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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” (or nonce term) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
sorption-desorption concentrating module in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 line(s) 2 sets forth the limitation “the stage of washing the lithium saturated sorbent”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Applicant is advised to amend “stage” to - - step - -.
Claim 3 line(s) 1 sets forth the limitation “the washing stage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Applicant is advised to amend “stage” to - - step - -.
Claim 4 line(s) 3 sets forth the limitation “the desorption stage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Applicant is advised to amend “stage” to - - step - -.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKHABUTDINOV (RU 2688593) in view of HUGHES (US 20100300977) and HOLDERNESS (US 5180526).
Regarding claim 1, SAKHABUTDINOV teaches a method of sorption extraction of lithium from lithium-containing chloride brines (title) including:
introducing a feed lithium-containing brine to a sorption-desorption concentrating module for obtaining a lithium saturated sorbent (abstract, L95),
wherein the sorption-desorption concentrating module is a vertically mounted column filled with an inorganic granulated sorbent (L95-96),
wherein the inorganic granulated sorbent is a chlorine-containing lithium aluminum double hydroxide (L96-97);
washing the lithium saturated sorbent (L83);
lithium desorption from the sorbent with desalinated water to obtain a lithium enriched solution (L83-84); and
wherein the lithium saturated sorbent is washed at in the amount of e.g. 90-130% of the sorbent volume present in the column (which is outside the claimed range of 150-250% sorbent volume), in the opposite direction as the direction of the feed lithium-containing brine flow (L87-89); and,
wherein lithium desorption from the sorbent is conducted in the same direction as the direction of the feed lithium-containing brine flow (L105-106; see also the example of L165-174).
SAKHABUTDINOV does not teach washing the sorbent in the same direction as the direction of the feed brine flow. However, HUGHES teaches operations of selenium removal sorbent beds (title) including washing a sorbent reactor in either a backward or forward direction relative to a feed flow direction (par. [0020]).
It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try different wash directions (e.g. the same direction as suggested by HUGHES) in SAKHABUTDINOV’s method as such by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (e.g. a same direction or opposite direction) with a reasonable expectation of success by reaching a workable solution in order to sufficiently wash the sorbent as is known in the art. See MPEP 2143.I.(E).
SAKHABUTDINOV does not teach the washing flow rate. However, HOLDERNESS teaches cleaning of solutions of alkylphosphates (title) including that contact time is important in ion-exchange processes including a contact time of e.g. between 0.1-20 bed volumes per hour, which overlaps the claimed range of at least 6 column volumes per hour and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the instantly claimed range from the prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the selected range.
HOLDERNESS teaches the washing rate is a results-effective variable that affects the ion exchange structure and properties (e.g. contaminants). Therefore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed washing rate range because HOLDERNESS teaches the washing rate is a results-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 II, A & B.
It is further obvious that wash volume (wash volume and wash rate are two ways of describing how much solution is used) is a results-effective variable that affects the ion exchange structure and properties (e.g. contaminants; see also SAKHABUTDINOV L176-184). Therefore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed wash volume range because it is a results-effective variable. See MPEP 2144.05 II, A & B.
Regarding claim 2, SAKHABUTDINOV teaches a solution obtained from the step of washing the lithium saturated sorbent in the column is recirculated by directing to the feed lithium-containing brine flow (L89-90).
Regarding claim 4, SAKHABUTDINOV teaches concentrating the lithium enriched solution obtained from the desorption stage and containing almost pure lithium chloride (by deeper purification; abstract; L106-110).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKHABUTDINOV (RU 2688593) in view of HUGHES (US 20100300977), HOLDERNESS (US 5180526), and WIEWIOROWSKI (US 4384889).
Regarding claim 3, SAKHABUTDINOV does not teach prior to the washing step residual brine is drained from the column. However, WIEWIOROWSKI teaches simultaneous leaching and cementation of precious metals (title) including prior to the washing step residual material is drained from the column (C5/L55-61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of SAKHABUTDINOV to including a drain step prior to washing in order to more effectively wash the column as is known in the art. The references are combinable, because they are in the same technological environment of separations. See MPEP 2141 III (A) and (G).
Telephonic Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM A ROYCE whose telephone number is (571)270-0352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~08:00~15:00.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
LIAM A. ROYCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1777
/Liam Royce/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights