent and lithium salt (col. 9, lines 33-35) and is performed before the washing step (col. 9, lines 45-47), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the neutralizing step can occurs after the lithium addition step.
The decanted solution is removed to a holding vessel 114 (col. 11, line 38). Wash solution is also collected here (col.1, lines 45-50). This can be considered an augmenting step for the decanted reaction liquor.
The reference does not disclose recycling the decanted solution that includes wash liquor.
Marston describes a process for adsorption and recovery of lithium from an adsorbent bed used to intercalate lithium into the aluminum-based absorbent (para. 16). Eluant in the adsorbent is then displaced with brine (para. 25) and then recycled (para. 17, Claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recycle the decanted solution and wash liquor, as taught by Marston for use with the process of Harrison because these isolated solutions can be recycled and reused.
As to Claim 40, Harrison teaches that brine is fed to the sorbent (col. 1, lines 36-38) and then the system can be washed (col. 11, lines 39-42). The wash solution can be a solution that is rich in lithium ions (col. 11, line 45).
As to Claims 41 and 42, Harrison explains that the makeup wash liquid contains LiCl (col. 8, lines 10-13).
As to Claim 43, Marston explains that sodium hydroxide may be added in order to precipitate certain compounds from the stream (para. 70). Since the brine stream is fed more than one time (see above), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add more sodium hydroxide in order to precipitate contaminants from the makeup stream.
As to Claim 44, Harrison explains that the lithium salt is a lithium hydroxide (Claim 3).
As to Claims 45 and 46, Harrison teaches that the wash water may include NaCl or KCl (col. 8, lines 20-23) and the lithium can be in the form of lithium chloride or lithium hydroxide (Claims 2 or 3) and that the alkali used can be one of NaOH, LiOH, KOH (col. 3, lines 1-5).
Harrison does not specifically teach that the alkali used is a makeup alkali.
Marston explains that sodium hydroxide may be added in order to precipitate certain compounds from the stream (para. 70). Since the brine stream is fed more than one time (see above), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add more sodium hydroxide in order to precipitate contaminants from the makeup stream.
As to Claim 47, Marston teaches that the eluant is filtered (para. 80) prior to recycling (para. 17).
As to Claim 48, Harrison explains that the process of cycling through new lithium brine, followed by washing can be repeated many time, as desired (col. 8, lines 28-46). Although Harrison does not specifically state that this is done until the reaction no long produces the lithium selective adsorbent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stop recycling the step when the process no longer produces the lithium selective adsorbent.
As to Claims 49 and 50, Harrison teaches that the process of cycling through new lithium brine, followed by washing can be repeated many time, as desired (col. 8, lines 28-46). Although Harrison does not specifically state that this is performed 7-3 times or up to three times, since Harrison states that this may be repeated as many times as desired, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this repeating feature is a results effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as lithium-brine removal through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to Claim 51, Harrison describes intercalating lithium in the alumina adsorbent (see above), but does not describe that this is performed in an adsorption loading zone and that the neutralization is performed in a strip zone.
Marston teaches a device shown in Fig. 4A, 4B. The adsorbent is intercalated in the reactor (para. 16) and treated with NaOH to precipitate contaminants (para. 70) in Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the devices used to perform these steps can be considered the adsorption loading zones and the strip zones.
The process can be considered in-situ because they are performed in the device.
Claim(s) 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison and Marston as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Ding (CN 110683606).
The references do not describe the steps of Claim 52.
Ding describes a lithium adsorption and desorption device that employs a lithium adsorption method (title). The method includes use of a lithium absorbent that is installed in a reaction shell (page 5, step a). The reaction shell is immersed in a lithium liquid used to absorb lithium therein (steps b and c). After adsorption, the shell is then lifted and rotated to remove residue by desorbing liquid using centrifugal force (page 5, step e). The lithium absorbent within the reaction shell may be replaced or returned to step b to re-absorb lithium (see page 5, step f and the para after that step). The isolation step can be considered to be met by the removal of the reaction shell from the process to replace the lithium absorbent inside.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention take the used absorbent and replace it by removing it from the reaction shell, as taught by Dan for use with the process of Harrison and Marston because this method is known to effectively refresh the adsorbent that has been used up by the adsorption process.
As to Claims 53 and 54, Harrison teaches performing the lithium-adsorption step at a temperature of 55-60 degrees C (col. 15, lines 60-65). Harrison teaches that this contact step can be performed for 12 hrs (see example 7). Although Harrison does not specifically state that the lithium-adsorption step is performed from 55-60 degrees C for 12 hrs, since Harrison explains that this contact step can be performed at this temperature range and for this duration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the adsorption step for this amount of time and this temperature. The pH of the contacting step can range from 7-11 (col. 5, lines 31-41).
As to Claim 55, Harrison teaches that the lithium can include lithium hydroxide or lithium chloride (col. 4, lines 45-48) and the brine can include KCl (col. 6, lines 45-46).
As to Claim 56, Harrison teaches that the process includes neutralization (col. 10, lines 1-4). The step is performed can be considered the lithium product strip zone.
As to Claim 57, Harrison teaches that the neutralization steps is performed using acetic acid (col. 10, lines 1-5). The brine can include KCl (col. 6, lines 45-46).
As to Claim 64, Harrison teaches that the neutralization step is performed from 40-60 degrees C (col. 9, lines 31-34) at a pH of 7-4 (col. 9, lines 42-45).
As to Claims 65, 66, 67 and 68, Harrison teaches that the neutralization can be performed for 2 hours (col. 13, lines 32-34 and example 1) or alternatively Harrison teaches that in one example, steady state was reached after about 1 hr (col. 15, lines 28-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the neutralization step can be performed for 1 hr in instances where steady state can be achieved, as described by Harrison.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30. 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, Fung Coris 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights