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 without traverse of claims 1-5 and 11-16 in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-5 and 11-16 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim. The claim recites a resin prepared by a method described in a CN patent and an adhesive also described in a CN patent. This seems to attempt to incorporate an entire specification, drawings and claims into the present set of claims without actually detailing what is being positively claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualleg et al. (WO 2015/097204 in IDS) in view of Kou et al. (CN 102631897 in IDS) and Fujita et al. (US 2024/0299907).
Regarding claims 1-2, Boualleg teaches a method for preparing an adsorption unit for lithium, the method comprises mixing powder/crystallized solid material of lithium adsorbent resin/precursor with an adhesive/binder to prepare a viscous slurry/paste; and performing extrusion forming on the viscous slurry, and performing drying to obtain the adsorption unit; wherein the adsorption unit has at least one channel inside, and one end of the channel forms an opening at a surface of the adsorption unit (pages 5-8 of provided machine translation.
Boualleg fails to teach the lithium adsorbent resin/precursor being the same as discussed in CN 102631897 and the binder/adhesive being the same as the discussed in CN 102631897. Kou teaches that a known material that has the same/similar lithium adsorbent material and adhesive/binder as discussed in Boualleg. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use a different known lithium adsorbent material and adhesive/binder that would perform the same or similar function with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Boualleg teaches that the shape of the extruded material is a hollow tube but fails to teach that one end of the hollow tube is closed as claimed. While changing shapes will often not overcome an obvious rejection (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.), hollow shapes that are closed on one end thereby forming a cavity are known in the art of adsorbents (see Fujita [0059]). As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to choose different shapes for the hollow portion in Boualleg as such shapes are already known and used in the art at the time of invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Boualleg teaches that the weight percentage of the binder overlaps the range claimed (pages 7-8).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, it is submitted that the hollow tubular shape would be considered a cylindrical shape.
Regarding claims 13-14, it is submitted that the hollow tubular shape would provide a circular channel cross section as claimed.
Regarding claims 15-16, a hollow tubular shape would have 1 channel.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boualleg et al. (WO 2015/097204 in IDS) in view of Kou et al. (CN 102631897 in IDS) and Fujita et al. (US 2024/0299907) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tachifuji et al. (US 2002/0193491).
Regarding claim 3, Boualleg is silent on the powder of the lithium adsorbent size being in the range claimed. Tachifuji teaches that for adsorbents made from powder/particles and binder, workable powder size for the adsorbent material ranges from 30-200µm overlapping the claimed range ([0030]-[0031]). As such, one skilled in the art would look to known and used particle sizes for the powder in Boualleg with a reasonable expectations success as it is merely choosing a known adsorbent particle size to be used in a binder to form an adsorbent unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights