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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 102033607.
Regarding claim 1 and 8, KR ‘607 discloses a method for concentrating lithium, comprising the steps of: forming a lithium-aluminum layered double hydroxide by adding an aluminum compound to a lithium solution via precipitation (Claim 1); preparing lithium sulfate by sulfating the lithium-aluminum layered double hydroxide with sulfuric acid or aluminum sulfate under hydrothermal conditions (Reaction 2), and preparing a high-concentration aqueous lithium sulfate solution by dissolving the resulting lithium sulfate in water; and forming lithium carbonate by adding carbonate to the aqueous lithium solution or converting the aqueous lithium solution to a lithium hydroxide solution through an oxalate reaction (see claim 1 and paragraphs [0045]-[0052] and [0054]).
Regarding claims 2, KR ‘607 describes that phosphoric acid (phosphoric acid, sodium phosphate, etc.) or aluminum compounds are known as precipitants used in the separation of lithium ions and can be used for a conversion into an insoluble compound in the form of lithium phosphate (Li₃PO₄) or Li-Al layered double hydroxide (LiAl₂(OH)₇₂H₂O) (see paragraphs [0013] and [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, the ratio of Li/Al may be 0.5 or less which would fall with the claimed ratio of precipitate recited in claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102033607.
Regarding claim 10, the process of KR ‘607 may form a solution having a lithium content of greater than 30000ppm, which overlaps the range recited in claim 10. In the case where the claimed ranges “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).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102033607 in view of Shi “Efficient lithium extraction by membrane capacitive deionization incorporated with monovalent selective cation exchange membrane”.
Regarding claim 4, KR ‘607 does not expressly state that a pretreatment step of membrane capacitive deionization.
Shi teaches a process of separating magnesium and lithium by assembling a monovalent selective cation exchange membrane in an MCDI system (MSCDI) (see abstract and pages 886 and 887).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious for the person having ordinary skill in the art to form the process of KR ‘607 including a pretreatment step of membrane capacitive deionization in view of Shi. The rationale for doing so would have been a combination of known processes that would have led to predictable results (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Shi teaches the process may be used in a brine (Page 885).
Regarding claim 6, Shi teaches the initial concentration of a lithium solution is 250 mg/L to 2000 mg/L, and the amount of lithium removed is 0.189 mg to 0.137 mg (see page 887).
Regarding claim 7, It would have been obvious to repeat the process of Shi until a desired concentration is met.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 102033607 in view of WO 2017136885.
Regarding claim 11 and 12, KR ‘607 does not expressly state a step of purifying the lithium aqueous solution with an alkaline solvent.
WO ‘885 discloses a method comprising: a purification step for removing impurities from a lithium-containing solution; raising the pH of the lithium-containing solution to 10.5-11.0; and carbonating the lithium-containing solution and recovering the same as lithium carbonate (see claims 19, 20, 23, and 24).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious for the person having ordinary skill in the art to form the process of KR ‘607 including purifying the lithium aqueous solution with an alkaline solvent in view of WO ‘885. The rationale for doing so would have been a combination of known processes that would have led to predictable results (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, lithium compound produced in a KR ‘607 in view of WO ‘885 is suitable for use as a lithium cathode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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 teach or suggest the cumulative features of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JAMES A FIORITO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights