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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 11-23 are pending. Claims 1, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 21-23 have been added.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 13 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Melman et al. (US 2017/0294661 A1).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nevosi et al. (US 2004/0182694 A1) in view of Melman et al. (US 2017/0294661 A1).
Considering claim 1, Nevosi discloses a system capable of producing lithium comprising: a plating tank (1) configured to receive an electrolyte, thus capable of receiving an organic electrolyte [0016]; an anode (5) provided within the plating tank (1) [0016]; a substrate (3) spaced apart from the anode (5) and provided within the plating tank (1), wherein the anode and the substrate are configured to apply a potential to the substrate, whereupon metal is plated onto the substrate from the electrolyte, capable of being lithium from an organic electrolyte, and a spent electrolyte stream is discharged metal replenishment cell (2) configured to receive the spent electrolyte stream (11) and to form one or more regenerate electrolyte streams (12) ([0016], [0017] and Fig. 1).
Nevosi fails to specifically teach the limitations of a lithium system utilizing an organic electrolyte, instead teaching only an apparatus capable of producing lithium using an organic electrolyte. It is important to note that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function (MPEP 2114).
Nevosi does not explicitly disclose the one or more lithium replenishment cells are further configured to receive an aqueous electrolyte in a separate stream from the spent electrolyte stream.
Furthermore, Melman teaches that openings are provided in the anodic and cathodic compartments and additional openings can be provided at the bottom of these compartments, allowing an easy discharge of the reaction products from the cell [0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the enrichment cell of Nevosi to be configured to receive a stream of an electrolyte separate from the spent electrolyte stream, because Melman teaches multiple openings in an electrolytic cell for introduction of anolytes and catholytes as well as for their release. With respect to the limitation of aqueous electrolyte, the aqueous electrolyte is not positively recited, but is merely an intended use.
Considering claim 4, Nevosi specifically contemplates electroplating a strip, thus a substrate comprising a substantially planer body portion [0016].
Considering claims 6 and 21, the limitation of the composition of the organic electrolyte is a functional one, as the it is further limiting the plating tank that is configured to receive an organic electrolyte. The plating tank of Nevosi is capable of receding an organic electrolyte comprising DMC-LiPF6 mix.
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swonger et al. (US 2016/0351889 A1) in view of Nevosi et al. (US 2004/0182694 A1) and Melman et al. (US 2017/0294661 A1).
Considering claims 1, 2, 7, 12 and 17, Swonger teaches a system for producing lithium, the system comprising a plating tank separated into a first side comprising a substrate and a second side comprising an anode by a lithium ion conductive glass ceramic, the cell configured to receive an organic electrolyte on the first side and an aqueous electrolyte on the second side wherein a potential is applied between the substrate and the anode to deposit lithium onto the substrate from the organic electrolyte and generate a spent organic electrolyte. However, Swonger teaches that this system comprises a single cell wherein the plating from the organic electrolyte is performed simultaneously with transfer of lithium to the organic electrolyte from the aqueous electrolyte through the glass ceramic wherein makeup lithium is added directly to the second side for dissolution ([0094]-[0100]).
However, Nevosi teaches that single tank simultaneous arrangements such as this can cause problems in terms of concentration monitoring, cost considerations, purity and dissolution speed ([0006]-[0008]). Nevosi teaches that this single tank simultaneous arrangement can be improved via separating the two steps occurring simultaneously in a single tank into a separate plating tank and replenishment tank, wherein the electrolytic step of generating the metal rich plating solution occurs in the replenishment tank, the metal rich plating solution is sent to a plating tank for metal deposition on a substrate using an anode wherein a metal depleted electrolyte is thus formed and returned to the replenishment tank for regeneration ([0016] and [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to separate the simultaneous system of Swonger into a two-tank system as taught be Nevosi in order to form an improved system in terms of concentration monitoring, cost considerations, purity and dissolution speed as taught by Nevosi.
Thus a system in which the substrate of Swonger and an inert anode are placed spaced apart in a plating tank separate from the electrolytic tank for performing the process of transferring the lithium from the aqueous electrolyte to the organic electrolyte through the glass ceramic, thus a replenishment tank, wherein the lithium enriched organic electrolyte is then fed to the plating tank comprising the substrate of Swonger and lithium ions are plated onto the substrate via application of a potential between the anode and the substrate, the process forming a lithium depleted organic electrolyte that is returned to the replenishment cell for regeneration of the enriched organic electrolyte.
However, as above, it is important to note that while the specific desired process is taught in the combination above, apparatus claims are not distinguished form the prior art in terms of function, but rather by structure.
Swonger and Nevosi do not explicitly disclose the one or more lithium replenishment cells are further configured to receive an aqueous electrolyte in a separate stream from the spent electrolyte stream.
Furthermore, Melman teaches that openings are provided in the anodic and cathodic compartments and additional openings can be provided at the bottom of these compartments, allowing an easy discharge of the reaction products from the cell [0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the enrichment cell of Swonger as modified by Nevosi to be configured to receive a stream of an electrolyte separate from the spent electrolyte stream, because Melman teaches multiple openings in an electrolytic cell for introduction of anolytes and catholytes as well as for their release. With respect to the limitation of aqueous electrolyte, the aqueous electrolyte is not positively recited, but is merely an intended use.
Considering claims 3 and 16, the combination of Swonger and Nevosi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Swonger further teaches that the anode (112) comprises a substantially planar mesh structure (Figure 4).
Considering claim 4, Swonger further teaches that the substrate (5/124) comprises a substantially planar body portion (Figures 3D and 4).
Considering claim 5, the combination of Swonger and Nevosi teaches the apparatus of claim 1. The plating tank of the combination which hold the organic electrolyte, substrate and anode, would be required to have at least one sidewall at least indirectly coupled with the substrate.
Considering claims 6, 13, 18 and 21-23, Swonger further teaches that the organic electrolyte comprises DMC-LiPF6 [0100]. However, it is important to note that the limitations of this claim are merely further limiting functional limitations.
Considering claim 8, Swonger further teaches that the aqueous electrolyte comprises lithium carbonate dissolved in sulfuric acid [0096]. However, it is important to note that the limitations of this claim are merely further limiting functional limitations.
Considering claims 9, 14 and 19, Swonger further teaches the lithium-ion conductive glass ceramic has the composition as claimed [0089].
Considering claims 11, 15 and 20, Nevosi further teaches that the improved two-part apparatus is run continuously [0016]. However, it is important to note that the limitations of this claim are functional limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights