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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 14, 2023 and September 19, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, all references that are not lined through in the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement submitted on December 14, 2023 contains a foreign patent document (Buenaventura Pouyfaucon, WO 2012113958 A1) without a translation. However, applicant includes the same foreign patent document in the information disclosure statement submitted on September 19, 2024 with a translation. Therefore, WO 2012113958 A1 was considered in the information disclosure statement submitted on September 19, 2024, but not considered in the information disclosure statement submitted on December 14, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Reference number 205 in Fig. 2 is not mentioned in the specification. Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification.
Reference number 309 in Fig. 3 is not mentioned in the specification. Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification.
Reference number 206 is mentioned in the specification (Page 24, line 11) but is not included in the drawings.
Page 24, line 17 references 307 as the centrifugal pump. However, 307 is labeled as the inlet tube of the conditioning tank in Fig. 3. Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification.
Page 28, line 12 references 203 as the conditioning step where 2300 ppm 50% ammonium hydroxide is added to the extracted tail brine. However, 203 is labeled as the step for determining whether the pH level is between 5.5 and 6.5 in Fig. 2. Applicant may overcome this objection by amending the specification.
Fig. 2 is missing labels for the two possible pathways after determining whether the extracted brine ORP is less than 100 mV (reference number 205).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Line 2 contains legal phraseology (“said brine”)
Line 1 contains a phrase which can be implied (“The present disclosure”)
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, line 12, “chemical industry” should read as “Chemical Industry”
There are multiple instances throughout the specification where there is uneven spacing between words (see examples on page 5, line 19 where there are too many spaces between ”10” and “%” as well as “the” and “traditional”). Applicant is encouraged to review the specification to ensure equal spacing between words.
Page 9, lines 12 and 14, “NH2OH” should read as “NH2OH.”
Page 10, line 22 is missing a parenthesis; “(2012)” should read as “(2012))”
There are multiple instances throughout the specification where a plural term is used to refer to a singular object (see examples on page 21, line 4, where “present disclosures” is used instead of “present disclosure” and page 21, line 21, where “salt lakes brines” is used instead of “salt lake brines”). Applicant is encouraged to review the specification to ensure plural and singular terms are used to represent the correct number of objects.
Page 25, line 13 is missing a word between “the” and “for” in “may then be sent to the for further.”
Page 25, lines 18-19 is missing a word between “to” and “any” in “there is no need to any prior pH adjustments.”
The “V” should be capitalized in the abbreviation mV for millivolts (see page 28, line 21, page 29 line 3, and page 29, line 8).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (Page 10, line 20). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following:
Claims 1-12, line 1 (same line number for claims 1-12), “the treatment of tail brine extracted” should read as “a treatment of tail brine extracted”
Claims 1-7, line 4 (same line number for both claim 1 and 7) contain a period in the middle of the claim where the period was not used in an abbreviation. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 1, line 6 is missing a comma after “facility;” “via a network of fiberglass pipelines connecting the bromine plant to the lithium extraction production facility the extracted tail brine to a conditioning tank” should read as “via a network of fiberglass pipelines connecting the bromine plant to the lithium extraction production facility, the extracted tail brine to a conditioning tank”
Claim 1, line 8, the comma after “conditioning” should be removed
Claim 1, line 21, the comma after “discharging” should be removed
Claim 4, line 2, “the steps of conditioning and pre-treating” should read as “the conditioning and pre-treating steps”
Claim 4, line 5, “to be less than” should read as “is less than”
Claim 4, line 6 is missing a word; “the pH level of the extracted tail brine between 5.5 and 6.5” should read as “the pH level of the extracted tail brine is between 5.5 and 6.5.”
Claim 7, line 6 is missing a comma after “facility;” “via a network of fiberglass pipelines connecting the bromine plant to the lithium extraction production facility the extracted tail brine to a conditioning tank” should read as “via a network of fiberglass pipelines connecting the bromine plant to the lithium extraction production facility, the extracted tail brine to a conditioning tank”
Claim 7, line 8, the comma after “conditioning” should be removed
Claim 7, line 21, the comma after “discharging” should be removed
Claim 10, line 2, “the steps of conditioning and pre-treating” should read as “the conditioning and pre-treating steps”
Claim 10, line 5, “to be less than” should read as “is less than”
Claim 10, line 6 is missing a word; “the pH level of the extracted tail brine between 5.5 and 6.5” should read as “the pH level of the extracted tail brine is between 5.5 and 6.5.”
While the language used in the claims, with the exception of the limitations rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) mentioned below, do not render the claim indefinite, the applicant is encouraged to review the claims to ensure they use clear and concise language.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “low pH and high Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)” in lines 1-2. The terms “low pH” and “high Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The specification states that “typically” a low pH is less than 2 and a high ORP is more than 300 mV (Page 1, lines 3-7). These are not definitions as they do not provide reasonably clear and exclusive definitions and/or objective boundaries. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the pre-treated extracted tail brine” in lines 10 -11. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, examples 1 and 2 in the specification, as well as Fig. 1 and 2 suggest that steps (i)-(iv) are followed in chronological order. It is unclear whether the applicant imposes the listed steps be taken in chronological order where the conditioning step [labeled as step (ii)] precedes the pre-treating step [labeled as step(iii)] or if the steps do not require a particular order and the pre-treating step may be performed before the conditioning step. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by amending “until the pH level of the pre-treated extracted tail brine is between 5.5 and 6.5” to “until the pH leveled increases to between 5.5 to 6.5.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the measured ORP level of the extracted tail brine in the brine conditioning tank has reached less than 100 millivolts (mV)” in lines 15-16. The property ORP, or oxidation-reduction potential, is a relative observable and is generally measured relative to a reference. The specification mentions using “industry standard inline ORP and pH control systems or meters” (Page 24, line 13) but does not specify a reference nor more information on the specific control systems or meters that are implemented in the method. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in art would not be reasonably be apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the pre-treated extracted tail brine” in lines 18, 19, and 21. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, the specification suggests that both the conditioning and the pre-treating steps are required before sending the brine to the DLE processing device as the pH and ORP levels of the un-treated extracted tail brine may influence the efficiency of the lithium extraction process (Page 15, lines 12- 18). Therefore, it is unclear whether the referenced “pre-treated extracted tail brine” has also been conditioned before the sending [labeled as step (iv)], processing [labeled as step (v)] and discharging [labeled as step (vi)] steps. For compact prosecution purposes, the examiner will interpret the referenced “pre-treated tail brine” to include the extracted tail brine that been both conditioned and pre-treated first. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “pre-treated extracted tail brine” to “pre-treated conditioned extracted tail brine.”
Claims 2 – 6 depend upon or otherwise require all the limitations of claim 1 and are also similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an ORP value greater than 300 mV” in line 3. The property ORP, or oxidation-reduction potential, is a relative observable and is generally measured relative to a reference. The specification mentions using “industry standard inline ORP and pH control systems or meters” (Page 24, line 13) but does not specify a reference nor more information on the specific control systems or meters that are implemented in the method. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in art would not be reasonably be apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 2 indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “pre-treating the extracted brine” in line 3. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, examples 1 and 2 in the specification, as well as Fig. 1 and 2 suggest that steps (i) – (iv) are followed in chronological order. According to claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, hydrazine or hydroxylamine is added during the pre-treating step, which directly follows the conditioning step. Therefore, it is unclear whether the referenced “extracted brine” has also been conditioned. For compact prosecution purposes, examiner will interpret “the extracted brine” to include the extracted tail brine that has already been conditioned. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “the extracted tail brine” to the “conditioned extracted tail brine.”
Claim 3 further recites the limitation “with less than 70 ppm of hydrazine or hydroxylamine, further comprises between 5% to 60% of a hydrazine hydrate solution or 5% to 60% of a hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution” in lines 4-6. Based on the language recited in the claim, it is unclear whether the “70 ppm” refers to the concentration or amount of hydrazine or hydroxylamine added to the conditioned extracted tail brine during the pre-treating step, or if “70 ppm” refers to the concentration or amount of the extracted tail brine, interpreted as conditioned extracted tail brine. Therefore, it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what “70 ppm” references in claim 3, making the scope of the claim indefinite. The examiner is not apprised to of the scope of this limitation and is unable to perform a proper search for this limitation as currently recited.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “verifying that the ORP level of the extracted tail brine to be less than 100 millivolts (mV)” in lines 5-6. The property ORP is a relative observable and is generally measured relative to a reference. The specification mentions using “industry standard inline ORP and pH control systems or meters” (Page 24, line 13) but does not specify a reference nor more information on the specific control systems or meters that are implemented in the process. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in art would not be reasonably be apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 4 indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the conditioned brine” in lines 2-3. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, the specification suggests that both the conditioning and the pre-treating steps are required before sending the brine to the DLE processing device as the pH and ORP levels of the un-treated extracted tail brine may influence the efficiency of the lithium extraction process (Page 15, lines 12-18 and Page 22, lines 7-10). Therefore, it is unclear whether the extracted tail brine has been both conditioned and pre-treated or just conditioned before the processing step. For compact prosecution purposes, examiner will interpret “conditioned brine” to include the extracted tail brine that has been both conditioned and pre-treated. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “conditioned brine” to “pre-treated conditioned extracted brine.”
Claim 5 further recites the limitation “passing the pre-treated extracted tail brine” in line 6. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, the specification suggests that both the conditioning and the pre-treating steps are required before sending the brine to the DLE processing device as the pH and ORP levels of the un-treated extracted tail brine may influence the efficiency of the lithium extraction process (Page 15, lines 12-18 and Page 22, lines 7-10). Therefore, it is unclear whether the extracted tail brine has been both conditioned and pre-treated or just pre-treated before the processing step. For compact prosecution purposes, examiner will interpret “pre-treated extracted tail brine” to include the extracted tail brine that has been both conditioned and pre-treated. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “pre-treated extracted tail brine” to “pre-treated conditioned extracted tail brine.”
Claim 6 depends upon or otherwise require all the limitations of claim 5 and is also similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “low pH and high Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)” in lines 1 -2. The terms “low pH” and “high Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP)” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The specification states that “typically” a low pH is less than 2 and a high ORP is more than 300 mV (Page 1, lines 3-7). These are not definitions as they do not provide reasonably clear and exclusive definitions and/or objective boundaries. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the pre-treated extracted tail brine” in lines 8 and 10-11. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, examples 1 and 2 in the specification, as well as Fig. 1 and 2 suggest that steps (i)-(iv) are followed in chronological order. It is unclear whether the applicant imposes the listed steps be taken in chronological order where the conditioning step precedes the pre-treating step or if the steps do not require a particular order and the pre-treating step may be performed before the conditioning step. Applicant may be able to overcome this rejection by amending “the pre-treated extracted tail brine” to “the extracted tail brine” in line 8 and “until the pH level of the pre-treated extracted tail brine is between 5.5 and 6.5” to “until the pH leveled increased to between 5.5 to 6.5” in lines 10-11.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the measured ORP level of the extracted tail brine in the brine conditioning tank has reached less than 100 millivolts (mV)” in lines 15-16. The property ORP, or oxidation-reduction potential, is a relative observable and is generally measured relative to a reference. The specification mentions using “industry standard inline ORP and pH control systems or meters” (Page 24, line 13) but does not specify a reference nor more information on the specific control systems or meters that are implemented in the process. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in art would not be reasonably be apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the pre-treated extracted tail brine” in lines 18, 19, and 21. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, the specification suggests that both the conditioning and the pre-treating steps are required before sending the brine to the DLE processing device as the pH and ORP levels of the un-treated extracted tail brine may influence the efficiency of the lithium extraction process (Page 15, lines 12- 18 and Page 22, lines 7-10). Therefore, it is unclear whether the referenced “pre-treated extracted tail brine” has also been conditioned before the sending, processing, and discharging steps. For compact prosecution purposes, the examiner will interpret the referenced “pre-treated tail brine” to include the extracted tail brine that undergoes both conditioning and pre-treating. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “pre-treated extracted tail brine” to “pre-treated conditioned extracted tail brine.”
Claims 8 – 12 depend upon or otherwise require all the limitations of claim 1 and are also similarly rejected.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “an ORP value greater than 300 mV” in line 3. The property ORP is a relative observable and is generally measured relative to a reference. The specification mentions using “industry standard inline ORP and pH control systems or meters” (Page 24, line 13) but does not specify a reference nor more information on the specific control systems or meters that are implemented in the process. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in art would not be reasonably be apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 8 indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “less than 195 ppm of hydrazine or hydroxylamine” in lines 4 – 5. Claim 7, upon which claim 9 depends, recites the limitation “less than 70 ppm of hydrazine or hydroxylamine.” Since claim 9 recites a broader range than that in claim 7, the added amount of hydrazine or hydroxylamine may be considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language in claim 7 is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Additionally, based on the language recited in the claim, it is unclear whether the “195 ppm” refers to the concentration or amount of hydrazine or hydroxylamine added to the conditioned extracted tail brine during the pre-treating step, or if “195 ppm” refers to the concentration of the extracted tail brine, interpreted as conditioned extracted tail brine. Therefore, it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what “195 ppm” references in claim 9, making the scope of the claim indefinite. The examiner is not apprised to of the scope of this limitation and is unable to perform a proper search for this limitation as currently recited.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “verifying that the ORP level of the extracted tail brine to be less than 100 millivolts (mV)” in lines 5-6. The property ORP is a relative observable and is generally measured relative to a reference. The specification mentions using “industry standard inline ORP and pH control systems or meters” (Page 24, line 13) but does not specify a reference nor more information on the specific control systems or meters that are implemented in the process. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in art would not be reasonably be apprised of the scope of the limitation, making claim 10 indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the conditioned brine” in lines 2-3. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, the specification suggests that both the conditioning and the pre-treating steps are required before sending the brine to the DLE processing device as the pH and ORP levels of the un-treated extracted tail brine may influence the efficiency of the lithium extraction process (Page 15, lines 12-18 and Page 22, lines 7-10). Therefore, it is unclear whether the extracted tail brine has been both conditioned and pre-treated, or just conditioned, before the processing step. For compact prosecution purposes, examiner will interpret “conditioned brine” to include the extracted tail brine that has been both conditioned and pre-treated. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “conditioned brine” to “pre-treated conditioned extracted brine.”
Claim 11 further recites the limitation “passing the pre-treated extracted tail brine” in line 6. The courts have held that it is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where the language of the method claims does not impose a specific order on the performance of the method step. However, the specification suggests that both the conditioning and the pre-treating steps are required before sending the brine to the DLE processing device as the pH and ORP levels of the un-treated extracted tail brine may influence the efficiency of the lithium extraction process (Page 15, lines 12-18 and Page 22, lines 7-10). Therefore, it is unclear whether the extracted tail brine has been both conditioned and pre-treated, or just pre-treated, before the processing step. For compact prosecution purposes, examiner will interpret “pre-treated extracted tail brine” to include the extracted tail brine that has been both conditioned and pre-treated. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “pre-treated extracted tail brine” to “pre-treated conditioned extracted tail brine.”
Claim 12 depends upon or otherwise require all the limitations of claim 11 and is also similarly rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of adding “less than 195 ppm of hydrazine or hydroxylamine” in lines 4 - 5. Claim 7, upon which claim 9 depends, recites the limitation “less than 70 ppm of hydrazine or hydroxylamine” in the pre-treating step. The limitation of less than 195 ppm recited in claim 9 is a broader range than the limitation of less than of 70 ppm as recited in claim 7, therefore failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yu, et. al., 2022, EP 4050114 A1, referred to as Yu-1 from herein, discloses a process to extract lithium from brine by using a DLE processing device wherein the DLE processing device further comprises of four groups of adsorption columns filled with lithium adsorption resins that are interconnected via a multi-way valve system, allowing the pre-treated extracted brine and the lithium adsorption resins to pass through respective feeding piping systems located above or below a rotary disc of the multi-way valve system and feeding the extracted brine and the lithium adsorption resins through the corresponding groups of adsorption columns using ducts and channels. Yu-1 further discloses the four groups of adsorption columns are connected in series or in parallel by channels.
Yu-1 does not disclose any of steps related to retrieving the extracted brine, treating the extracted tail brine before processing it in a DLE processing device, and discharging the eluate solution. While Yu-1 provides a list of lithium resources, they do not specifically disclose nor suggest tail brine from a bromine plant as a potential lithium source.
Yu, et. al, 2021, WO 2021135946 A1, referred to as Yu-2 from herein, is the WIPO equivalent of Yu-1 and discloses the same limitations as Yu-1.
Napela, et. al. 2020, US 29299181471 A1, referred to as Napela from herein, discloses a process of preparing brines with bromide salts. Napela discloses process that includes increasing the pH of the brine by adding hydroxides and inorganic hydroxides, such as sodium hydroxide, to achieve a pH level of 1-7 as well as a reducing agent, such as hydrazine, if inorganic hydroxides are specifically added.
Napela also discloses the brines having a pH as low as 1 and containing bromide salts before pH adjustment. However, does not disclose the brine containing chlorine or chloride salts. Napela does not disclose or suggest extracting brines from are bromine plants.
Additionally, while Napela suggests the addition of hydrazine as a reducing agent, Napela does not include any further details such as amount of hydrazine added or the oxidation-reduction potential of the brine before and after the addition of the reducing agent.
Napela does not further disclose nor suggest the disclosed brines be further used for lithium extraction.
Kirsch, et. al. 1985, US 4549973 A, referred to as Kirsch from herein, discloses a process to treating brine containing bromide and chloride with either hydroxylamine, including hydroxylamine hydrochloride, or hydrazine, including hydrazine hydrate. Kirsch does not disclose the brine coming from a bromine plant nor treating the brines to be further used for lithium extraction. Furthermore, Kirsch uses hydroxylamine/hydrazine as a de-coloring agent and does not disclose any information related to oxidation-reduction potential nor pH.
Cook, et. al. 1973, US 3769208 A, referred to as Cook from herein, discloses a process for neutralizing acidic, industrial brine containing bromine with ammonium hydroxide. Cook does not disclose nor suggest pre-treating the brine to influence the oxidation-reduction potential. Additionally, Cook discloses that neutralizing the industrial brine is necessary for disposal and does not disclose nor suggest further usage in lithium extraction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN F CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:00PM, Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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 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.
/V.F.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights