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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 17, 20, 22-30, 32-33, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190256987A1, hereinafter ‘Syndacker’, in view of WO2023275375A1, hereinafter ‘Kuippers’.
Regarding Claim 17, Syndacker discloses a method of removing a target metal from a solution comprising the target metal ([0004], the method comprising:
contacting an adsorbent with the solution comprising the target metal; adsorbing the target metal onto the adsorbent; contacting the adsorbent with an acid; desorbing the target metal from the adsorbent; and recovering the target metal )[0004]: one aspect described herein is an integrated process for generating a purified lithium concentrate from a liquid resource, comprising: a) providing an ion exchange unit (i.e., an adsorbent); b) contacting said ion exchange material in said ion exchange unit with said liquid resource, wherein hydrogen ions from said ion exchange material are exchanged with lithium ions from said liquid resource to produce a lithium-enriched ion exchange material in said ion exchange unit; and c) treating said lithium-enriched ion exchange material with an acid solution, wherein said lithium ions from said lithium-enriched ion exchange material are exchanged with hydrogen ions from said acid solution to produce a lithium eluate).
Further regarding Claim 17, while Syndacker discloses contacting an adsorbent with an acid to produce a lithium eluate, and further discloses the use of weak acids such as acetic acid ([0015]), Syndacker does not disclose contacting the adsorbent with a microorganism, wherein the microorganism produces a weak acid, and contacting the adsorbent with said weak acid.
Kuippers discloses process for recovering metals from active battery components ("black mass") using specific microorganisms ([0001]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Kuippers as analogous the claimed invention, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, bioleaching of metal-containing materials - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Kuippers discloses contacting a black mass containing metals derived from lithium ion batteries with a culture of microorganisms to support growth and the production of organic acids, complexing agents or reducing agents, and depleting the black mass of metals contained therein by bioleaching ([0029]). Kuippers discloses that a surprising effect associated with the invention is the observation that the process allows to reduce the amount of organic acids required to deplete the metals from batteries when compared with a chemical extraction process based on the pure organic acids ([0038]). Among the list of suitable microorganisms disclosed by Kuippers for bioleaching includes Aspergiiius niger (A. niger) and Gluconobacter oxydans (G. oxydans) ([0045]). Kuippers discloses that organic acids useful for bioleaching are, or are produced by microorganisms according to the invention, but are not limited to, itaconic acid, citric acid, acetic acid, lactic acid or malic acid, or combinations thereof ([0079]).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to contact the adsorbent of Syndacker with a microorganism such as Aspergiiius niger or Gluconobacter oxydans as taught by Kuippers. Such bioleaching has been shown to produce organic acids such as acetic acid, thereby reducing the required amount of acid required to elute lithium from the adsorbent of Syndacker and improving the efficiency of the disclosed process.
Regarding Claim 20, Syndacker as modified above makes obvious the weak acid is acetic acid as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 22-23, Syndacker as modified above makes obvious the target metal is ionic lithium (as discussed above, Syndacker recovers lithium from solution, wherein it would exist as dissociated lithium ions).
Regarding Claim 24-28, Syndacker as modified above makes obvious the adsorbent comprises a metal adsorbent comprising aluminum and manganese ([0102-103]: the ion exchange material is selected from metal adsorbents comprising aluminum and manganese ion exchange materials, and further comprises coated ion exchange particles which comprise a polymer, which is considered a resin, thereby making the coated particles ion exchange resin particles).
Regarding Claims 29-30, Syndacker as modified above makes obvious the microorganism comprises A. niger and G. oxydans as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 32-33 and 35-36, Syndacker as modified above makes obvious contacting the target metal with an alkali metal carbonate comprising sodium carbonate, and precipitating a solid comprising the target metal ([0115]: In one embodiment, said system further comprises a carbonation unit for precipitating Li2CO3 by addition of Na2CO3 to said lithium eluate solution).
Claim(s) 18-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190256987A1, hereinafter ‘Syndacker’, in view of WO2023275375A1, hereinafter ‘Kuippers’, as evidenced by Bahaloo-Horeh et al. (Enhanced recovery of valuable metals from spent lithium-ion batteries through optimization of organic acids produced by Aspergillus niger, Waste Management, 2017), hereinafter ‘Horeh’.
Regarding Claims 18-19 and 21, Syndacker as modified above makes obvious that the weak acid is oxalic acid and gluconic acid – particularly, as evidenced by Horeh, the use of A. niger in bioleaching of spent lithium ion battery materials produces both oxalic acid and gluconic acid (3.3. Experimental design of bioleaching experiment, Fig. 1). Therefore, in the modified process of Syndacker utilizing bioleaching using A. niger, both oxalic and gluconic acid would be produced and contact the adsorbent.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190256987A1, hereinafter ‘Syndacker’, in view of WO2023275375A1, hereinafter ‘Kuippers’, and in view of US20210079497A1, hereinafter ‘Baxter’.
Regarding Claim 34, while Syndacker as modified above makes obvious a process for recovering lithium from lithium brines, Syndacker as modified above does not disclose heating the solution comprising the target metal.
Baxter discloses a process for recovery of lithium from brines ([0001]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Baxter as analogous the claimed invention, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, recovery of lithium from brines - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Baxter discloses heating lithium brines before subjecting them to lithium separation. Particularly, Baxter discloses that heating incoming brines prior to lithium separation up to a temperature of 65 °C improves subsequent lithium extraction and prevents insertion of Na ions into the adsorbent ([0003]).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to heat the brine fed to the process of Syndacker as modified above by the means taught by Baxter. Such heating would predictably improve lithium separation from the brine and prevent Na insertion into the adsorbent, thereby improving extraction and extending the longevity of the adsorbent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 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:
The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of Claim 31, which requires the microorganism be Gluconobacter diazotrophicus. While the prior art discloses a broad list of suitable microorganisms for bioleaching of lithium materials, it does not disclose or suggest this microorganism.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-5:30 PST.
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, 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.
LOGAN LACLAIR
Examiner
Art Unit 1736
/L.E.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights