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 § 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 84-85, and 87-97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archambault US 3343910 in view of CN 107285345.
Regarding claims 84-85, 88, and 90, Archambault teaches a process of method for recovering lithium hydroxide from a mineral containing lithium, selected from spodumene, petalite or lepidolite or mixtures thereof (Col. 1, l. 18), wherein the method comprises: pulping the raw material containing lithium in the presence of water and an alkali metal carbonate for producing a first slurry containing lithium (Col. 3, l. 8),
leaching the first slurry containing lithium in a first leaching step at an elevated temperature for producing a second slurry containing lithium carbonate (Col. 3, l. 10-15),
leaching the second slurry or a fraction thereof in a second leaching step in an aqueous solution containing an alkali earth metal hydroxide for producing a third slurry containing lithium hydroxide (Col. 3, l. 30-50),
separating the third slurry into solids and a solution containing lithium hydroxide by solid-liquid separation and purifying the obtained solution, thus providing a purified solution containing lithium hydroxide, and recovering lithium hydroxide monohydrate by crystallizing from the purified solution containing lithium hydroxide (Col. 3, l. 30-50), which is downstream of the second leaching operation.
Archambault does not expressly state that the lithium hydroxide is purified by a cation exchange.
CN ‘345 teaches a process of purifying a lithium hydroxide solution using a cation exchange resin in order to remove Ca and Mg impurities (Example 1).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to purify the lithium hydroxide stream of Archambault using a cation exchange process in view of CN ‘345. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for removing Ca and Mg from the solution (CN ‘345, Example 1).
Archambault and CN ‘345 do not expressly state that the lithium hydroxide stream has a purity of 56.5% or higher of lithium hydroxide. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 87, Archambault teaches that the second leaching step may be carried out at 95 deg. C and atmospheric pressure (Example 1).
Regarding claim 89, CN ‘345 teaches the cationic exchange resin may be D401, which is an iminodiacectic acid resin (Claim 6).
Regarding claim 91-92, the first and second slurry streams may be free of sulphate when acids other than sulfuric acid are used for the leaching.
Regarding claim 93, Archambault teaches that the alkali metal carbonate may be sodium carbonate (Example 1).
Regarding claim 94, Archambault teaches that the alkali earth metal hydroxide may be calcium hydroxide (Example 1).
Regarding claims 95-96, Archambault in view of CN ‘345 do not expressly recite the aluminum or calcium content of the produced lithium hydroxide. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 97, the process of Archambault in view of CN ‘345 may be performed continuously.
Claims 98-101, and 103-112 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archambault US 3343910 in view of CN 107285345 and Chubb US 3073673.
Regarding claims 98-101, 104 and 106, Archambault teaches a process of method for recovering lithium hydroxide from a mineral containing lithium, selected from spodumene, petalite or lepidolite or mixtures thereof (Col. 1, l. 18), wherein the method comprises: pulping the raw material containing lithium in the presence of water and an alkali metal carbonate for producing a first slurry containing lithium (Col. 3, l. 8),
leaching the first slurry containing lithium in a first leaching step at an elevated temperature for producing a second slurry containing lithium carbonate (Col. 3, l. 10-15),
leaching the second slurry or a fraction thereof in a second leaching step in an aqueous solution containing an alkali earth metal hydroxide for producing a third slurry containing lithium hydroxide (Col. 3, l. 30-50),
separating the third slurry into solids and a solution containing lithium hydroxide by solid-liquid separation and purifying the obtained solution, thus providing a purified solution containing lithium hydroxide, and recovering lithium hydroxide monohydrate by crystallizing from the purified solution containing lithium hydroxide (Col. 3, l. 30-50), which is downstream of the second leaching operation.
Archambault does not expressly state that the lithium hydroxide is purified by a cation exchange.
CN ‘345 teaches a process of purifying a lithium hydroxide solution using a cation exchange resin in order to remove Ca and Mg impurities (Example 1).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to purify the lithium hydroxide stream of Archambault using a cation exchange process in view of CN ‘345. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for removing Ca and Mg from the solution (CN ‘345, Example 1).
Archambault and CN ‘345 do not expressly state that the lithium hydroxide stream has a purity of 56.5% or higher of lithium hydroxide. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.
Archambault and CN ‘345 do not expressly state separating the solution obtained during the crystallization from the process, and recycling it to one or more of the previous process steps.
However, in an analogous process of treating lithium ores, Chubb teaches a process of recovering a lithium hydroxide product, wherein the reactants are returned to earlier process steps via recycling (Figure, Items 34 and 38).
At the time of invention it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the process of Archambault and CN ‘345 including returning reactants to earlier process steps in view of Chubb. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been utilize unreacted reagents that were left over from the process to lower cost. Thus, the recycling of each of the configurations recited in instant claims 98-101, 104 and 106 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 103, Archambault teaches that the second leaching step may be carried out at 95 deg. C and atmospheric pressure (Example 1).
Regarding claim 105, CN ‘345 teaches the cationic exchange resin may be D401, which is an iminodiacectic acid resin (Claim 6).
Regarding claim 107-108, the first and second slurry streams may be free of sulphate when acids other than sulfuric acid are used for the leaching.
Regarding claim 109, Archambault teaches that the alkali earth metal hydroxide may be calcium hydroxide (Example 1).
Regarding claims 110-111, Archambault in view of CN ‘345 do not expressly recite the aluminum or calcium content of the produced lithium hydroxide. However, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 112, the process of Archambault in view of CN ‘345 may be performed continuously.
Claim(s) 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archambault US 3343910 in view of CN 107285345 as applied to claim 84 above, and further in view of Olivier US 4124684.
Regarding claim 86, Archambault teaches the leaching step may occur at a temperature of 185 to 250 degrees C (Col. 2, 1. 6), but does not expressly state the pressure of the leaching.
In an analogous process of leaching spodumene ores with sodium carbonate (col. 2, l. 52). The leaching occurs at 200 to 220 deg. C and 220 to 360 psig (col. 3, l. 7-15).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the leaching spodumene ores with sodium carbonate of Archambault at pressures of 220 to 360 psig in view of Olivier. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a suitable pressure to the process that was required but not disclosed.
Claim(s) 102 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Archambault US 3343910 in view of CN 107285345 and Chubb US 3073673 as applied to claim 98 above, and further in view of Olivier US 4124684.
Regarding claim 102, Archambault teaches the leaching step may occur at a temperature of 185 to 250 degrees C (Col. 2, 1. 6), but does not expressly state the pressure of the leaching.
In an analogous process of leaching spodumene ores with sodium carbonate (col. 2, l. 52). The leaching occurs at 200 to 220 deg. C and 220 to 360 psig (col. 3, l. 7-15).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to perform the leaching spodumene ores with sodium carbonate of Archambault at pressures of 220 to 360 psig in view of Olivier. The suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to provide a suitable pressure to the process that was required but not disclosed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A FIORITO whose telephone number is (571)272-9921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on (571) 270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A FIORITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
