DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the application filed on December 6, 2023 and any subsequent filings.
Claims 1-4,9,15-17,19,21,24,29-30,33,41-42,46-47 and 49-50 are pending.
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
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 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 1-4, 24, 30, 33, 41-42, 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR 101377760 B1) (appears on the PTO-892). The machine translation for Park is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a process for recycling sorbent used in a process for extracting lithium (lithium, Park, paragraph 27) from an aqueous solution containing lithium (seawater, Park, paragraph 27), the process comprising (Park, paragraph 27):
Bringing an aqueous solution containing lithium (lithium, Park, paragraph 27) into contact with a hydrogen manganese oxide sorbent (adsorbent made of manganese oxide, paragraph 27) to absorb the lithium to produce a lithium loaded sorbent and lithium depleted solution (lithium desorbent, Park, paragraph 27);
Separating the lithium loaded sorbent and the lithium depleted solution (lithium desorbent, Park, paragraph 27);
Bringing the lithium loaded sorbent (lithium adsorbed on the adsorbent, Park, paragraph 27) into contact with an acid (acidic solution, Park, paragraph 27) to produce a lithium rich liquor and regenerated sorbent (recover lithium through ion exchange, Park, paragraph 30);
Separating the lithium rich liquor and the regenerated sorbent (recover lithium through ion exchange, Park, paragraph 30);
Treating the separated lithium rich liquor with a hydroxide to precipitate manganese hydroxide (lithium recovery through ion exchange of hydrogen and lithium using manganese oxide, Park, paragraph 31).
Separating precipitated manganese hydroxide from the lithium rich liquor (manganese ions can be extracted more effectively, Park, paragraph 32); and
Heating the manganese hydroxide with a source of lithium to produce a regenerated lithium loaded sorbent (heat-treating Mn(OH)2, a manganese compound, Park, paragraph 31) which is reused in the process (Park, paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses a system for recycling sorbent used in a process for extracting lithium from an aqueous solution containing lithium (Park, paragraph 31), the system comprising: a container for bringing an aqueous solution (PVC, Park, paragraph 8) containing lithium into contact with a hydrogen manganese oxide sorbent to absorb the lithium to produce a lithium loaded sorbent and lithium depleted solution (Park, paragraph 27); separation means to separate the lithium loaded sorbent (manganese oxide acts as a lithium adsorbent, Park, paragraph 30) and the lithium depleted solution (lithium desorbent, Park, paragraph 27); a source of acid to treat the lithium loaded sorbent (manganese oxide acts as a lithium adsorbent, Park, paragraph 30) to produce a lithium rich liquor and regenerated sorbent (adsorbent can be used repeatedly, Park, paragraph 31); separation means (electrodialysis and chemical methods, Park, paragraph 34) to separate the lithium rich liquor and the regenerated sorbent (extracted manganese oxide can be reused as an adsorbent, Park, paragraph 35); hydroxide dosing means to treat the lithium rich liquor with a hydroxide to precipitate manganese hydroxide (extracted manganese oxide can be reused as an adsorbent, Park, paragraph 35); precipitate separation means to separate precipitated (coprecipitation, Park, paragraph 5) manganese hydroxide from the lithium rich liquor (Park, paragraph 31); and a heat source (heat-treating, Park, paragraph 41) and a lithium source to heat the manganese hydroxide with the lithium source to produce the lithium loaded sorbent (Park, paragraph 42).
Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses the lithium rich liquor is treated (heat-treating, Park, paragraph 41) with a carbonate, and precipitated manganese carbonate (manganese compound, Park, paragraph 41) is separated from the lithium rich liquor and manganese carbonate (manganese compound, Park, paragraph 41) is heated with the source of lithium (seawater, Park, paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 4, Park discloses the source of lithium comprises lithium hydroxide or lithium carbonate (Park, paragraph 45);
Regarding Claim 15, Park discloses the carbonate is of sodium carbonate (seawater, Park, paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 24, Park discloses the amount of hydrogen manganese oxide sorbent contacted with the aqueous solution containing lithium is in excess capacity to the amount of lithium in the aqueous solution (Manganese oxide and a lithium compound in a desired ratio, Park, paragraph 43), or wherein the amount of the hydrogen manganese oxide sorbent is in about 1 to 3 capacity to the amount of lithium in the aqueous solution (Manganese oxide and a lithium compound in a desired ratio, Park, paragraph 43).
Regarding Claim 30, Park discloses the source of acid is HCl (hydrochloric acid solution, Park, paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 33, Park discloses the source of acid is added until pH of about 1 to 2 is achieved (acid solution may be 0.1 to 1.0 M, Park, paragraph 46).
Regarding Claim 41, Park discloses a concentrating lithium rich liquor (efficient recovery of lithium, Park, paragraph 30) where the concentrating of the lithium rich liquor (efficient recovery of lithium, Park, paragraph 30) is prior to separating the lithium rich liquor and the regenerated sorbent (manganese ions can be extracted more effectively, Park, paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 42, Park discloses the concentrating of the lithium rich liquor (efficient recovery of lithium, Park, paragraph 30) is prior to separating the lithium rich liquor and the regenerated sorbent (manganese ions can be extracted more effectively, Park, paragraph 32).
Regarding Claim 50, Park discloses where the aqueous solution containing lithium is selected sea water (seawater, Park, paragraph 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication No. KR 101377760 B1 ("Park”), in view of Chung, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20140127125 A1 ("Chung"), in further view of, “Adsorption of lithium in the manganese hydroxide precipitation processes.” Firdiyono, et al ("Firdiyono”). The machine translation for Park is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 9, Park discloses a manganese hydroxide. Park does not disclose a manganese hydroxide that is heated at about 300 to 1000° C with the source of lithium; preferably for about 1 to 72 hours.
Chung teaches a manganese hydroxide that is heated at about 300 to 1000° C with the source of lithium; preferably for about 1 to 72 hours (Chung, paragraph 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Park with the reference of Chung because the invention of Chung falls within the same field of innovation regarding a lithium extraction process. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of a manganese hydroxide that is heated at about 300 to 1000° C with the source of lithium added by Chung would improve adsorption of lithium ions on the addition of manganese sulfate (Firdiyono, Abstract).
Claim 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication No. KR 101377760 B1 ("Park”), in view of Fraser, et al., U.S. Patent No. 12522510 B2 ("Fraser"), in further view of, “Adsorption of lithium in the manganese hydroxide precipitation processes.” Kuang, et al ("Kuang”). The machine translation for Park is used in this office action in regards to claim mapping and a copy of the machine translation used is attached in this office action.
Regarding Claim 16, Park discloses a hydroxide. Park does not disclose sodium hydroxide.
Fraser teaches sodium hydroxide used in the process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Park with the reference of Fraser because the invention of Fraser falls within the same field of innovation regarding a lithium extraction process. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of sodium hydroxide added by Fraser would improve the yield of isolated (Fraser, paragraph 54) and enhance extraction effect which have the more environmentally friendly and economically viable latent capacity in comparison to the currently industrialized sulfuric acid method (Kuang, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, paragraphs 25-28 in the office action discuss the references from Park and Fraser, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references does teach where the separated lithium rich liquor (mother liquor, Fraser, paragraph 52) is treated with the hydroxide (metal hydroxides, Fraser, paragraph 52) until a basic or neutral pH is achieved or until a pH of about 6 to 8 is achieved (Fraser, paragraph 52) where optionally, a base is added to the separated lithium rich liquor (mother liquor, Fraser, paragraph 52) in addition to the hydroxide (metal hydroxides, Fraser, paragraph 52).
Regarding Claim 19, paragraphs 25-28 in the office action discuss the references from Park and Fraser, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references does teach where the manganese hydroxide (metal hydroxide, Fraser, paragraph 52) is separated from the lithium rich liquor (mother liquor, Fraser, paragraph 52) by filtration (filtration, Fraser, paragraph 52).
Claim 21, 29, 46-47, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Publication No. KR 101377760 B1 ("Park”), in view of Safarimohsenabad, et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20230234848 A1 ("Safarimohsenabad").
Regarding Claim 21, Park discloses the source of lithium. Park does not disclose manganese carbonate and the source of lithium are milled together.
Safarimohsenabad teaches a manganese carbonate (manganese carbonate, Safarimohsenabad, paragraph 26) and the source of lithium are milled together (ball mill, Safarimohsenabad, paragraph 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the references of Park with the reference of Safarimohsenabad because the invention of Safarimohsenabad falls within the same field of innovation regarding a lithium extraction process. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine these two inventions because the limitations of manganese carbonate and the source of lithium are milled together added by Safarimohsenabad would improve reagents mixing, the starting reagents can be dissolved in water or another solvent (Safarimohsenabad, paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 29, paragraphs 31-34 in the office action discuss the references from Park and Safarimohsenabad, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references does teach water (water, Safarimohsenabad, paragraph 27) is added to the separated lithium loaded sorbent (Safarimohsenabad, paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 46, paragraphs 31-34 in the office action discuss the references from Park and Safarimohsenabad, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references does teach where the hydrogen manganese oxide sorbent is produced by leaching lithium out of lithium manganese oxide with an acid (acid leachates, Safarimohsenabad, paragraph 24).
Regarding Claim 47, paragraphs 31-34 in the office action discuss the references from Park and Safarimohsenabad, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references does teach where a base is added to the lithium rich liquor to precipitate the lithium, for example as a lithium salts (Safarimohsenabad, paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 49, paragraphs 31-34 in the office action discuss the references from Park and Safarimohsenabad, and the motivation of combining the references. The combination of references does teach where the lithium rich liquor is heated to about 40 to 99° C (Safarimohsenabad, paragraph 27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DeMarkus J Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-3593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/DeMarkus Jerrell Hodge/Examiner, Art Unit 1779 /Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights