DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are rejected
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
3. Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-11 and 17-20 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.
6. Claim 1, lines 2-4, recites the phrase, “gelled polysaccharide comprising a group establishing an ionic bond with a divalent cation, trivalent cation and mixtures thereof”. It is unclear if the phrase is meant to be a Markush group language or the gelled polysaccharide comprising all components, i.e., an ionic bond with a divalent cation, trivalent cation and mixtures thereof. In light of Specification, [0033], the examiner interprets the phrase as “gelled polysaccharide comprising an ionic bond with a divalent cation, trivalent cation or mixtures thereof”. Clarification is requested.
7. Regarding dependent claims 2-11 and 17-20, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
8. Claim 3, lines 1-2, recites the phrase, “gelled polysaccharide comprises a group establishing an ionic bond with Ca, Sr, Ba cations and mixtures thereof”. It is unclear if the phrase is meant to be a Markush group language or the gelled polysaccharide comprising all components, i.e., an ionic bond with Ca, Sr, Ba cations and mixtures thereof. In light of Specification, [0034], the examiner interprets the phrase as “gelled polysaccharide comprises an ionic bond with Ca, Sr, Ba cations or mixtures thereof”. Clarification is requested.
9. Regarding dependent claim 18, the claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 3 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale.
10. Claim 4 recites the term, “said group” which lacks antecedent basis. The examiner interprets this phrase as “the group establishing an ionic bond with Ca, Sr, Ba cations, or mixtures thereof”. Clarification is required.
11. Claim 5, lines 2-3, recites the phrase, “gelled polysaccharide is a gelled alginate under the action of a divalent cation, a trivalent cation and mixtures thereof.”. It is unclear if the phrase is meant to be a Markush group language or the gelled polysaccharide is a gelled alginate under the action of all components, i.e., under the action of a divalent cation, a trivalent cation and mixtures thereof. In light of Specification, [0014], the examiner interprets the phrase as “gelled polysaccharide is a gelled alginate under the action of a divalent cation, a trivalent cation or mixtures thereof.”. Clarification is requested.
12. Claim 6, lines 2-3, recites the phrase, “gelled polysaccharide is a gelled alginate under the action of a divalent cation, a trivalent cation and mixtures thereof.”. It is unclear if the phrase is meant to be a Markush group language or the gelled polysaccharide is a gelled alginate under the action of all components, i.e., under the action of a divalent cation, a trivalent cation and mixtures thereof. In light of Specification, [0014], the examiner interprets the phrase as “gelled polysaccharide is a gelled alginate under the action of a divalent cation, a trivalent cation or mixtures thereof.”. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-6, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 106902774 A) (Wang), taken in view of evidence by Santos de Laia et al., A Study of Sodium Alginate and Calcium Chloride Interaction Through Films for Intervertebral Disc Regeneration Uses (Santos de Laia).
9. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of CN 106902774 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
10. Regarding claims 1-3 and 18, Wang teaches a layered aluminum salt adsorbent (Wang, Abstract) and a method for extracting lithium from salt-lake low-lithium brine (i.e. a product for the extraction of lithium from a brine) (Wang, p. 1, lines 25-27)
wherein the external layer of the layered aluminum salt adsorbent is a high-molecular polymer and a polysaccharide skeleton (Wang, Abstract)
wherein aluminum salt adsorbent particles are distributed between the polysaccharide skeleton (i.e. said product comprising particles bound by a binder) (Wang, p. 5, lines 30-31)
wherein the polysaccharide skeleton is alginate (Wang, p. 5, lines 33-34).
Wang further teaches calcium alginate polysaccharide skeleton is formed by adding calcium chloride to a mixture of an aqueous solution (Wang, p. 5, lines 1-3) of sodium alginate (Wang, p. 4, line 45)
wherein when sodium alginate is in solution with CaCl2 crosslinking occurs resulting in gel formation (i.e. a gelled polysaccharide) (Santos de Laia, p. 7341, Introduction, first paragraph).
Wang further teaches the layered aluminum salt adsorbent comprises the calcium alginate polysaccharide skeleton (i.e. ionic bond with a calcium divalent cation) (Wang, p. 5, lines 1) with aluminum salt (i.e. trivalent cation) adsorbent particles distributed in the skeleton (Wang, p. 5, lines 30-31)
wherein the aluminum salt adsorbent is [xMg(OH)2 (2-x)Al(OH)3] · nH2O (Wang, Abstract) to form a calcium alginate aluminum salt adsorbent (Wang, p. 8, lines 12-13).
11. Regarding claim 4, Wang further teaches the calcium alginate aluminum salt adsorbent (Wang, p. 8, lines 12-13) wherein alginate is a carboxyl-containing polysaccharide (i.e. the group establishing an ionic bond with Ca cations is chosen from carboxylate) (Santos de Laia, p. 7342, Figure 2)
12. Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Wang further teaches the layered aluminum salt adsorbent (Wang, Abstract) comprises calcium alginate aluminum salt adsorbent (i.e. gelled polysaccharide is a gelled alginate under the action of a divalent and trivalent cation) (Wang, p. 8, lines 12-13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
14. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrisson et al. (CN 107250049 A) (Harrisson) in view of Wang.
15. Regarding claim 1, Harrisson teaches an activated alumina lithium intercalate composition for selective extraction and recovery of lithium from lithium containing solutions, including brines (Harrisson, Abstract)
wherein the activated alumina lithium intercalate composition comprises a polymer matrix binder (Harrisson, p. 9, lines 9-10) and a LiX/Al(OH)3 sorbent material (i.e. particles of a lithium adsorbent) (Harrison, p. 2, line 40)
wherein aluminum is a trivalent cation.
However, Harrisson does not teach said binder comprising a gelled polysaccharide comprising a group establishing an ionic bond with a divalent cation, a trivalent cation or mixtures thereof.
With respect to the difference, Wang teaches a layered aluminum salt adsorbent (Wang, Abstract) and a method for extracting lithium from salt-lake low-lithium brine (i.e. a product for the extraction of lithium from a brine) (Wang, p. 1, lines 25-26)
wherein the external layer of the layered aluminum salt adsorbent is a high-molecular polymer and a polysaccharide skeleton (Wang, Abstract)
wherein the polysaccharide skeleton is a gelled alginate (Wang, p. 5, lines 33-34 and Santos de Laia, p. 7341, Introduction, first paragraph)
wherein the aluminum salt adsorbent is [xMg(OH)2 (2-x)Al(OH)3] · nH2O (Wang, Abstract) to form a calcium alginate aluminum salt adsorbent (Wang, p. 8, lines 12-13).
Wang expressly teaches the synthesis of lithium adsorbent using calcium alginate and a high-molecular polymer as carriers increases the strength and ensures the small loss of adsorbent (Wang, p. 7, line 14) to achieve the rapid adsorption of lithium at low concentration and selective adsorption performance to lithium (Wang p. 7, lines 15-16).
Harrisson and Wang are analogous art as they are all drawn to lithium salt adsorbents.
In light of the motivation for a lithium adsorbent to have increased strength and a small loss of adsorbent as disclosed by Wang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium alginate in the activated alumina lithium intercalate composition of Harrisson, in order to achieve the rapid adsorption of lithium at low concentration and selective adsorption performance to lithium, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
16. Regarding claim 10, Harrisson further teaches the activated alumina lithium intercalate composition comprises a resulting matrix that includes a major portion of activated lithium aluminum oxide and a small portion of the matrix binder (Harrisson, p. 9, lines 7-10);
wherein the activated lithium aluminum oxide is prepared by injecting a three-dimensionally structured activated alumina with a lithium salt to produce the LiX Al(OH)3 sorbent material (Harrisson, p. 2, lines 39-40)
wherein the activated alumina lithium intercalate composition is calcined in 730 – 930 ° F (i.e. 399 – 499 ° C) and is rapidly dried (Harrisson, p. 5, lines 38-39)
wherein the resulting matrix comprises about 75% to 99% by weight of the activated lithium aluminum oxide (i.e. lithium adsorbent) (Harrison, p. 9, line 11), which overlaps with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Given Harrisson in view of Wang teaches the activated alumina lithium intercalate composition is identical or substantially identical to the product for extraction of lithium from a brine of the present invention, it is clear that the activated alumina lithium intercalate composition Harrisson in view of Wang would have a mass proportion of particles of the lithium adsorbent, after drying at 100°C for 12 hours, is greater than or equal to 95% and less than 99.9% of a total mass of said product, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
17. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualleg (WO 2017202825 A1) in view of Wang.
18. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of WO 2017202825 A1. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
19. Regarding claim 1, Boualleg teaches a solid material for adsorption of lithium wherein the solid material is used in a process for extracting lithium from saline solutions (i.e. a brine) (Boulleg, Abstract)
wherein the solid material is in the form of extrudates (i.e. particles) with a formula (LiCl)x 2Al(OH)3 nH2O (Boualleg, Abstract)
wherein aluminum in Al(OH)3 is a trivalent cation
wherein to form the extrudates a paste undergoes a kneading extrusion step in the presence of a binder (i.e. particles bound by a binder) (Boualleg, p. 9, lines 9-10)
Boualleg further teaches the binder is an aqueous dispersion of paraffin waxes (i.e. a gel) and polysaccharides (i.e. a gelled polysaccharide) (Boualleg, p. 10, lines 23-24).
Given that Boualleg discloses the solid material for adsorption of lithium that overlaps the presently claimed product for extraction of lithium from a brine, including said binder comprising a gelled polysaccharide, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the solid material for adsorption of lithium with an aqueous dispersion of paraffin waxes and polysaccharides (i.e. a gelled polysaccharide), which is both disclosed by Boualleg and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
However, Boualleg does not teach a gelled polysaccharide comprising a group establishing an ionic bond with a divalent cation, a trivalent cation or mixtures thereof.
With respect to the difference, Wang teaches a layered aluminum salt adsorbent (Wang, Abstract) and a method for extracting lithium from salt-lake low-lithium brine (i.e. a product for the extraction of lithium from a brine) (Wang, p. 1, lines 25-26)
wherein the external layer of the layered aluminum salt adsorbent is a high-molecular polymer and a polysaccharide skeleton (Wang, Abstract)
wherein the polysaccharide skeleton is a gelled alginate (Wang, p. 5, lines 33-34 and Santos de Laia, p. 7341, Introduction, first paragraph)
wherein the aluminum salt adsorbent is [xMg(OH)2 (2-x)Al(OH)3] · nH2O (Wang, Abstract) to form a calcium alginate aluminum salt adsorbent (Wang, p. 8, lines 12-13).
Wang expressly teaches the synthesis of lithium adsorbent using calcium alginate and a high-molecular polymer as carriers increases the strength and ensures the small loss of adsorbent (Wang, p. 7, line 14) to achieve the rapid adsorption of lithium at low concentration and selective adsorption performance to lithium (Wang p. 7, lines 15-16).
Boualleg and Wang are analogous art as they are all drawn to lithium salt adsorbents.
In light of the motivation for a lithium adsorbent to have increased strength and a small loss of adsorbent as disclosed by Wang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include calcium alginate in the solid material for adsorption of lithium of Boualleg, in order to achieve the rapid adsorption of lithium at low concentration and selective adsorption performance to lithium, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
20. Regarding claim 11, Boualleg further teaches a shape of the material obtained (i.e. product is in the form of) is cylindrical with circular (i.e. rings) or multilobed (i.e. polylobed) cross sections (Boualleg, p. 10, lines 1-2)
wherein the cylindrical material (Boualleg, p. 10, lines 1-2) has a diameter between 0.2 and 5 mm (i.e. smallest dimension) (Boualleg, p. 14, line 40), which falls within the claimed range.
Given the solid material for adsorption of lithium in Boualleg is a cylindrical material, it is clear that the length of the cylindrical material (i.e., greatest dimension) would inherently and necessarily be equal or greater than the diameter (i.e., smallest dimension) of the cylindrical material, which would overlap the presently claimed range of the greatest dimension.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
21. Claims 7-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualleg in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (JP 2018535309 A) (Chen).
22. The Examiner has provided a machine translation of JP 2018535309 A. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
23. Regarding claims 7-9, Boualleg further teaches the solid material for adsorption of lithium is in the form of extrudates (i.e. particles) with a formula (LiCl)x 2Al(OH)3 nH2O (Boualleg, Abstract) that exhibits an adsorption capacity for lithium (i.e. lithium adsorbent) (Boualleg, p. 5, lines 6-7), however, Boualleg in view of Wang does not teach wherein the lithium adsorbent is selected from: [[-]] a lithiated bayerite; [[-]] a lithium aluminate, [[-]] an optionally doped manganese spinel, [[-]] a lithiated iron oxide, optionally hydrated and/or doped; [[-]] [[A]] a lithiated magnesium oxide, optionally hydrated and/or doped; [[-]] [[A]] a cobalt and lithium spinel, optionally hydrated and/or doped; [[-]] [[A]] a lithium titanate, optionally hydrated and/or doped; [[-]] H2TiO3 optionally hydrated and/or doped; [[-]] H2Ti307 optionally hydrated and/or doped; [[-]] H4Ti5012, optionally hydrated and/or doped; [[-]] and mixtures thereof.
With respect to the difference, Chen teaches an adsorbent composed of hydrated alumina intercalated with LiX to extract lithium (i.e. a product for extraction of lithium from a brine) (Chen, Abstract) from a brine (Chen, [0001])
wherein the hydrated alumina has the formula Al(OH)3 with examples of structures including bayerite (Chen, [0004])
Given that Chen discloses the adsorbent composed of hydrated alumina intercalated with LiX to extract lithium that overlaps the presently claimed product for extraction of lithium from a brine, including bayerite, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the adsorbent composed of hydrated alumina intercalated with LiX to extract lithium with bayerite Al(OH)3, which is both disclosed by Chen and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Chen further teaches the hydrated alumina is intercalated with LiX to with the chemical composition of the formula LiX(1-a) 2Al(OH)3 (i.e. a lithiated bayerite) (Chen, [0005]).
Chen expressly teaches the adsorbent composed of hydrated alumina intercalated with LiX has high lithium sorption capacity, fast lithium sorption and desorption rate, and large particle sizes, to achieve lower pressure drops in the bed, permanent particle integrity and lower preparation costs (Chen, [0038])
wherein through the use of bayerite in the preparation of adsorbents results in very good adsorbent properties, such as large particle size with large surface area, fast intercalation rate and particle integrity permanence (Chen, [0039]).
Boualleg, Wang, and Chen are analogous art as they are all drawn to a product for lithium extraction.
In light of the motivation for the bayerite structure for Al(OH)3 in the preparation of lithium adsorbents resulting in good adsorbent properties as disclosed by Chen, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include hydrated alumina with the formula Al(OH)3 as a bayerite (i.e. a lithiated bayerite) in the solid material for adsorption of lithium of Boualleg in view of Wang, in order to achieve a large particle size with large surface area, a fast intercalation rate and particle integrity permanence, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
24. Regarding claims 19-20, Boualleg and Chen further teach the solid material for adsorption of lithium is in the form of extrudates (i.e. particles) with a formula (LiCl)x 2Al(OH)3 nH2O (Boualleg, Abstract) that exhibits an adsorption capacity for lithium (i.e. lithium adsorbent) (Boualleg, p. 5, lines 6-7)
wherein the hydrated alumina has the formula Al(OH)3 with a bayerite structure (i.e. a lithiated bayerite) (Chen, [0004])
wherein n is between 0.01 and 10 and x being between 0.4 and 1, which encompasses the claimed range (Boualleg, p. 6, lines 38-39).
Allowable Subject Matter
25. Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
26. While Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1, Wang explicitly teaches the external layer of the layered aluminum salt adsorbent being a high-molecular polymer coated with a polysaccharide skeleton (Wang, Abstract). Therefore, it is clear that the binder comprises the high-molecular polymer and the polysaccharide skeleton, i.e., not consisting of polysaccharide or gelled polysaccharide, which is outside of the scope of present claim.
27. While Boualleg in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1, Boualleg in view of Wang do not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 17. Specifically, Boualleg teaches the binder is an aqueous dispersion of paraffin waxes and polysaccharides (i.e. a gelled polysaccharide) (Boualleg, p. 10, lines 23-24) and Wang teaches that the external layer of the layered aluminum salt adsorbent being a high-molecular polymer coated with a polysaccharide skeleton (Wang, Abstract), which both Boualleg and Wang are outside of the scope of present claim.
28. While Harrisson in view of Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1, Harrisson in view of Wang do not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 17. Specifically, Harrisson teaches a binder is a crosslinkable polymeric material (Harrisson, p. 9, line 7) and Wang teaches that the external layer of the layered aluminum salt adsorbent being a high-molecular polymer coated with a polysaccharide skeleton (Wang, Abstract), which both Harrison and Wang are outside of the scope of present claim.
Conclusion
29. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Remy Frederic Lalisse whose telephone number is (571)272-1819. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 - 5.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/R.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights