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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 24 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common technical features shared by the method and apparatus claims constitute special technical features and relate to a single inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because the office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position with regards to the specificity of the common features shared between the claim groups. While claim 11 may state that the apparatus is “for implementing the method according to claim 1”, apparatus claims are limited by their structural features and not intended use thereof. In this regard, the office notes that there are structural recitations in claim 11 that are not required by the process of claim 1, i.e., are defined with a higher degree of specificity than structural elements required or implied by claim 1. The office maintains that the shared technical features are the structural limitations required or implied by the method of claim 1. This is still not considered to make a contribution over the prior art in light of the claim amendments for at least the reasons outlined in the prior art rejections set forth in this office action, where the cited references necessarily teach structural features required to carry out the process of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “in the conditions of” should be –in conditions of— (delete “the”).
Claim 1: “cooling the water vapor stream with converting it into a stream of water vapor condensate being fresh water” is awkward syntax structure and uses idiomatic English. The office recommends reciting to more active language, e.g., —cooling the water vapor steam to produce a fresh water condensate—.
Claims 15-20: depend from canceled claim 2. The office notes that these claims mirror the language of claims 3-8, which depend from claim 1, and, therefore, if Applicant intends to keep the claims, they must depend from another claim than claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 3, 4, 6-10 and 15-20 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.
The term “high” in claim 1 (“high solar activity”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, 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. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification what objective metrics would be used to define “high solar activity”, e.g., UV index rating.
The term “arid” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “arid” is not defined by the claim, 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. It is unclear from the context of the claim and corresponding specification what humidity levels would be considered within the scope of “arid.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stage" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the concentration process" in lines 24-25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the solution stream supplied for dehydration" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pre-heated aqueous salt solution" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the brine stream" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the lithium-saturated…sorbent" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the solution stream supplied for dehydration" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the pre-heated aqueous salt solution" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the brine stream" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the lithium-saturated…sorbent" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitations of claim 17 are already required by claim 1, as amended. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antar et al (US 2014/0197022) in view of Rjabtsev et al (RU 2516538) and La Violette (US 2004/0060808), as evidenced by Zhu et al (CN 107973326).
Rjabtsev is cited from the English machine translation, provided herewith. Zhu is cited from the English machine translation, previously provided.
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, 10 and 17-20, Antar discloses a method for producing fresh water from an aqueous salt solution comprising (see [0002]; Fig. 4):
evaporating (in humidifier 1014, 1016) water upon heating a stream of aqueous salt solution to produce a stream of aqueous salt concentrate (brine 1017) and a stream of water vapor (humid air 1015) (see [0026]);
separating (in humidifier 1014, 1016) the water vapor stream from the stream of aqueous salt concentrate (see [0028]-[0029]); and
cooling (in dehumidifier 1018) the water vapor stream to produce a stream of fresh water condensate (desalinated water 1023) (see [0029]).
Wherein:
The water vapor condensate is obtained by cooling a forcibly moved stream of atmospheric air saturated with water vapor, the air being previously heated (in solar collectors 1012) and saturated with water vapor during its movement and straight flow contact with a forcibly moved stream of initial aqueous salt solution being heated in isolation from the environment (i.e., within the dehumidifier and humidifier vessels), accompanied by saturation of the atmospheric air stream with water vapor extracted from the aqueous salt solution and by concentration of the aqueous salt solution (see [0016]; [0026]-[0029]).
The produced stream of aqueous salt concentrate is removed from the process (to brine tank 1020) and the stream of atmospheric air 1011 having passed the stage of water vapor cooling and condensation is again directed for contacting and joint heating with a fresh stream of initial aqueous salt solution (in solar collector 1012), thus forming a closed circuit with a circulating stream of the atmospheric air and the flowing movement of the salt solution stream being concentrated (see [0028]-[0029]).
Heating the atmospheric air stream and the aqueous salt solution stream moving in a straight flow and contacting each other in isolation from the environment is carried out by means of solar energy transmitted to the streams (see [0016]; [0026]-[0029]).
The aqueous salt solution is continuously and forcibly dispersed during the concentration process under the influence of solar heating and contact with the atmospheric air stream (see [0016]; [0026]).
Antar does not explicitly disclose: (1) the method being carried out at a facility utilizing a natural lithium-bearing brine for producing a lithium product; (2) maximum saturation of the atmospheric air with water vapor; and (3) direct heating by solar rays through a layer of material permeable to the solar rays and impermeable to air and aqueous media.
With respect to (1), Antar discloses the process being suitable for saline/brackish water (see Abstract), but does not explicitly disclose natural lithium-bearing brine.
As a preliminary matter, the office notes that the selection of a suitable feedstock material is prima facie obvious absent new or unexpected results. In this regard, the office further notes that natural lithium bearing brines are a known source for desalination processes to produce fresh water(see Zhu: Abstract).
Additionally, it is known in the art to use such natural lithium bearing brines to extract lithium, which is a valuable resource for the production of cathode materials for lithium ion batteries (see Rjabtsev: Example 11). Rjabtsev discloses sorption extraction of lithium from a natural multicomponent lithium-bearing brine on granulated LiCl·2Al(OH3)·mH2O sorbent selective for lithium chloride (see p. 3). The process entails sorption-desorption enrichment using the sorbent to obtain a primary lithium concentrate and ion-exchange purification of the primary lithium concentrate (see claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the process of Antar by integrating the capabilities of extracting lithium from lithium-bearing brines, as suggested by Rjabtsev, with the capabilities of desalination, in order to both produce a lithium product which is a valuable component for the production of lithium ion batteries as well as produce fresh water from saline solutions. Use of any of the resulting byproduct streams obtained from the process of extracting lithium as a feed to desalination would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to (2), while Antar may fail to explicitly disclose maximum saturation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily arrive at the claimed embodiment by routine experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a process with maximum separation efficiency, i.e., obtaining as much desalinated water as possible from the saline water feed. Determining conditions which maximize saturation of air with water is not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
With respect to (3), the office notes that Antar discloses the process being solar-powered by use of solar collectors (see [0016]), but fails to disclose the structural features of the solar collectors.
In this regard, La Violette discloses a representative solar collector which comprises a transparent wall, which allows passage of solar radiation therethrough, but maintains the fluid within, i.e., is permeable to solar rays and impermeable to air/water (see Abstract; Figs. 1 & 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to implement solar collectors in the process of Antar as described in La Violette, in order to provide suitable structure to carry out the stated function in Antar entailing heating the air/water stream with solar radiation.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Antar in view of La Violette discloses wherein the aqueous salt solution is pre-heated by means of solar rays during transportation thereof through a heating element of a heater unit, wherein an outer surface of the heating element is painted black (see Antar: Fig. 4, solar collector 1012 upstream of humidifier 1016; La Violette: [0050], black polyethylene film or dark silicone rubber membrane).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Antar discloses wherein the aqueous salt solution is dehydrated and concentrated in a countercurrent movement of the brine stream toward the air stream being transported (see Fig. 4; [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Antar in view of Rjabtsev teaches a natural multicomponent lithium-bearing brine feed, as discussed above. Furthermore, Antar discloses wherein the feed brine is used as a coolant for cooling (in dehumidifier 1018) the heated atmospheric air saturated with water vapor (see [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights