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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 07/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Recovery of Li from lithium aluminum silicate (LAS) glass-ceramics after heat treatment at 1000 ˚C and Ca salt-assisted water leaching in two stages before and after calcination at 600 ˚C; Hydrometallurgy 211; 105876, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teaches the leaching of Li from lithium aluminum silicate (LAS) glass-ceramics which meets the limitation of a process for recovering lithium from lithium-containing glass (abstract). Lee et al. teaches the LAS glass-ceramics were finely pulverized to particles undersized 53 μm using a planetary mill which meet the limitations of providing lithium-containing particles comprising the lithium-containing glass (page 2). Lee et al. teaches lithium aluminum silicate (LAS) mixed with CaO and water at a reaction temperature of 100 ˚C which meets the limitation of contacting the lithium-containing particles with calcium salts in water at a first leaching temperature for a first leaching time to produce a first mixture, wherein the contacting causes leaching of at least a portion of lithium ions from the lithium-containing particles into a first leachate of the first mixture (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches a filtration step after first leaching which meets the limitation of separating the first mixture into the first leachate and a first residue (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches a calcination step after first leach which meets the limitation of heat treating the first residue to form a heat-treated residue comprising partially leached lithium-containing particles and calcium oxide (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches a second leaching step after first which meets the limitation of contacting the heat-treated residue with water at a second leaching temperature for a second leaching time, wherein the contacting causes leaching of lithium ions from the partially leached lithium-containing particles in a second leachate of a second mixture (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches a filtration step after second leach which meets the limitation of separating the second mixture into the second leachate and a second residue (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches when calcined at a temperature of 800 ˚C or higher, Li may be recovered through water leaching of Li2O which meets the limitation of recovering lithium from the first leachate, the second leachate, or both (page 7).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Lee et al. teaches the main components of LAS glass-ceramics are typically 3–6% Li2O, 18–25% Al2O3, and 58–75% SiO2 which overlaps from 2 mol % to 20 mol % Li2O; from 2 mol % to 30 mol % Al2O3; from 30 mol % to 85 mol % SiO2 (page 1 and 2). Lee et al. teaches a d50 of 7.2 µm which is encompassed by wherein the lithium-containing particles comprise a median particle size (d50) of from about 10 µm to about 150 µm (page 2). Lee et al. does not teach the properties of the glass particles such as wherein the lithium-containing particles comprise low chemical durability glass particles and the lithium-containing particles have an acid chemical durability of greater than 15 mg/cm2 weight loss after 24 hours of exposure to 5 wt. % HCI, based on the an initial weight and surface area of the lithium-containing particles, an alkaline chemical durability of greater than 1.5 mg/cm2 weight loss after 6 hours of exposure to 5 wt. % NaOH, based on the initial weight and surface area of the lithium- containing particles, or both or wherein the lithium-containing particles have less than about 5 % crystallinity but it is clear the properties would be necessarily produced by the LAS glass because the composition falls within the claimed composition recited in claims 6 and 7 of the pending application.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. teaches calcination step at 600 ˚C which is encompassed by wherein the process further comprises heat treating the lithium-containing particles at a temperature of from 500 °C to 700 °C prior to contacting the lithium-containing particles with the calcium salts and water, wherein the heat treating removes residual organic compounds from the lithium-containing particles, dries the lithium- containing particles, or both (page 6).
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. teaches a reaction temperature of 100 ˚C, an agitation speed of 200 rpm for 360 min which meets the limitation of wherein the first leaching temperature, the second leaching temperature, or both is from 80 °C to 120 °C; and the first leaching time, the second leaching time, or both is from 1 to 12 hours (page 6).
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. teaches more than 99% of Li could be leached from the LAS glass-ceramic by the second water leaching step which meets the limitation of wherein the process removes at least 75 % of the lithium from the lithium-containing particles (page 7).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. teaches calcination step at 600 ˚C which is encompassed by wherein the heat treating the first residue comprises exposing the first residue to a temperature of from 400 °C to 700 °C (page 6).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. teaches Ca salt/heat-treated LAS glass-ceramics mass ratio =1 which meets the limitation of where a weight ratio of lithium- containing particles to the calcium salts in the first mixture, the second mixture, or both is from 1:1to1:8 (page 3, Table 2).
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al teaches 6 g LAS, 24 g CaO and 300 mL water which meets the limitation of where a weight ratio of solids to liquids in the first mixture, the second mixture, or both is from 1:5 to 1:15 (page 7, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 14, recycling water or other components is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since recycling reduces costs.
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. teaches a pH of 12.5 which abuts where a pH in the first mixture, the second mixture, or both is from 10.5 to 12 (page 3, Table 2). While the claimed range does not explicitly overlap with the range of the prior art, the respective ranges abut one another. Following the precedent of In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range abut one another, the difference between the ranges is virtually negligible, and there is no meaningful distinction or expectation of different physical properties between the two bounds (e.g., between pH 10.5 to 12 and pH 12.5. In the absence of evidence showing that the claimed range is critical or produces unexpected results, a person of ordinary skill in the art would view the slight variation from the art as an obvious design choice or a negligible margin of error. Furthermore, because the applicant has not shown a meaningful difference in properties across this boundary, the claimed range is obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al teaches 6 g LAS, 24 g CaO and 300 mL water which meets the limitation of where the calcium salts comprise CaO (page 7, Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song et al. (Recovery of lithium from spent lithium-ion batteries using precipitation and electrodialysis techniques; Separation and Purification Technology; Volume 206, Pages 335-342, 29 November 2018).
Lee et al. teaches the leaching of Li from lithium aluminum silicate (LAS) glass-ceramics which meets the limitation of a process for recovering lithium from lithium-containing glass (abstract). Lee et al. teaches the LAS glass-ceramics were finely pulverized to particles undersized 53 μm using a planetary mill which meet the limitations of providing lithium-containing particles comprising the lithium-containing glass (page 2). Lee et al. teaches lithium aluminum silicate (LAS) mixed with CaO and water at a reaction temperature of 100 ˚C which meets the limitation of contacting the lithium-containing particles with calcium salts in water at a first leaching temperature for a first leaching time to produce a first mixture, wherein the contacting causes leaching of at least a portion of lithium ions from the lithium-containing particles into a first leachate of the first mixture (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches a filtration step after first leaching which meets the limitation of separating the first mixture into the first leachate and a first residue (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches a calcination step after first leach which meets the limitation of heat treating the first residue to form a heat-treated residue comprising partially leached lithium-containing particles and calcium oxide (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches a second leaching step after first which meets the limitation of contacting the heat-treated residue with water at a second leaching temperature for a second leaching time, wherein the contacting causes leaching of lithium ions from the partially leached lithium-containing particles in a second leachate of a second mixture (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches a filtration step after second leach which meets the limitation of separating the second mixture into the second leachate and a second residue (page 7 Fig. 10 and Table 3). Lee et al. teaches when calcined at a temperature of 800 ˚C or higher, Li may be recovered through water leaching of Li2O which meets the limitation of recovering lithium from the first leachate, the second leachate, or both (page 7). Lee et al. does not teach wherein recovering lithium from the first leachate, the second leachate, or both comprises precipitating lithium salts from the first leachate, the second leachate, or both; and precipitating lithium salts from the first leachate, the second leachate, or both comprises adding a precipitating agent to the first leachate, the second leachate, or both, wherein the precipitating agent comprises sodium carbonate, sodium phosphate, or both and the lithium salts comprise lithium carbonate, lithium sodium phosphate, lithium phosphate, or combinations thereof.
Song et al. teaches the projected demand for lithium calls for processing all viable resources especially secondary resources (abstract). Song et al. teaches this paper presents a promising approach for recovering lithium from low lithium high-salt solution (abstract). Song et al. teaches Li2CO3 precipitation rate reached 88.3% at 80 °C under CO3 3−/Li+ molar ratio of 1.1:2 (abstract). Song et al. teaches lithium was precipitated by phosphate (abstract). It would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success sodium carbonate, sodium phosphate, or both as the precipitating agent for the lithium solution taught by Lee et al. to precipitate the lithium as lithium salts comprising lithium carbonate, lithium sodium phosphate, lithium phosphate, or combinations thereof because the precipitated can be achieved without extreme heat.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 09/13/2026
Prosecution Insights