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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
1. This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/111979, which was filed on 08/12/2022.
Claims 1-8 were originally presented in this application for examination.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending in this application and under consideration.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The foreign document CHINA CN 202111095253.8 (filed on 09/17/2021) has been received and placed in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 and 06/15/2026 have been made of record. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
An initialed copy of the IDS accompanies this office action.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claims 1-8, lines 1-2, the phrase “A lithium adsorption method in a carbonate-containing solution and/or a sulfate-containing solution” is suggested changing to --A method for adsorption of lithium in a carbonate and/or a sulfate-containing solution--.
B. In claim 1, line 2, “lithium adsorption” is suggested deleting.
C. In claim 2, last line, “of the same type” should be deleted.
D. In claim 4, line 6, “150g/L” should change to --150 g/L--.
E. In claim 4, last line, “200g/L” should change to --200 g/L--.
F. In claim 5, line 3, “20g/L” should change to --20 g/L--.
G. In claim 5, line 4, “5g/L” should change to --5 g/L--.
H. In claim 7, it is suggested that applicants amend the claim deleting “entitled “continuous ion exchange device and method for extracting lithium from salt lake brine”, can be used in this method so as to better achieve the objectives of the present technology” and “can be adopted according to production capacity and other requirements”.
I. In claim 8, line 3 of step (4), “suspends” should change to --suspends--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) (Second Paragraph)
6. 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 1-8 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.
A. Regarding claim 1, the expression “then transforming the saturated adsorbent” is vague and unclear because it leaves the reader in doubt as to which exactly process the adsorbent is submitted or to what exactly said adsorbent is transformed to.
B. The terms “high” and “low” in claim 1 (also claims 3-5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high” and “low” are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
C. Regarding claim 1, last two lines, the phrase “entering the next cycle of operation” is unclear as to what applicants intended. What next cycle of operation is being referred to in the claim?
D. Regarding claims 2 & 8, it would appear that applicants attempt to define the structural features of the lithium adsorbent used in the present application by reference to another patent based on the method through which said adsorbent was prepared or with the reference to “a commercially available adsorbent of the same type”. However, there are no structural features related to the adsorbent apart from the “aluminum-based lithium adsorbent” disclosed in claim 1.
The reference to another patent “CN102631897B” in the claims is improper and not allowed. Instead, all the essential technical features which define the “aluminum-based lithium adsorbent” should be incorporated into the claims provided there is a basis in the description as originally filed.
E. Regarding claim 4, lines 2-3, the phrase “the transforming can adopt a weakly acidic high concentration salt solution with repeated cycles” is unclear as to what Applicants meant and the phrase “repeated cycles” is unclear as to what cycles are being referred to in the claim.
F. Regarding claims 4 & 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
G. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites multiple ranges for the pH value. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “from pH 3 to pH 7”, and the claim also recites “from pH 4 to pH 6”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
H. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites multiple ranges for the concentration of the salt solution. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “greater than or equal to 150 g/L”, and the claim also recites “greater than or equal to 200 g/L”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
I. Regarding claim 5, the claim recites multiple ranges for the concentration of the salt solution. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “below 20g/L”, and the claim also recites “below 5g/L”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
J. Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “a continuous ion exchange device mentioned in patent CN102031368B, entitled “continuous ion exchange device and method for extracting lithium from salt lake brine”, can be used in this method so as to better achieve the objectives of the present technology, wherein the feed main pipe includes an adsorption feed main pipe, a transformation feed main pipe, and a rinsing feed main pipe, a desorption feed main pipe and a top water feed main pipe; wherein the resins column(s) in each step can be single-column for adsorption, parallel-column for adsorption, or series-column for adsorption, and for the number of resin column(s), single-column mode or multi-column mode can be adopted according to production capacity and other requirements”.
The claim fails to properly reciting “a continuous ion exchange device” for the claimed method by referring the device used in another patent “CN102031368B”. The claim also recites the apparatus/components of the device from the mentioned patent. The claim is also considered unclear because it is entirely optional due to the phrase “can be used in this method so as to better achieve the objectives of the present technology”. The phrase “can be adopted according to production capacity and other requirements” is also unclear as it does not point out what other requirements are considered as part of the claimed invention.
Same rejection applies as in B above for claims 2 & 8.
K. Regarding claim 8, step (1), the phrase “preparing metal oxygen-containing compounds into spherical bead particles” is unclear and appears incomplete because the claim does not particularly point out or define how the metal oxygen-containing compounds are prepared and formed into spherical bead particles.
L. Regarding claim 8, step (1), the phrase “using an activation process to make them have the function of adsorbing lithium ions” does not particularly point out what activation process is carried out in the claim.
M. Regarding claim 8, line 6 of step (5), “m” and “n” in the formula are not defined.
*Claim 6 is rejected because they depend on the rejected claims and it does not cure the indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
7. 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/039724, herein after “WO ‘724.
The claimed invention relates to a method for adsorption of lithium in a carbonate and/or sulfate-containing solution, comprising: adsorbing lithium ions in the carbonate and/or sulfate-containing solution with an aluminum-based lithium adsorbent; transforming the adsorbent having lithium ions adsorbed with a weakly acidic high concentration salt solution; and restoring the adsorption performance of the adsorbent by using a low concentration salt solution or water for desorption, and entering the next cycle of operation (as recited in the instant claim 1).
*Addressing the claim limitation on “A lithium adsorption method in a carbonate-containing solution and/or sulfate-containing solution” in the instant claim 1.
WO ‘724 discloses “a process for producing a high purity aqueous lithium-containing solution from a source of dissolved lithium that also contains at least Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ in solution” (see [0010], claim 1). “Lithium-containing brine is obtained, e.g., from a surface or subterranean natural brine source, from an industrial plant site having a suitable by-product brine” (see [0032]).
*Addressing the claim limitation on “adsorbing lithium ions in a carbonate-containing solution and/or sulfate-containing solution with an aluminum-based adsorbent” in the instant claim 1.
WO ‘724 discloses “passing said source of dissolved lithium into and out of a bed of sorbent comprised of hydrated alumina intercalated with LiX, where X is an anion of a lithium salt, preferably chloride” (see [0010], claim 1). The sorbent has a formula LiX-2Al(OH)3 (see claim 6).
*Addressing the claim limitation on “transforming the saturated adsorbent with a weakly acidic high concentration salt solution” in the instant claim 1.
WO ‘724 discloses “this residual portion within said bed is displaced from said bed by passing a concentrated solution of dissolved sodium halide, preferably sodium chloride, into said bed to displace said residual portion from said bed” (see claim 2). “A concentrated sodium chloride solution can be used to displace the brine prior to the desorption step to minimize the lithium loss to the purge” (see [0043]).
*Addressing the claim limitation on “restoring the adsorption performance of the adsorbent by using a low concentration salt solution or water for desorption” in the instant claim 1.
WO ‘724 discloses “the lithium desorption step of a highly preferred multi-step process of this invention is conducted by washing the sorbent with a dilute lithium chloride solution (AlOa)” (see [0043]).
*Addressing the claim limitation on “entering the next cycle of operation” in the instant claim 1.
WO ‘724 discloses “the above was repeated 16 times and no reduction in the sorbent performance was observed” (see [0093]).
Regarding claim 2, WO ‘724 discloses “passing said source of dissolved lithium into and out of a bed of sorbent comprised of hydrated alumina intercalated with LiX” (see [0010], claim 1). The sorbent has a formula LiX-2Al(OH)3 (see claim 6).
Regarding claims 3 & 4, WO ‘724 discloses “the brine was drained to the bed level by gravity, and the brine holdup in the bed was displaced with a saturated NaCl solution” (see [0090]), pH is around 7.
Regarding claim 5, WO ‘724 discloses “said dilute solution of lithium chloride to unload lithium from the sorbent has a lithium chloride concentration in the range of about 300 ppm to about 3000 ppm” and “said eluent solution of increased Li+ concentration has a Li+ concentration in the range of about 1500 ppm to about 5000 ppm” (see claims 11-12). The examiner noted that the claimed limitation or step being recited is optional due to the phrase “can be”.
Regarding claim 6, WO ‘724 teaches the infused alumina pellets, LiOH-2Al(OH)3, is converted to LiCl-2Al(OH)3 by neutralization with HCl (see [0036]). The examiner noted that the use of “the acid” is optional due to the phrase “can be”.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation on “a continuous ion exchange device” appears optional due to the phrase “can be used” in line 4 of the claim so it is not addressed.
WO ‘724 meets all the claim limitations as set forth in the instant claims 1-7, thus the claims are anticipated by the reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/039724, herein after “WO ‘724, as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of CN 102631897 B, hereinafter “CN ‘897”.
WO ‘724 discloses a process for producing a high purity aqueous lithium-containing solution from a source of dissolved lithium that also contains at least Na+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ in solution” (see [0010], claim 1), as set forth in the precedent paragraph, except for the aluminum-based lithium adsorbent preparation method as recited in the instant claim.
It is considered that since the aluminum-based lithium adsorbent and its production method is known and disclosed by CN ‘897 (as recited in the instant claim), it would have been prima facie obvious to a skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teaching of CN ‘897 with WO ‘724 using the aluminum-based lithium adsorbent as taught by CN ‘897 because such lithium adsorbent has the advantages of zero pollution, high efficiency and adsorption capacity, long service period, and recycling (see CN ‘897, Abstract). The same process steps recited in the instant claim are disclosed on page 1, claim 1 of CN ‘897.
Claim 8 is unpatentable or not inventive as being obvious over CN ‘724 combined with CN ‘897.
Citations
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
US 10,266,915 B2 (relates to a lithium aluminate sorbent for extracting lithium salt from aqueous solutions).
US 11,396,452 B2 (relates to a method of preparing lithium concentrate from natural lithium-bearing brines).
US 12,565,694 B2 (relates to a method for extracting lithium from salt lake brine).
US 2014/0239224 A1 and US 2017/03333867 A1 (relate a method for preparing lithium aluminate sorbent for recovery of lithium from a brine).
US 2023/0340638 A1 (relates to a method of extracting lithium from a brine by extraction).
US 2024/0102131 A1 (relates to a method for desorbing lithium from lithium aluminate adsorbent using an acid).
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights