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 .
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 8, 18, 24, 27, 28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chon et al (KR 10-1257434 A1) in view of Liberatore (US PGPub 2020/0140305 A1).
Chon was disclosed by applicant on an IDS. A translated copy of improved legibility is provided with this action for reference.
With respect to claims 1 and 32, Chon teaches processes for recovering lithium which employ electrodialysis. A brine containing lithium is fed to an electrodialysis device which contains monovalent anion-selective membranes and monovalent cation-selective membranes, and an electric current is supplied, which causes monovalent anions such as chlorine and monovalent cations such as lithium to pass through the membranes, while divalent anions of e.g. sulfate are retained [pgs. 3-4, “Lithium Separation Step”; Figs. 3-5]. As such, Chon teaches a method of separating monovalent anions from multivalent anions in a solution by contacting with an electric current and a membrane component. Chon essentially differs from the instant claims in that Chon is silent to treating a feed containing at least 5% TDS (i.e. at least around 50,000 ppm).
However, Liberatore teaches methods of recovering lithium [Abs] by softening a brine, and teaches that the source brines from e.g. a subsurface source or mine may have relatively high TDS e.g. in the 15-35% range [0006] and that these contain high amounts of lithium which can be recovered after softening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Chon to treat a brine source e.g. a mine brine source such as those described by Liberatore which contain above 5% TDS because, as in Liberatore, these sources can have large amounts of recoverable lithium which can be recovered after softening. The claimed invention would have been obvious over such combination.
With respect to claims 2 and 4, as above Chon teaches a halide (chlorine anion) and sulfate as some of the anions being separated.
With respect to claim 5, as above Liberatore teaches source brines having 15-35% TDS.
With respect to claims 8 and 18, as above Chon teaches selective anion exchange and cation exchange membranes.
With respect to claims 24, 27, and 28, as above Chon teaches a lithium brine which contains cations of at least lithium as well as magnesium, calcium, boron, and the like [Abs] i.e. monovalent and divalent cations.
Claims 9-12, 14, 16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chon et al (KR 10-1257434 A1) in view of Zheng et al (CN 103261289 B), or in view of Zheng et al and Pohl (US PGPub 2021/0129128 A1).
Chon teaches as above but is silent to the specific composition of the membranes, or the properties thereof.
However, Zheng teaches enhanced anion-selective membranes which improve the performance in electrodialysis e.g. by solving known problems related to proton leakage [pgs. 1-2] which includes embodiments using a polyvinyl membrane which employs DBV and VBC, and which includes an amine component using e.g. DMAEMA (i.e. an amine with R’/R’’/R’’’ as C1-C18 aliphatic groups). If this is not considered substituted with the amine, see further Pohl, which teaches anion exchange media (including that with DBV/VBC substrate) [0069] and includes modifying it with a amine having the claimed properties such as MDEOHA [Fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a polyvinyl membrane in the process of Chon, because Chon does not particularly limit membrane materials and, in view of Zheng, polyvinyl membranes provide improved electrodialysis performance and solve known problems e.g. regarding proton leakage, and additionally the use of amine components and/or substituents would have been obvious to provide anion exchange functionality as in Zheng and/or Pohl.
Regarding the relative transport number of the membranes, or their RTN behavior at high TDS, such a limitation is interpreted as an inherent result of the type of membrane employed which, as discussed above, would have been obvious to employ in view of Zheng and/or Pohl, absent clarification of the structures or materials required to achieve the intended performance.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chon et al (KR 10-1257434 A1) in view of Hassan (US 6,508,936 B1).
Chon teaches the ion separation process as above, and teaches that a possible source of the lithium brine may be seawater [pg. 2], but as above is silent to the TDS levels as claimed.
However, Hasan teaches seawater treatment processes and teaches that seawater can typically have high TDS levels in the 3-5% range [Col. 4 lines 33-42] though it will vary by specific source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the process of Chon on a source having 3-5% range because, as in Chon, seawater sources may be useful brines for such separation for lithium recovery and, as in Hassan, brines having up to 5% TDS may be common for seawater sources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is represented by Chon, discussed above, which teaches ion separation by electrodialysis of a brine in a lithium recovery process, which may be sourced from various sources such as seawater etc. However, there is no teaching or suggestion of sourcing a brine from a chloroalkane production process. The prior art as a whole does not remedy these deficiencies, as there is no teaching or suggestion of treating brines from such processes by electrodialysis. There is no guidance in the prior art that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed process, and claim 34 is therefore free from the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY R SPIES whose telephone number is (571)272-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8AM-4PM.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
