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
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “or” at the end of line 2 should “and” at the end of line 4 for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “or” at the end of line 2 should “and” at the end of line 4 for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and” should before “organic species” in line 3 for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the extraction feed" in Line 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 10 and therefore is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the bromine depleted" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution “the bromine depleted” is interpreted as referring to the “bromine depleted aqueous stream” formed in the chlorine gas reacting step.
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 contrary. 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.
Claims 1-10, 13-14, and 16-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren (“Techno-Economic Analysis of Lithium Extraction from Geothermal Brines, 2021, pages 1-39 submitted in the IDS filed 9/26/2024) and in further view of Biglari et al (AU 2018227888 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Warren teaches a method for lithium extraction from a brine, the method comprising:
Extraction of bromine from a bromine-lithium brine by adding chlorine gas to produce bromine gas (i.e., reacting a stream derived from an aqueous source comprising lithium ions and bromine ions with a chlorine gas to form bromine and a bromide depleted stream);
Pre-treating the brine to remove impurities;
generating a lithium-enriched eluate with an ion-exchange process;
converting LiCl to LiOH via electrolysis, during which addition of sodium chloride produces chlorine gas that is used to generate dilute HCl for stripping of the ion-exchange sorbent (see A.7 Anson Resources, Pages 36-37).
Warren therefore teaches a method comprising generating chlorine gas in a conversion process (i.e., the electrolysis conversion process) that converts metal chloride (the LiCl) from an aqueous medium obtained from a metal containing aqueous source into a hydroxide material (the LiOH).
Warren does not teach a method comprising reacting the generated chlorine gas with the aqueous source comprising bromide ions to form bromine gas from the bromide ions.
Biglari teaches a method for preparing lithium hydroxide comprising use of a lithium chloride solution to obtain lithium hydroxide in an electrolysis step by means of a semipermeable membrane electrolysis wherein chlorine gas is recovered as a by-product (see Page 11, ¶3). Biglari teaches a method where the recovered chlorine gas is partially or fully recycled in a chlorination step for chlorination of lithium-containing minerals, ores, or earths to be used so that the need for chlorine gas is drastically lowered or reduced to zero by circulating the chlorine gas (see Page 6, ¶3 and Page 12, ¶2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Warren where chlorine gas produced in the electrolysis conversion process are recycled to an earlier step as taught by Biglari so that the need for chlorine gas in the preceding step is reduced.
Regarding claim 2, Warren teaches a lithium conversion process that converts lithium chloride to lithium hydroxide.
Regarding claim 3, Warren teaches converting LiCl to LiOH via electrolysis.
Regarding claim 4, Biglari teaches a method comprising a semipermeable membrane permeable to lithium ions separating the anode and cathode in the electrolysis device (see Page 2, ¶2 and Page 11, ¶3)
Regarding claim 5, Warren teaches an ion-exchange process to produce a lithium-enriched eluate. Warren therefore teaches a separating target metal (lithium) to form an extract (the lithium-enriched eluate) from an extraction feed derived from the metal containing aqueous solution (the bromine depleted brine) using a direct extraction process (the ion-exchange process).
Regarding claim 6, Warren teaches where the target metal is lithium.
Regarding claim 7, Warren further teaches concentration of the extract (See Figure A-5).
Regarding claim 8, Warren teaches a method where the extraction feed is the bromine depleted brine.
Regarding claim 9, the claims differs from Warren and Biglari as applied to claim 1 wherein the target metal depleted stream is the bromide containing aqueous source. However, this difference is merely a difference in the order of performing the extraction process steps so that the lithium is extracted prior to the bromine. It has been held that differences in the order of performing process steps are prima facie obvious unless there is evidence of new and unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the process as taught by Warren and Biglari where the lithium and bromine extraction steps are performed in any order including where lithium is extracted first to produce the bromide containing aqueous source absent new and expected results.
Regarding claim 10, Warren teaches a method where impurities are removed. Warren further teaches geothermal brines from which lithium are extracted are pretreated to extract precious metals and base metals including Fe, Mn, Al, Rb, Ag, Pb, Cu, Cd where (see 3.2 Overview of Minerals Extraction from Geothermal Brines and Table 1). Biglari also teaches that cations present in the lithium chloride solution in particular iron should be reduced to very low concentrations because they impair the electrolysis (Page 8, top). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to pretreat to extract transition metals as taught by Warren to have extracted precious and base metals as a by-product and to have a pure lithium hydroxide product.
Further regarding reducing the sulfide, organic or transition metal species in a first stream, it has been held that differences in the order of performing process steps are prima facie obvious unless there is evidence of new and unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the process steps for removing the impurities at any step including to the bromide containing aqueous solution and/or the extraction feed derived from a first stream.
Regarding claim 13, Warren teaches a method for lithium extraction from a brine, the method comprising:
Extraction of bromine from a bromine-lithium brine by adding chlorine gas to produce bromine gas (i.e., reacting a stream derived from an aqueous source comprising lithium ions and bromine ions with a chlorine gas to form bromine and a bromide depleted stream);
Pre-treating the brine to remove impurities;
withdrawing lithium ions from the bromine-depleted stream as a lithium-enriched eluate with an ion-exchange process (direct extraction process);
converting LiCl to LiOH via electrolysis, during which addition of sodium chloride produces chlorine gas that is used to generate dilute HCl for stripping of the ion-exchange sorbent.
Warren therefore teaches a method comprising generating chlorine gas in a conversion process (i.e., the electrolysis conversion process) that converts metal chloride (the LiCl) from an aqueous medium obtained from a metal containing aqueous source into a hydroxide material (the LiOH).
Warren does not teach a method comprising reacting the generated chlorine gas with the aqueous source comprising bromide ions to form bromine gas from the bromide ions.
Biglari teaches a method for preparing lithium hydroxide comprising use of a lithium chloride solution to obtain lithium hydroxide in an electrolysis step by means of a semipermeable membrane electrolysis wherein chlorine gas is recovered as a by-product. Biglari teaches a method where the recovered chlorine gas is partially or fully recycled in a chlorination step for chlorination of lithium-containing minerals, ores, or earths to be used so that the need for chlorine gas demand is reduced to circle or chlorine gas is guided in a circle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Warren where chlorine gas produced in the electrolysis conversion process are recycled to an earlier step as taught by Biglari so that the need for chlorine gas is zero and chlorine gas is recycled in a circle.
Regarding claim 14, Warren teaches a method where the extraction feed is the bromine depleted brine.
Regarding claim 16, the claims differs from Warren and Biglari as applied to claim 13 wherein the lithium depleted stream is the bromide containing aqueous source.
However, this difference is merely a difference in the order of performing the extraction process steps so that the lithium is extracted prior to the bromine. It has been held that differences in the order of performing process steps are prima facie obvious unless there is evidence of new and unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the process as taught by Warren and Biglari where the lithium and bromine extraction steps are performed in any order including where lithium is extracted first to produce the bromide containing aqueous source absent new and expected results.
Regarding claim 17, Warren teaches a method where impurities are removed. Warren further teaches geothermal brines from which lithium are extracted are pretreated to extract precious metals and base metals including Fe, Mn, Al, Rb, Ag, Pb, Cu, Cd where (see 3.2 Overview of Minerals Extraction from Geothermal Brines and Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to pretreat to extract transition metals as taught by Warren to have extracted precious and base metals as a by-product and to have a pure lithium hydroxide product.
Regarding claim 18, Warren further teaches concentration of the extract (See Figure A-5).
Regarding claim 19, the Office is not interpreting the reducing concentration and the reacting steps as in any particular order since for the first two steps there are no explicit language dictating a sequence and “derived from the aqueous source” does not imply grammatically that reacting occurs before reducing concentration. Support for this interpretation is in the Specification as filed at [0056]). However, the Office notes that the extracting lithium ions steps explicitly limits the step to being performed from a stream derived from the bromine depleted [aqueous stream].
Regarding claim 19, Warren teaches a method for lithium extraction from a brine, the method comprising:
Extraction of bromine from a bromine-lithium brine by adding chlorine gas to produce bromine gas (i.e., reacting a stream derived from an aqueous source comprising lithium ions and bromine ions with a chlorine gas to form bromine and a bromide depleted stream);
Pre-treating the brine to remove impurities;
withdrawing lithium ions from the bromine-depleted stream as a lithium-enriched eluate with an ion-exchange process (direct extraction process);
converting LiCl to LiOH via electrolysis, during which addition of sodium chloride produces chlorine gas that is used to generate dilute HCl for stripping of the ion-exchange sorbent.
Warren therefore teaches a method comprising generating chlorine gas in a conversion process (i.e., the electrolysis conversion process) that converts metal chloride (the LiCl) from an aqueous medium obtained from a metal containing aqueous source into a hydroxide material (the LiOH).
Regarding reducing a concentration of at least one or more of sulfide species, transition metal ions, organic species, Warren teaches a method where impurities are removed. Warren further teaches geothermal brines from which lithium are extracted are pretreated to extract precious metals and base metals including Fe, Mn, Al, Rb, Ag, Pb, Cu, Cd where (see 3.2 Overview of Minerals Extraction from Geothermal Brines and Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to pretreat to extract transition metals as taught by Warren to have extracted precious and base metals as a by-product and to have a pure lithium hydroxide product.
Warren does not teach a method comprising reacting the generated chlorine gas with the aqueous source comprising bromide ions to form bromine gas from the bromide ions.
Biglari teaches a method for preparing lithium hydroxide comprising use of a lithium chloride solution to obtain lithium hydroxide in an electrolysis step by means of a semipermeable membrane electrolysis wherein chlorine gas is recovered as a by-product. Biglari teaches a method where the recovered chlorine gas is partially or fully recycled in a chlorination step for chlorination of lithium-containing minerals, ores, or earths to be used so that the need for chlorine gas demand is reduced to circle or chlorine gas is guided in a circle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as taught by Warren where chlorine gas produced in the electrolysis conversion process are recycled to an earlier step as taught by Biglari so that the need for chlorine gas is zero and chlorine gas is recycled in a circle.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren and Biglari, as applied to claims 10, 8, or 14 and in further view of Tang et al (CN 106430388).
As applied to claim 10, Warren and Biglari teach a method comprising all of the limitations of claim 5 including generating chlorine gas in a conversion process, recovering the chlorine gas, recovering bromine by reacting the chlorine gas with a bromide containing aqueous source, and reducing impurities.
Regarding claim 11, Warren and Biglari do not teach a method comprising reducing a concentration of sulfide species including one or more of hydrogen sulfide, bisulfide, and/or sulfide species.
Tang teaches a method for using brine as a mineral resource for lithium and bromine, the method comprising removing hydrogen sulfide in natural brine because it has an adverse influence on device corrosion, environmental pollution and harm to the human body (see Background Technology). Tang further teaches that current treatment methods include oxidation by adding chlorine (see Background Technology). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method for producing lithium hydroxide, as taught by Warren and Biglari, where the method further comprises a step for reducing a concentration of hydrogen sulfide to prevent device corrosion, environmental pollution, and harm to humans.
Regarding claim 12, Tang teaches a method where hydrogen sulfide in the brine is removed by chlorine oxidation.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method for producing lithium hydroxide, as taught by Warren and Biglari, where the method further comprises a step for reducing a concentration of hydrogen sulfide to prevent device corrosion, environmental pollution, and harm to humans.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights