DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3- 5, 7, 15, and 20 of copending Application No. 19/083,978 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of separating lithium (Li) from aluminum (Al), the method comprising: obtaining an aqueous feed solution containing an acid, Li, and Al (feed solution from dissolving battery cathode); providing a membrane module including a plurality of hollow fibers, the plurality of hollow fibers (see claim 1) being hydrophobic (see claim 5) and including a porous sidewall defining a lumen side spaced apart from a shell side (see claim 1); wetting the porous sidewall of the plurality of hollow fibers with an organic phase, the organic phase including a cationic extractant and an organic solvent, whereby the organic phase is immobilized in the porous sidewall (see claim 1); and performing membrane solvent extraction by passing the feed solution along one of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers and simultaneously passing a strip solution along the other of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers; wherein wetting the porous sidewall of the plurality of hollow fibers with the organic phase is performed prior to passing the feed solution and passing the strip solution; wherein the cationic extractant in the porous sidewall continuously extracts Al from the feed solution while substantially rejecting Li for recovery (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the cationic extractant is di-(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid (DEHPA) (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the concentration of DEHPA is in a range of from 5 vol. % to 60 vol. % (volume ratio of 1:1 to 1:4 is between 20% to 50%) (see claim 4).
Regarding Claim 6:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the feed solution and the strip solution are passed in continuous recirculation through the membrane module (see claim 15).
Regarding Claim 7:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the pH of the feed solution is in a range of from 1 to 3.5 (2.5 to 3.0) (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the strip solution includes a mineral acid at a molar concentration in a range of from 0.5M to 2.0M (see claim 1, claim 17).
Regarding Claim 9:
The claims of the copending application do not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, wherein the strip solution has a pH that is less than a pH of the feed solution. However as the claims of the copending application disclose that the concentration of the strip solution is within the claimed range and the same type of acid (mineral acid, sulfuric acid) the pH would inherently be within the same range as the instant invention or be obvious to adjust to within the same range. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 10:
The claims of the copending application do not disclose the purity. However the claims of the copending application disclose “continuously circulating…until a measured concentration of at least one of the undesired metals in the feed solution falls below a predetermined level”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to continue the circulation process until the purity of greater than 99%. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 17:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of separating lithium (Li) from aluminum (Al), the method comprising: providing a feed solution including Li and Al, the feed solution having a pH of between 2.5 and 3.0; providing a membrane module including a plurality of hollow fibers, the plurality of hollow fibers being hydrophobic (see claims 5 and 13) and including a lumen side spaced apart from a shell side to define a membrane therebetween, the membrane including a plurality of pores dispersed therein; pre-impregnating the plurality of pores of the membrane for each of the plurality of hollow fibers with an organic phase, the organic phase including a cationic extractant and an organic solvent, whereby the organic phase is immobilized in the plurality of pores; recirculating a continuous flow rate of the feed solution along one of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers; and recirculating a continuous flow rate of a strip solution along the other of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers, wherein Al is simultaneously back-extracted into the strip solution from the organic phase and Li remains in the feed solution (see claims 1, 15, and 20).
Regarding Claim 18:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of claim 17, wherein the cationic extractant is di-(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid (DEHPA) (see claim 1).
Regarding Claim 19:
The claims of the copending application disclose the method of claim 17, wherein providing the feed solution includes dissolving a lithium aluminum hydroxide-containing precipitate (battery cathode material) in a mineral acid (an acid) (see claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zulfikar et al, the article “Transport and Separation of Some Rare Earth Elements (REEs) Through Stripping Hollow Fiber Supported Liquid Membrane (SHFSLM) with Di- di-(2-ethylhexyl) Phosphoric acid and Trybutylphosphate as a Carriers” in view of Bhave et al (US 2021/0376400).
Regarding Claim 1:
Zulfikar teaches the method of separating metals, the method comprising: obtaining an aqueous feed solution containing metals (aqueous feed phase) (see pg. 526, 1st paragraph); providing a membrane module including a plurality of hollow fibers (configuration of SLM by using hollow fibers) (see pg. 526, 2nd paragraph), the plurality of hollow fibers including a porous sidewall defining a lumen side spaced apart from a shell side; wetting the porous sidewall of the plurality of hollow fibers with an organic phase (see pg. 526: Preparation of SHFSLM), the organic phase including a cationic extractant (D2EHPA) and an organic solvent, whereby the organic phase is immobilized in the porous sidewall (see pg. 526: Preparation of SHFSLM); and performing membrane solvent extraction by passing the feed solution along one of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers and simultaneously passing a strip solution along the other of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers (see pg. 527, 1st paragraph); wherein wetting the porous sidewall of the plurality of hollow fibers with the organic phase is performed prior to passing the feed solution and passing the strip solution (done prior to the introduction of feed and strip solutions) (see pg. 526: Preparation of SHFSLM); wherein the cationic extractant in the porous sidewall continuously extracts metals from the feed solution while substantially rejecting other materials for recovery.
Zulfikar does not teach that the metals separated are lithium (Li) from aluminum (Al), the plurality of hollow fibers being hydrophobic, or that Al is extracted while Li is rejected.
Bhave teaches a method for separating lithium (Li) from aluminum (Al) (selective recovery of lithium and aluminum) (see Abstract), the plurality of hollow fibers being hydrophobic (hydrophobic polypropylene) (see para. 0028, 0029). Bhave further teaches that the pH of the feed solution can be controlled to select for rejection of lithium and extraction of other metals (see para. 0031), therefore it lithium is the desired material it would have been obvious to select for lithium while extracting aluminum. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Zulfikar and Bhave are analogous inventions in the art of separating metals with supported liquid membranes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the feed of Zulfikar with a feed containing lithium and aluminum, as disclosed by Bhave because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate solutions to separate with a known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP §
2143, D.). It would have been obvious to use a hydrophobic membrane, as the material if Zulfikar, as disclosed by Bhave because it helps prevent the wetting of the fibers by the aqueous feed solution (see Bhave para. 0029). It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art to extract the aluminum and reject the lithium for recover in the method of Zulfikar, as disclosed by Bhave because the method is able to selectively reject and extract (recover) both lithium and aluminum (see Bhave, abstract). Therefore given the finite number of predicable solutions (extracting both lithium and aluminum, rejecting both lithium and aluminum, extracting lithium and rejecting aluminum, and rejecting lithium and extracting aluminum) it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to try extracting AL while rejecting Li for recovery. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 2:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cationic extractant is di-(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid (DEHPA) (see Zulfikar, pg. 256, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 3:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the concentration of DEHPA is in a range of from 5 vol. % to 60 vol. % (see Zulfikar pg. 529, fig. 3, a ratio of 0.6, for example is 40% DEHPA).
Regarding Claim 4:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of hollow fibers are formed from a porous polymer comprising one of polypropylene (PP) (see Zulfikar pg. 526 Materials and Methods paragraph 1, and Bhave para. 0028), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polysulfone (PSU), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polyether-sulfone (PES).
Regarding Claim 6:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the feed solution and the strip solution are passed in continuous recirculation through the membrane module (recycling mode) (see Zulfikar pg. 527, 1st paragraph).
Regarding Claim 7:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pH of the feed solution is in a range of from 1 to 3.5 (pH 3.5) (see Zulfikar pg. 528: Effects of feed phase pH).
Regarding Claim 8:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the strip solution includes a mineral acid at a molar concentration in a range of from 0.5M to 2.0M (0.5 M HCL) (see Zulfikar pg. 527).
Regarding Claim 9:
Zulfikar, as modified, taches the method of claim 1.
Zulfikar does not explicitly teach that the strip solution has a pH less than the pH of the feed solution. Zulfikar further teaches that feed solution pH and strip solution concentration effect the permeation through the membrane (see pg. 530: effects of stripping concentration and pg. 528: Effects of feed phase pH). Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the relative pHs and use a pH of the stippling solution less than the feed solution in order to optimize the separation for the specific material being separated. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 10:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
Zulfikar does not explicitly teach Li obtained with greater than 99% purity.
Bhave further teaches that the purity of the separated components is dependent on the time (see Bhave fig, 6C, 7C, 12C).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the method of Zulfikar, as modified by Bhave for a longer time in order to increase the purity of the Li to greater than 99% because isolated materials is the goal of the separation process and purity is a result effective variable dependent on the process time. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 17:
Zulfikar teaches the method of separating metals, the method comprising: providing a feed solution including metals, the feed solution having a pH of between 2.5 and 3.0 (see pg. 528 Fig. 1); providing a membrane module including a plurality of hollow fibers (configuration of SLM by using hollow fibers) (see pg. 526, 2nd paragraph), the plurality of hollow fibers including a lumen side spaced apart from a shell side to define a membrane therebetween, the membrane including a plurality of pores dispersed therein; pre-impregnating the plurality of pores of the membrane for each of the plurality of hollow fibers with an organic phase (see pg. 526: Preparation of SHFSLM), the organic phase including a cationic extractant (D2EHPA) and an organic solvent, whereby the organic phase is immobilized in the plurality of pores (see pg. 527, 1st paragraph); recirculating a continuous flow rate of the feed solution along one of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers; and recirculating a continuous flow rate of a strip solution along the other of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers (recycle mode) (see pg. 527, 1st paragraph).
Zulfikar does not teach that the metals separated are lithium (Li) from aluminum (Al), the plurality of hollow fibers being hydrophobic, or that Al is back extracted while Li remains in the feed solution.
Bhave teaches a method for separating lithium (Li) from aluminum (Al) (selective recovery of lithium and aluminum) (see Abstract), the plurality of hollow fibers being hydrophobic (hydrophobic polypropylene) (see para. 0028, 0029). Bhave further teaches that the pH of the feed solution can be controlled to select for rejection of lithium and extraction of other metals (see para. 0031), therefore it lithium is the desired material it would have been obvious to select for lithium while extracting aluminum. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Zulfikar and Bhave are analogous inventions in the art of separating metals with supported liquid membranes. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the feed of Zulfikar with a feed containing lithium and aluminum, as disclosed by Bhave because through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate solutions to separate with a known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP §
2143, D.). It would have been obvious to use a hydrophobic membrane, as the material if Zulfikar, as disclosed by Bhave because it helps prevent the wetting of the fibers by the aqueous feed solution (see Bhave para. 0029). It would have further been obvious to one skilled in the art to extract the aluminum and reject the lithium for recover in the method of Zulfikar, as disclosed by Bhave because the method is able to selectively reject and extract (recover) both lithium and aluminum (see Bhave, abstract). Therefore given the finite number of predicable solutions (extracting both lithium and aluminum, rejecting both lithium and aluminum, extracting lithium and rejecting aluminum, and rejecting lithium and extracting aluminum) it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to try extracting AL while rejecting Li for recovery. Choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 18:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the cationic extractant is di-(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid (DEHPA) (see Zulfikar, pg. 256, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding Claim 20:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17.
Bhave further teaches wherein directing a continuous flow rate of the feed solution and directing a continuous flow rate of the strip solution are performed for a first predetermined period during a first stage separation, and thereafter the method further including converting the strip solution from the first stage separation into a feed solution for a second stage separation by adjusting its pH to approximately 2.0 (see para. 0036); the second stage separation including: providing a second membrane module including a plurality of hollow fibers, the plurality of hollow fibers being hydrophobic and including a lumen side spaced apart from a shell side to define a membrane therebetween, the membrane including a plurality of pores dispersed therein; pre-impregnating the plurality of pores of the membrane for each of the plurality of hollow fibers of the second membrane module with an organic phase, the organic phase including a cationic extractant and an organic solvent, whereby the organic phase is immobilized in the plurality of pores (the second membrane module would be prepared the same as he first); directing a continuous flow rate of the second stage feed solution along one of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers of the second membrane module; and directing a continuous flow rate of a second stage strip solution along the other of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers of the second membrane module, wherein a concentration of Li in the second stage strip solution is greater than the concentration of Li in the first stage strip solution (see Bhave para. 0036).
Bhave does not teach that the pH is adjusted to between 2.5 and 3.0. Zulfikar teaches that the optimum pH is dependent on the material being separated (see Zulfikar pg. 528 fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Zulfikar to include the second stage separation of Bhave because it is the simple addition of a known separation step to a know separation process, obviously resulting in addition separation of the lithium with an expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
__,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). It would have further been obvious to use a pH between 2.5 and 3.0 because through routine experimentation on skilled in the art would have found an appropriate pH to achieve the desired separation. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zulfikar et al, the article “Transport and Separation of Some Rare Earth Elements (REEs) Through Stripping Hollow Fiber Supported Liquid Membrane (SHFSLM) with Di- di-(2-ethylhexyl) Phosphoric acid and Trybutylphosphate as a Carriers” in view of Bhave et al (US 2021/0376400) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhave et al (US 2020/0047124, hereafter referred to as ‘124).
Regarding Claim 5:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach the feed solution is obtained from one of a clay mineral leachate and a geothermal brine.
‘124 teaches that geothermal brine is a known source of extractable lithium (see para. 0004, 0005).
Zulfikar, as modified, and ‘124 are analogous inventions in the art of metal recovery from solutions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use geothermal bine as the feed solution in Zulfikar because it is a known source of lithium and lithium is a desirable product (see ‘124 para. 0004). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zulfikar et al, the article “Transport and Separation of Some Rare Earth Elements (REEs) Through Stripping Hollow Fiber Supported Liquid Membrane (SHFSLM) with Di- di-(2-ethylhexyl) Phosphoric acid and Trybutylphosphate as a Carriers” in view of Bhave et al (US 2021/0376400) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benno et al (JP H09171813, English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 19:
Zulfikar, as modified, teaches the method of claim 17.
Bhave further teaches providing the feed solution includes dissolving battery material (spent cathode material) (see para. 0036, 0037) in a mineral acid (H2SO4) (see para. 0039).
The combination does not teach that the material is a lithium aluminum hydroxide-containing precipitate.
Benno teaches lithium-aluminum hydroxide as a battery material (see pg. 4, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to dissolve spend battery material, as disclosed by Bhave as the feed solution in Zulfikar because they contain valuable metals that can be recovered (see Bhave para. 0002-0004). It would have further ben obvious to use a lithium-aluminum hydroxide containing material as the spent battery material because it is a known battery material containing metals of value and through routine experimentation one skilled in the art would have found appropriate sources of metals to separate with the known method. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for
improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP §
2143, D.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 11-16 contain limitations that are not disclosed or made obvious in view of the prior art. The closest prior art, Zulfikar, and Bhave do not disclose a “method of recovering lithium from a source solution, the method comprising: introducing an aluminum hydroxide sorbent to the source solution to obtain a precipitate of lithium aluminum sulfate; dissolving the lithium aluminum sulfate precipitate in dilute sulfuric acid to obtain a feed solution containing lithium (Li) and aluminum (Al)”.
The prior art does disclose or render obvious “ providing a membrane module including a plurality of hollow fibers, the plurality of hollow fibers being hydrophobic and including a porous sidewall defining a lumen side spaced apart from a shell side; wetting the porous sidewall of the plurality of hollow fibers with an organic phase, the organic phase including a cationic extractant and an organic solvent, whereby the organic phase is immobilized in the porous sidewall; and performing membrane solvent extraction by passing the feed solution along one of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers and simultaneously passing a strip solution along the other of the lumen side or the shell side of the plurality of hollow fibers; wherein wetting the porous sidewall of the plurality of hollow fibers with the organic phase is performed prior to passing the feed solution and passing the strip solution; wherein the cationic extractant in the porous sidewall continuously extracts Al from the feed solution while substantially rejecting Li for recovery.”
Although dissolving materials to form the feed solution is known in the art (see for example Bhave para. 0039) there is no motivation in the art to create a precipitate from a lithium containing source solution prior to dissolving the precipitate because membrane separation is expected to be effective from the source solution directly (see for example ‘124 which teaches separating lithium from geothermal brine with a membrane, para. 0025).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zante et al, the article “Highly selective transport of lithium across a supported liquid membrane”, which teaches lithium extraction with a supported liquid membrane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A NORRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5133. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5 F: 8-12.
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, Ramdhanie Bobby can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/CLAIRE A NORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 7/1/2026
Prosecution Insights