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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Instant Specification discloses that the effective alkalinity adjustment is applied to screened water, that is, the solution after removing solid and sludge (see Paragraph [0006]; [0017]; the Figure). The instant Specification does not have support for adjusting effective alkalinity to a slurry. Therefore, claims 1-19 have new matter issue. 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 1-19 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 3-7 recite “effective alkalinity”. However, the meaning of “effective alkalinity” is not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the alkalinity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the ratio of the alkalinity to the concentration of dissolved species”. The scope of dissolved species is unclear. It’s unclear whether “the concentration of dissolved species” includes all the metal ions and anions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the reactant species" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The meaning of “the reactant species” is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “screening the slurry”. The meaning of “screening the slurry” is unclear. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites “the mainstream”. The meaning of “the mainstream” is unclear. It’s unclear which process stream is the mainstream. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-19 recite “effective alkalinity”. However, the meaning of “effective alkalinity” is not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12 and 16 recite ”separating the liquid from the solid material” and “adjusting the effective alkalinity in the slurry” in line 3-4. The definition of slurry is a mixture of a liquid and a solid. After separating the liquid from the solid material, it’s unclear why the liquid is still in the form of slurry. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: removing the solid material from the slurry prior to adjusting the effective alkalinity and precipitating lithium compounds. Without this step, the precipitated lithium compound would be mixed with the solid material in the slurry and can’t be separated from the solid material. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aprilianto (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. Vol. 63, 2024, Page 4918-4933) in view of Marcinov (Metals, 2023, 13, 1213, Page 1-23), and further in view of Momont (US 5,298,174).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-9 and 12, Aprilianto teaches a method for extracting lithium, comprising providing a solution; and adjusting the amount of [CO32-]/[Li+] to maximize the precipitation of Li2CO3 (Abstract; Page 4921-4923; 4929; Fig. 8; Fig. 11). Since the amount of [CO32-]/[Li+] in the solution determines the effective alkalinity, adjusting the amount of [CO32-]/[Li+] to maximize the precipitation of Li2CO3 disclosed by Aprilianto meets the limitation adjusting the effective alkalinity to a preset value as recited in claims 1 and 12.
Aprilianto discloses that the experimental condition corresponds to the real condition of lithium extraction from lithium ore (Page 4919, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Aprilianto to extract lithium from lithium ore.
Aprilianto does not disclose forming a slurry from the lithium ore. However, forming a slurry from the lithium ore in order to exact lithium from the lithium ore is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Marcinov teaches a method of recovering lithium from lithium ore, comprising: milling the lithium ore, roasting with acid to dissolve the lithium, neutralizing the acid, filtering to remove the solid material and using the filtrate for precipitating lithium carbonate (Page 4, last paragraph; Fig. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a slurry from the lithium ore, dissolve lithium by acid roasting and make a solution containing lithium by filtration to remove solid material as taught by Marcinov in the process of Aprilianto in order to obtain a lithium containing solution from lithium ore for lithium recovery as disclosed by Marcinov.
Aprilianto discloses heating the solution to a temperature of 60-90 ºC and precipitating Li2CO3 (Page 4920, first column, 1st paragraph). Aprilianto in view of Marcinov does not disclose using heat exchanger to raise the temperature. However, using heat exchanger to raise liquid medium temperature to save energy is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Momont. Momont discloses using heat exchanger to heat liquid medium to desired temperature (Col 3, Ln 4-31). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat lithium containing solution using a heat exchanger as taught by Momont in the process of Aprilianto in view of Marcinov in order to save energy and cost.
Regarding claims 4-6, 13-15 and 17-19, Aprilianto discloses that increasing CO32-]/[Li+] amount from 1 to 2.5 improves the recovery of Li, however, when the CO32-]/[Li+] amount is increased from 2 to 2.5, the Li purity is decreased (Fig. 2). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the CO32-]/[Li+] amount in the process of Aprilianto in order to maximize Li recovery and purity as disclosed by Aprilianto. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Since effective alkalinity is directly related to the CO32-]/[Li+] in solution, optimizing CO32-]/[Li+] amount disclosed by Aprilianto includes optimizing effective alkalinity. Thus, claims 4-6, 13-15 and 17-19 are obvious over Aprilianto in view of Marcinov and Momont.
Regarding claim 16, Aprilianto teaches a method for extracting lithium, comprising: providing a solution; and adjusting the amount of [CO32-]/[Li+] to maximize the precipitation of Li2CO3 (Abstract; Page 4921-4923; 4929; Fig. 8; Fig. 11). Since the amount of [CO32-]/[Li+] in the solution determines the effective alkalinity, adjusting the amount of [CO32-]/[Li+] to maximize the precipitation of Li2CO3 disclosed by Aprilianto meets the limitation adjusting the effective alkalinity to a preset value as recited in claim 16. Aprilianto discloses separating Li2CO3 precipitates by vacuum filtration (Page 4920, 1st column, 3rd paragraph), which meets the limitation concentrating the lithium, separating the lithium and exiting the spent solution from the system as recited in claim 16.
Aprilianto discloses that the experimental condition corresponds to the real condition of lithium extraction from lithium ore (Page 4919, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Aprilianto to extract lithium from lithium ore.
Aprilianto does not disclose forming a slurry from the lithium ore. However, forming a slurry from the lithium ore in order to exact lithium from the lithium ore is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Marcinov teaches a method of recovering lithium from lithium ore, comprising: milling the lithium ore, roasting with acid, neutralizing the acid, filtration to remove the solid material and using the filtrate for precipitating lithium carbonate (Page 4, last paragraph; Fig. 3). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a slurry from the lithium ore, dissolve lithium by acid roasting and make a solution containing lithium by filtration to remove solid material as taught by Marcinov in the process of Aprilianto in order to obtain a lithium containing solution from lithium ore for lithium recovery as disclosed by Marcinov.
Aprilianto discloses heating the solution to a temperature of 60-90 ºC and precipitating Li2CO3 (Page 4920, first column, 1st paragraph). Aprilianto in view of Marcinov does not disclose using heat exchanger to raise the temperature. However, using heat exchanger to raise liquid medium temperature to save energy is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Momont. Momont discloses using heat exchanger to heat liquid medium to desired temperature (Col 3, Ln 4-31). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat lithium containing solution using a heat exchanger as taught by Momont in the process of Aprilianto in view of Marcinov in order to save energy and cost.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aprilianto Aprilianto (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. Vol. 63, 2024, Page 4918-4933) in view of Marcinov (Metals, 2023, 13, 1213, Page 1-23) and Momont (US 5,298,174), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dai (US 2020/0385280).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Aprilianto in view of Marcinov and Momont does not teach that the spent solution is returned to lithium recovery process before the effective alkalinity adjustment and the spent solution is used in slurry formation. Dai teaches a method of recovering lithium and discloses that the unacceptable carbonized mother liquor (spent solution) obtained by the solid-liquid separation is continuously introduced into the mixture to continuously separate out lithium carbonate slurry or to be used for pH adjustment ([0040]; [0115] to [0169]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce the spent solution into the mixture as taught by Dai in the process of Aprilianto in view of Marcinov and Momont in order to continuously separate out lithium carbonate and adjust pH as disclosed in Dai. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of spent solution added to the mixture should be adjusted based on the target pH. Thus, claims 10 and 11 are obvious over Aprilianto in view of Marcinov and Momont, and further in view of Dai.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights