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 Status
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131,149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
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.
Claims1-10 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 9, the following limitations render the claim indefinite: “wherein a usage condition of the lithium extraction adsorbent includes: before use, activating the lithium extraction adsorbent by placing the lithium extraction adsorbent into an alkali activator for stirring for 0.5 h to 12 h, and washing the lithium extraction adsorbent to neutrality with deionized water”, as it is unclear if these limitations are required by the claim. The limitations appear to be directed to a method of using the lithium extraction adsorbent, which are further detailed in claim 9. For the purposes of examination, these steps will be treated as optional as they relate to a method of use.
With respect to claim 4, it is unclear to the Examiner how the mass ratio component of the functional material is determined if the functional material corresponds to the embodiment of claim 3, a quaternized derivative of the organic carrier. Paragraphs [0034, 0035] of the Specification indicate that the organic carrier can be chitosan, while Paragraph [0037] indicates that the functional material can be embodied as a quaternized derivative of the organic carrier, specifically quaternized chitosan. From these teachings, it appears to be impossible for the claim 3 embodiment to have a different mass ratio component for the quaternized groups of the chitosan and chitosan itself, as these components are one and the same. Since the quaternized chitosan meets the limitations of the organic carrier and the functional material, the Examiner submits that the mass ratio recited in claim 4 will be considered to be met by a teaching of a mass ratio of metal-based lithium ion sieve to quaternized chitosan of 1.125 to 1 or 1.25 to 1.25.
Claim 10 provides for a process, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process of use, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5-8, they are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN # 111185139 A (machine translation provided by Applicant relied upon) in view of CN # 111992155 A (machine translation provided by Applicant relied upon), Pantic et al. (Ethanol-induced preparation of chitosan aerogels for bone tissue engineering, available online 22 August 2022), Pages 1-20), and Terry et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2011/0303611), hereinafter “CN (‘139)”, “CN (‘155)”, “Pantic”, and “Terry”.
With respect to claims 1-3 and 9, CN (‘139) teaches a method for preparing a lithium ion sieve (“extraction”) adsorbent (see Abstract; Claim 1), the method comprising:
uniformly mixing a magnesium oxide (“metal-based lithium ion sieve”) and chitosan solution to obtain a composite hydrogel (“forming a homogeneous casting liquid by stirring a manganese oxide (“metal-based lithium ion sieve”; “manganese-based lithium ion sieve”), an organic carrier embodied as chitosan, and a functional material embodied as the cationic amine groups on chitosan (“quaternized derivative corresponding the chitosan organic carrier”) (Page 2 Paragraphs 5 and 9; see also Page 3 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of CN (‘155) for discussion of cationic amine groups of chitosan);
adding the hydrogel solution (“homogeneous casting liquid”) dropwise to a solidifying liquid embodied as NaOH to obtain composite gel pellets (“particles”) (Page 5 Paragraph 6); and
washing the gel particles to neutrality with deionized water to obtain washed gel particles (see Page 5 Paragraph 6), followed by placing the washed gel particles in a solution to crosslink for 3 to 9 h (discrete range within “0.5 h to 12 h”) to obtain crosslinked gel particles (Page 2 Paragraph 7), freeze-freeze-drying the crosslinked gel particles to obtain the lithium extraction adsorbent (see Page 2, Paragraphs 8 and 14).
With respect to the limitations “wherein a usage condition of the lithium extraction adsorbent includes: before use, activating the lithium extraction adsorbent by placing the lithium extraction adsorbent into an alkali activator for stirring for 0.5 h to 12 h, and washing the lithium extraction adsorbent to neutrality with deionized water” and the limitations of claim 9, these limitations are not given patentable weight in the method of preparing the lithium extraction adsorbent, as they pertain to methods of use.
CN (‘139) teaches an NaOH solidifying solution, but does not specifically teach that the solution comprises ethanol.
Pantic teaches formation of chitosan gels from ethanol-NaOH solutions (see Abstract; Section 3.1). It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to modify the solidifying solution of CN (‘139) with ethanol solutions of NaOH as taught by Pantic in order to gain the advantages of high stability gels having high surface areas (see Abstract).
CN (‘139) teaches that the solution in which cross-linking takes place comprises ethylene glycol glycidyl ether, and does not specifically teach glutaraldehyde; however, cross-linking of a similar chitosan metal-based lithium extraction adsorbent was conducted in the presence of glutaraldehyde in the method of CN (‘155), which produces a 3-dimensional network skeleton of chitosan, which, when cured, is stable in aqueous solution and improves lithium adsorption (see Page 2, 4th paragraph from the bottom; Page 3, paragraphs 1 and 3, and see Example 4 on Page 4).
CN (‘139) does not specifically teach that the crosslinking solution is stirred; however, Terry teaches that crosslinked chitosan polymers are obtained from stirred solutions. It would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that stirring of the crosslinking solution would expose more functional groups on a chitosan polymer such that they were more accessible to crosslinking.
With respect to claim 4, Example 1 of CN (‘139) teaches that the chitosan (“organic carrier”) with cationic/quaternized groups (“functional material”) to the lithium ion sieve (“metal-based lithium ion sieve”) ranges from 1:4 to 4:1, which encompasses the claimed ratio of 1.25:1 or 1:.25:1.25 for the metal-based lithium ion sieve to the organic carrier, as consistent with the interpretation made in the corresponding 112(b) rejection set forth above.
CN (‘139) in view of Pantic, CN (‘155), Pantic, and Terry and the claims differ in that CN (139) does not teach the exact same proportions for the mass ratio of metal-based lithium ion sieve to organic carrier/functional material as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by CN (‘139) encompasses the instantly claimed proportion and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in CN (‘139), particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
With respect to claim 8, CN (‘139) in view of Pantic, CN (‘155), Pantic, and Terry teaches that the glutaraldehyde solution is 10% by mass of 50g. Since the molecular weight of glutaraldehyde is about 100 g/mol, a 10% glutaraldehyde solution as taught in Example 4 of CN (‘155) has a concentration of 0.05 M, a discrete embodiment within “0.01 M to 0.2M”. CN (‘155) teaches a crosslinking time of 24 h (see Example 4), and therefore does not teach 3.5 h; however, there is no evidence indicating such crosslinking time is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 10, regarding the application or “use” of the lithium extraction adsorbent, the function “extracting lithium in various types of water bodies” would be inherent to the composition and the lithium extraction adsorbent of CN (‘139) would inherently meet the use. MPEP 2112.01(II), In re Spada, 911F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN # 111185139 A (machine translation provided by Applicant relied upon) in view of CN # 111992155 A (machine translation provided by Applicant relied upon), Pantic et al. (Ethanol-induced preparation of chitosan aerogels for bone tissue engineering, available online 22 August 2022), Pages 1-20), and Terry et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2011/0303611) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chung et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0127125) and Chung et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2014/0210122), hereinafter “CN (‘139)”, “CN (‘155)”, “Pantic”, “Terry”, and “Chung 1” and “Chung 2”.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, CN (‘139) in view of CN (‘155), Pantic, and Terry teaches a lithium sorbent comprising lithium and manganese (see Claim 4 of CN (‘155)), but does not specifically teach the preparation process of the metal-based lithium ion sieve as recited.
Chung 1 teaches a lithium-manganese oxide adsorbent prepared by:
(a) weighing a lithium carbonate (see Paragraph [0042]) and a manganese oxide (“metal precursor”) (see Paragraph [0042]) in a molar ratio of lithium to manganese of 1:1 (discrete embodiment within “1:2 to 2:1”) and mixing the lithium carbonate and the manganese oxide (“metal precursor”) (see Example 1) in a ball mill for 6 h to obtain a mixed powder (Paragraph [0042]);
(b) placing the mixed powder into a tube furnace and calcining the mixed powder at 500°C for 8 h under air atmosphere to obtain a lithium ion sieve precursor (see Paragraph [0044]);
while Chung 2 teaches (c) placing the lithium ion sieve precursor into a hydrochloric acid solution having a concentration ranging from 0.01 to 3M (encompassing “0.5 M”) for pickling for 5 to 160 hours, which encompasses 12 h to 24 h (see Paragraphs [0053-0059]), wherein room temperature is presumed as no heating or cooling step is taught, to obtain a pickled lithium ion sieve precursor (see also Example 5 in Paragraph [0067, 0068])), and drying the pickled lithium ion sieve precursor to obtain the metal- based lithium ion sieve (see Example 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consult the art of obtaining lithium-manganese lithium adsorbents to determine an appropriate lithium manganese adsorbent to carry out the method of CN (‘139) in view of CN (‘155), Pantic, and Terry. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Although Chung 1 does not specifically teach mixing for 2 hours (teaches 6h instead), there is no evidence indicating such mixing time is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
CN (‘139) in view of Pantic, CN (‘155), Terry, and Chung 2 and the claims differ in that Chung does not teach the exact same values for HCl concentration or picking time as recited in the instant claims; however, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the HCl concentration or picking time taught by Chung encompasses the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in Chung, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Although Chung does not specifically teach drying at 35°C to 100°C for 8 h to 24 h, there is no evidence indicating such drying times and temperatures are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 7, CN (‘139) in view of CN (‘155), Pantic, Terry, Chung 1, and Chung 2 teaches manganese carbonate as a starting material (see Paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 04 February 2026