DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration in this 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “205” has been used to designate both Misc. Li/Acid in FIG. 2 and steam in FIG. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0034] and [0035] refer to “acidic lithium filtrate solution 300”, but reference 300 in FIG. 3 and in the rest of the specification refers to the pressure filtration system. Examiner believes these instances should refer to reference number 304.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20200263277 (“Patwardhan”).
Regarding claim 1, Patwardhan teaches a method of obtaining lithium from ore such as jadarite, which makes up a sedimentary rock (see e.g. paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). Patwardhan teaches that the ore, after pretreatment, is suspended in water (see e.g. paragraph [0109]). The suspension is treated with acid to dissolve the lithium and form first precipitates (see e.g. paragraph [0109], as well as paragraph [0116] that describes removing the solids from the mixture, meaning that solids have formed). Patwardhan teaches that the solution is then filtered to remove the first precipitates (see e.g. paragraph [0116]). Patwardhan teaches that the resulting material is treated with lime, which is a base and therefore neutralizes the acidic solution, forming second precipitates (see e.g. paragraph [0127]). The second precipitates are removed by filtration (Id.). Patwardhan teaches that the liquid after filtration can be crystallized to remove sulfate salts (see e.g. paragraph [0173], and in particular portion (2) describing that the crystallization can be performed on solution 24, which is the solution after removal of the second precipitates). The resulting liquid is then treated with soda ash or CO2 gas to cause precipitation of calcium, which is the third precipitate (see e.g. paragraph [0131]). Examiner notes that, as these material cause calcium cations to precipitate, they are cation precipitation agents. The third precipitate is then removed (see e.g. paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claim 2, Patwardhan teaches that the sedimentary rock is sized before the leaching step (see e.g. paragraph [0095]). As jadarite is a relatively soft ore, the crushing equipment used would be designed to allow for sizing of soft ore.
Regarding claim 3, Patwardhan teaches that the sizing equipment is a rolled tooth crusher (see e.g. paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claim 4, Patwardhan teaches that the sized rock is then fed to an attrition scrubber (see e.g. paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 5, Patwardhan teaches that the acid digests the ore in a reactor, which is therefore considered an attack tank reactor (see e.g. paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 6, Patwardhan teaches that the treating step uses acid in the reactor (see e.g. paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 7, Patwardhan teaches that the acid is 95% sulfuric acid (see e.g. paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 8, Patwardhan teaches that the filtering step is a pressure filtration using one or more pressure filters (see e.g. paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 12, Patwardhan teaches that the sodium sulfate can be recrystallized through evaporation, which would therefore take place in an evaporative crystallizer (see e.g. paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, Patwardhan teaches that the cation precipitating agents include soda ash, which would modify the pH and cause precipitation, and is therefore a pH modifier and cation precipitation agent (see e.g. paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 17, Patwardhan teaches that the third precipitates are removed by pressure filtration (see e.g. paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claim 18, Patwardhan teaches that the third precipitates are removed by one or more pressure filtration systems (see e.g. paragraph [0132]).
Regarding claim 19, Patwardhan teaches that the method results in a purified lithium sulfate brine (see e.g. paragraph [0141]).
Regarding claim 20, Patwardhan teaches a method of obtaining lithium from ore such as jadarite, which makes up a sedimentary rock (see e.g. paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). The method includes sizing the rock and suspending the rock in an aqueous solution (see e.g. paragraphs [0095] and [0109]). The solution is separating into a lithium bearing slurry and gangue (see e.g. paragraph [0021]). The lithium slurry is treated with acid to form first precipitates (see e.g. paragraph [0109], as well as paragraph [0116] that describes removing the solids from the mixture, meaning that solids have formed). Patwardhan teaches that the solution is then filtered to remove the first precipitates (see e.g. paragraph [0116]). As the acid used is sulfuric acid, the lithium filtrate solution would be a lithium sulfate filtrate (see e.g. paragraph [0024]). Patwardhan teaches that next the solution pH is modified to form second precipitates and a neutralized solution, and removal of the second precipitates (see e.g. paragraph [0127]). Patwardhan teaches that the liquid after filtration can be crystallized to remove sulfate salts (see e.g. paragraph [0173], and in particular portion (2) describing that the crystallization can be performed on solution 24, which is the solution after removal of the second precipitates). The neutralized mother liquor solution is then treated with soda ash or CO2 to form third precipitates and a lithium sulfate solution (see e.g. paragraph [0131]). The third precipitates are then separated (see e.g. paragraph [0132]). Further treatment of the solution results in a purified lithium sulfate brine (see e.g. paragraph [0141]).
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patwardhan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170233848 (“Johnson”).
Regarding claim 9, Patwardhan teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Patwardhan does not teach that the pH of the aqueous solution is modified to between 4-8. However, Johnson teaches a similar method for obtaining lithium from rock (see e.g. paragraph [0002]). Similar to the method of Patwardhan, the acid digestion step of Johnson results in a lithium solution also containing impurities such as iron and aluminum (see e.g. paragraph [0127]). Johnson teaches an additional “low pH impurity removal step” prior to a higher pH impurity removal step (see e.g. paragraph [0127]). Johnson teaches that the low pH impurity removal step can remove impurities of aluminum and certain cations without loss of lithium due to formation of alunite, which does not form with lithium (see e.g. paragraph [0127]). Advantageously, the low pH impurity removal step allows removal of fluorides as well as aluminum in the form of easy to handle alunite (see e.g. paragraph [0129]). Johnson teaches that the pH during the low pH impurity removal step can be up to 7, which is within the claimed range (see e.g. paragraph [0062]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a low pH impurity removal step as taught by Johnson in the method of Patwardhan in order to more easily remove impurities such as aluminum from the mixture.
Regarding claim 10, Johnson teaches that the low pH impurity removal solution is made using limestone.
Regarding claim 11, Patwardhan teaches that the impurities are removed by pressure filtration (see e.g. paragraph [0127]).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12188107 (“reference patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the reference patent recites suspending sedimentary rock in an aqueous solution; treating the solution to form first precipitates and removing the first precipitates; neutralizing the solution to form second precipitates and removing the second precipitates; crystallizing the solution to remove sulfate crystals; treating the solution with pH modifiers and cation precipitating agents to form third precipitates and removing the third precipitates.
Regarding claims 2-5, these limitations are present in claims 2-5 of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 6-7, these limitations are present in claims 6-7 of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 8-12, these limitations are present in claims 8-12 of the reference patent.
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of the reference patent recites that the sulfate crystals are magnesium-potassium sulfate crystals.
Regarding claim 14, these limitations are recited in claim 13 of the reference patent.
Regarding claim 15, the use of cation precipitating agents and pH modifiers is recited in claim 1 of the reference patent.
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in claim 14 of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 17-18, these limitations are recited in claim 15 of the reference patent.
Regarding claim 19, claim 1 of the reference patent recites that the method results in a purified lithium sulfate brine.
Regarding claim 20, each of these limitations are recited in claim 16 of the reference patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting. However, if the double patenting rejections are overcome, these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 recites that the sulfate crystals removed are magnesium-potassium sulfate crystals. In contrast, the prior art teaches removing sodium by crystallizing the sulfate salt. In the method of Patwardhan, magnesium is already removed prior to the crystallization of sulfate, and as such, the recited magnesium-potassium salt would not be formed. Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and is allowable over the prior art for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites that the pH modifier and cation precipitation agent used to make the third precipitates includes each of quicklime, soda ash, and oxalic acid. There is no teaching or suggestion in Patwardhan at this stage to include oxalic acid with the soda ash to precipitate out the calcium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736