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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product
A product and a process of use of said product
A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product
A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process
A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-7, drawn to a method.
Group II, claims 8-15, drawn to an apparatus.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the cavitation chamber, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not contribute over the prior art in view of CN 102220493 B (CN ‘493). CN ‘493 teaches a purifying container that has a bubble cavitation effect and filter (abstract).
During a telephone conversation with Zachary Conrad on 7 August 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-7. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 11-13 are currently amended and Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are as originally filed. Claims 8-15 are withdrawn as indicated above.
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, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wang et al in Hydrometallurgy in view of Cionata et al (US 2017/0036923 A1).
Wang et al teaches recovering magnesium and lithium from brines as represented below in the annotated drawing (page 103):
PNG
media_image1.png
660
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brine A, AlCl3·6H2O salt are added to a flask (page 103). Solution A is then added. Precipitation is carried out in a water bath (page 104). Magnesium reads on a waste element and Na2CO3 reads on the combining ion. However, Wang et al does not teach the steps of pumping the brine solution into a cavitation chamber, reducing a pressure below a fluid vapor pressure, and collapsing the micro-bubbles as recited in Claim 1.
Regarding the steps of pumping the brine solution into a cavitation chamber and collapsing the micro-bubbles, Cionata et al teaches a method of treating fluids using shock waves to fluids (abstract) such as brine [0002]. Acoustic pressure shock waves are used to facilitate water minerals to crystallize so they do not bind to surfaces [0036]. The acoustic pressure shock waves have high compressive pressures [0020]. Cavitation sets up eddy currents in fluid surrounding vibrating bubbles and produces a microscopic shear flow/fluid movement [0105]. Acoustic pressure shock waves produce collapse of cavitational bubbles [0116] forming compressive forces and high velocity cavitational jets [0022]. Contaminated liquid is pumped into the tank [0108]. Decontaminated liquid/fluid/water is evacuated via filtration for further clarification [0127]. The downward action of acoustic pressure shock waves pushes suspended particles, sand, dissolved solids, soluble organics, microbial pollutants, dissolved gases, and radioactive materials towards the bottom of the cleaning chamber [0129]. Suspended particles and ionic substances are separated [0119]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Cionata et al to treat the brine of Wang et al, since Cionata et al teaches a process that moves small particles more efficiently and faster to expedite sedimentation [0106].
Wang et al in view of Cionata et al does not teach reducing pressure of the brine below a fluid vapor pressure. However, Cionata et al does teach creating micro-bubbles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the brine in Wang et al in view of Cionata et al would have a decrease in pressure that reads on below a fluid vapor pressure, since Wang et al teaches the reagents necessary for creating a precipitate and Wang et al teaches the conditions for creating both a precipitate and micro-bubbles.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al teaches the waste element is magnesium.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al teaches production of MgAlCO3-LDHs comes from Na2CO3 (page 103).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang et al teaches a hydroxide and a carbonate.
Regarding Claim 6, Wang et al teaches using precipitation to recover lithium carbonate with a sodium carbonate solution as shown above in the annotated drawing (page 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform precipitation with the process taught by Cionata et al, i.e. in a cavitation chamber as described above, since Cionata et al teaches a process that moves small particles more efficiently and faster to expedite sedimentation [0106].
Regarding Claim 7, the combining ion is sodium carbonate, and lithium is soluble until the final carbonation step. The waste precipitate (e.g. magnesium) precipitates earlier in the process, which reads on lithium being more soluble.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al in view of Cionata et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of An et al in Hydrometallurgy.
Wang et al in view of Cionata et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Wang et al in view of Cionata et al does not teach the brine contains calcium as a waste element as recited in Claim 3.
An et al teaches compositions of various brines of commercial value in Table 1. The table includes the brine taught in Wang et al, i.e. “Taijinaier.” An et al teaches Taijinaier contains 0.02% calcium (page 65), and it can be removed using sodium oxalate (page 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process taught by An et al to remove calcium in the process of Wang et al in view of Cionata et al, since An et al teaches total removal of Ca (page 69).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2020/124192 A1 teaches recovering lithium ions from a lithium-bearing brine in sequential stirred reactors by elution (abstract). The method includes maintaining the pH through the addition of an alkali including magnesium hydroxide [0012].3
Zhao et al teaches recovering lithium carbonate from a lithium-containing solution by ultrasound assisted precipitation. The solution is the leachate of cathode scrap of lithium-ion battery (page 485). WO 01/30701 does not suggest recovering lithium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights