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 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.
Claim 16 is 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 limitation, “the muti-step separation treatment” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2012/163791.
Claims 1-14 are directed to an apparatus, and therefore, the process steps or functions of the apparatus are not patentable in these claims.
A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Fig. of the WO reference is copied herein. It shows 6 columns arranged for an SMB process as claimed. Lines 7-12 show the circulation loop. Each column has two inlet valves, two outlet valves, and a valve controlling one column to the next.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The SMP operation is shown as steps 1 through 6 in figures 1-6. It is a continuous, multi-step process. Each step moves the Li feed, eluent inlet, the Li extract and Mg raffinate from one zone to the next in sequence, describing the requisite valve configurations. However, changing the valve configurations are process steps, for which this system is capable. Similarly, lithium, brine, their concentrations, etc. are also not patentable. The system is capable of continuous process. Therefore, apparatus claims 1-5, 7-11, 13 and 14 are anticipated.
Claim 12: WO does not teach a distributor, but applicant discloses that such a distributor is known in the art, citing: “…a fractal distributor may be a distributor as
shown in U.S. Patent No. 5,354,460 titled Fluid transfer system with uniform fluid distributor.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such known teaching to provide distributors in the columns for the proper flow distribution.
Claim 15: WO teaches in fig. 1 the process as claimed, including forming the system in SMB mode operation, loading the adsorbent, and conducting the first step. While the reference does not explicitly state loading the adsorbent, etc., such are implied. WO also is silent on the second step of recirculating. It has the recirculation loop as shown above. When it switches from fig. 1 to fig. 2, in the natural order of the process, one would have to turn of the inlet and outlet valves of figure 1 and then open the corresponding valves as in figure 2. Thus there is a second step of only recirculation in WO’s teaching, which is at the least the lag time between the switching operations.
Claim 16: synchronous switching of valves: while WO is silent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the valve switching, that is, opening and closing of the inlet and outlet valves to go from one step to the next step in the multi-step process, to be conducted synchronously so as not to upset the continuity of operation of the system. Such operation is also possible using modern automated control systems. WO teaches using a PD controller.
Claims 17-20 recites process steps to optimize the process. The second period in WO would be shorter than the first period by its nature. WO teaching also includes controlling the ratios as in claims 19 and 20 and teaches optimizing Mg/Li and Li/SO4 rations. It also teaches a PD controller, which means the process ratios or flow rates are or can be controlled.
Claim(s) 6 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over WO 2012/163791 in view of Al-dhawi et al, “ Lithium adsorption from aqueous solution using aluminum hydroxide: Characterization, optimization by response surface methodology, kinetic modelling, and isotherm studies,” Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 7 (2023) 100350
While WO does not teach aluminum hydroxide as the adsorbent for lithium, Al-dhawi teaches that “the choice of aluminum hydroxide as the adsorbent for adsorbing Li from an aqueous solution was made due to its stability during acid treatment, which prevents significant loss of metal, and its remarkable selectivity.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select aluminum hydroxide as the adsorbent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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 5712720579. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights