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 .
Applicant’s traverse of the restriction requirement has been considered and is deemed persuasive. Accordingly the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 40-42, 44, 45, 47-49 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brown ‘327 (US 2019/0276327). No distinction is seen between the process disclosed by Brown ‘327, and that recited in claims 40-42, 44, 45, 47-49 and 54-56. Brown ‘327 discloses a process comprising contacting lithium-bearing brine with a lithium ion sieve in a first reactor, and decomplex Ing lithium ions from the lithium ion sieve in a second reactor to form an acidic lithium salt eluate. (See claim 1 of Brown ‘327. Brown ‘327 discloses in claim 2 that the decomplexing is performed by elution using an acid. The lithium ion sieve of Brown ‘327 would constitute a lithium-selective ion exchange material as recited in applicant’s claims, since SNYDACKER (US 2019/0046898) discloses an analogous process, and teaches in Paragraph [0082] that lithium titanate is an ion exchange material. Brown ‘327 further discloses in Paragraphs [0061] and [0062] that the pH of the eluate solution is regulated. Accordingly Brown ‘327 anticipates claims 40-42, 44, 45, 47-49 and 54-56 In any event, it would have been obvious to modulate the pH of the eluate solution during the acid elution step in the process of Brown ‘327, since Brown ‘327 suggests in Paragraph [0062] that the acid concentration should be maintained at a concentration of less than 0.1 M.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, Brown ‘327 discloses in Paragraph [0063] that the impurities include calcium and magnesium.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Brown ‘327 discloses in Paragraph [0036] that the eluent may be sulfuric acid.
Regarding claims 54 and 55, these claims do not require a chelation step, since the precipitation reduction process can constitute pH modulation of the eluate or reducing the concentration of the impurities.
Regarding claim 56, Brown ‘327 discloses in Paragraph [0080] that the lithium ion sieve can be lithium titanate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 43 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown ‘327. Brown ‘327 is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claim 43, it would have been within e level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine suitable concentrations of the ions in the brine treated by Brown ‘327.
Regarding claim 46, Brown ‘327 discloses sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid as suitable elution acids in Paragraph 0036]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a combination of sulfuric and hydrochloric acids could also be used.
Claims 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown ‘327 as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of SNYDACKER et al ‘987 (US 2019/0256987)). It would have been further obvious from SNYDACKER et al ‘987 to remove impurities in the eluant by nanofiltration using a cellulose membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Brown ‘327 recognizes in Paragraph [0063] that impurities should be minimized, and of SNYDACKER et al ‘987 disclose s an analogous process for removing lithium, and teaches in Paragraphs [0237] and [0239] that the lithium eluate can be purified using a nanofiltration membrane made of cellulose or polyamide.
Claims 52 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown ‘327as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of SNYDACKER ‘898 (US 2019/0046898). It would have been further obvious from SNYDACKER ‘898 to purify the eluate of Brown ‘327 using a multivalent-cation-selective ion exchange resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Brown ‘327 recognizes in Paragraph [0063] that impurities including calcium and magnesium should be minimized, and SNYDACKER ‘898 discloses ion exchange materials suitable for removing magnesium in Paragraphs [0081] and [0082].
Claims 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown ‘327 as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of SNYDACKER ‘898 (US 2019/0046898).
Regarding claim 57, it would have been further obvious from SNYDACKER ‘898 to provide the ion exchange material of Brown ‘327 in the form of porous beads. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since SNYDACKER ‘898 discloses the use of porous beads as an ion exchange material in an analogous process.
Regarding claims 58 and 59, SNYDACKER ‘898 discloses an analogous process, and teaches in claim 46 that the brine can be a natural brine or a dissolved flat brine.
Dale et al (US 2008/0237133) is made of record for disclosing th use of nanofiltration membranes in conjunction with ion exchange resins for pretreatment of water in Paragraph [0065].
Brown ‘069 (US 2019/0193069) is made of record for disclosing the recovery of lithium from brine using a lithium ion sieve.
SNYDACKER et al ‘126 (US 2019/0044126) is made of record for disclosing the extraction of lithium from brines by an ion exchange process.
Conclusion
ny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8;15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights