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 .
Election/Restrictions
A call was made on February 19, 2026 for an election of species but did not result in an election being made. Upon further examination, no search burden was found, and the requirement for an election of species is thus withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “31” has been used to designate both a membrane and a solution or tank in Figure 3. Additionally, Figures 1 and 2 contain labels and reference characters that are not decipherable at the provided resolution of the drawings. 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. 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.
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 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourassa et al. 2013, WO 2013159194 A1, referred to herein as Bourassa, in view of Miho et al. 2020, WO 2020171009 A1, referred to herein as Miho. A machine translation of Miho, provided with this office action, is cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Bourassa teaches:
a process for preparing lithium hydroxide, 0017, comprising
providing a lithium ion extraction liquid (lithium sulphate (feed), 00207), including a first mixing of mixing an aqueous solution containing lithium and at least one kind of an element other than lithium, and a base, in a reaction tank (process tanks, 00158, 00168) with a pH regulated to 4.5 to 6.5 (0017)
a second mixing of mixing the aqueous solution and the base, with a pH regulated to 9.5 to 11.5, 0017
and removal of a hydroxide of the element other than lithium formed through the first mixing, 0017
recovering only lithium ion from the lithium ion extraction liquid (lithium sulphate (feed), 00207) to a recovery liquid (LiOH membrane electrolysis (ME) in the catholyte reservoir, 00208, Fig. 18)
with an electrochemical device including a Li-selectively permeable membrane (electrodialysis, 0017; electrolysis, 0018)
Regarding the ranges of pH taught by Bourassa, Bourassa teaches that the pH can thus be controlled by further adding some base (00151). As the pH ranges for the first and second mixing steps are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of base added, with pH both increasing/decreasing as the amount of base is increased/decreased, the precise pH values would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ranges of pH taught by Bourassa to obtain the desired balance between the amount of base added and the pH as taught by Bourassa (00151) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here 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). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Bourassa does not teach a second removal of hydroxide obtained from the second pH adjustment. However, Miho teaches an analogous process for the recovery of lithium hydroxide (0195) wherein two pH adjustment steps using alkali are conducted (pH adjustment steps S3 and S5 in which an alkali is added to the lithium-containing liquid, 0034). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the invention taught by Bourassa with the two alkali adjustment steps of Miho; one would be motivated to do so in order to obtain cobalt hydroxide and/or nickel hydroxide, as Miho teaches (0045).
In the invention of Bourassa modified by Miho, Miho discloses that this second pH step has a pH regulated to 7 or more; this overlaps with the instant claimed range of 12 or more. 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. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a method for preparing lithium hydroxide as suggested by Bourassa and Miho where the pH of the second pH adjustment step is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with 7 or higher as taught by Miho, including the claimed range, in order to obtain a pH suitable for the reaction.
Bourassa additionally does not teach performing a regulation of pH by returning the lithium ion extraction liquid after recovering the lithium ion with the electrochemical device, to the reaction tank.
However, Miho teaches that the lithium hydroxide may be recovered by desalting via an electrochemical membrane (0194, Fig. 17), and teaches that the desalted liquid may be supplied to the first pH adjustment step S3 (0196). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to return the lithium ion extraction liquid after recovering the lithium ion with the electrochemical device, for the purpose of regulating pH, as Miho teaches. One would be motivated to do so in order to increase the recovery rate of cobalt when cobalt remains in the desalted solution, as Miho teaches (0196). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Bourassa further teaches an ion-exchange step (0017, 00177). This performs a concentration of the lithium-containing solution as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Bourassa teaches an ion-exchange resin, 0017; this meets the requirement of an absorbent required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Bourassa does not teach that a gas generated from the electrochemical device is used for desorption of lithium ion adsorbed to the adsorbent. However, Bourassa teaches that chlorine gas is produced at the anode (0087). Bourassa further teaches that the ion exchange step comprises a step of desorption (acid stripping) using HCl to obtain lithium chloride (00180). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the chlorine gas produced at the anode as the course of chlorine for the HCl used in the acid stripping; one would be motivated to do so in order to obtain lithium chloride, as Bourassa teaches (00180).
Regarding claim 5, Bourassa teaches chlorine gas as discussed and applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Bourassa teaches that LiOH is obtained from the recovery liquid via crystallization (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Bourassa teaches that LiOH is obtained from the recovery liquid via crystallization (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Bourassa teaches Fe (00123), Mn, Mg, and Ca (00153).
Regarding claim 9, Bourassa teaches the use of NaOH or KOH or LiOH, 00134.
Regarding claim 11, Bourassa teaches a cationic ion-exchange resin, 0017.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourassa and Miho, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Hoshino 2017, WO 2017131051 A1. A machine translation of Hoshino, provided with this office action, is cited herein.
Regarding claim 10, Bourassa and Miho disclose the method of producing lithium hydroxide as applied to claim 1 above.
Bourassa and Miho do not disclose that the Li-selectively permeable membrane contains an oxide or an oxynitride containing lithium. However, Hoshino discloses a lithium-selective membrane (title) comprised of lithium lanthanum titanate (p. 2 pp. 4); this composition contains a titanium-based oxide containing lithium, as required by the instant claim. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the membrane taught by Bourassa (Lanxess lonac™-MC-3470, 00203) with the membrane taught by Hoshino, because Hoshino teaches that the membrane has high lithium selectivity (p. 4 pp. 2). One skilled in the art would therefore arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Moudou whose telephone number is (571)272-1768. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 AM - 4 PM EST.
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 5712726297. 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.
/Eileen Moudou/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738