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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been entered. Claims 21-34 are pending in the application, claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims the amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 21-34 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. Claims 21 and require steps a through d, it is unclear if there is support in the application for the specific recited steps, and the instant application does not discuss thresholds.
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 21-34 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 21 and 28 each recite multiple outlet references to an output stream, and further recite multiple references to the output stream, it is unclear which output stream is the output stream.
Claims 22 and 28 recite wherein the output stream is loaded with lithium and displaces the brine stream, it is unclear which outlet stream is the outlet stream, and the language is unclear, does the outlet stream displace the brine in the column, is this directed to another column, or is the stripping solution displacing the brine stream to create the output?
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)(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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrison (US 9,034,294).
With respect to claim 21, Harrison teaches solvent extraction of lithium brines (abstract, C4/L48-55, C10, a direct lithium extraction method, absent clarification of what is required by direct, the art reads on the claim language), steps include contacting a lithium solution with a absorbent column 18 where a concentrated lithium exits at outlet 22 (C8/L21-C9/L19, during a first step, receiving, as an input to a column, a brine stream, the column comprising a sorbent material configured to absorb lithium from the brine stream, providing, as an output of the column, an output stream); in embodiments, after loading of the column, the column may be flushed with water, lithium chloride recovered with wash water to remove absorbed lithium chloride (C9/L20-41, during a second step, receiving, as an input to the column a strip solution from a stripping solution input, the strip solution configured to extract lithium from the sorbent material)
After the lithium isolation step, absorbent columns 18 can be regenerated and the lithium chloride recovered with wash water to remove absorbed lithium chloride and produce lithium chloride rich solution 24 (Fig. 10, the output stream wherein the output stream is recycled to the brine stream, receiving, as an input to the column the strip solution from the stripping solution input, the strip solution configured to extract lithium from the sorbent material) , lithium rich stream 24 (Fig. 10, C9, as an output of the column, a concentrated output stream comprising concentrated lithium in the strip solution); the regeneration may require 1- 2 or more equivalents of wash water (C9, C17, during a fourth step, receiving, as an input to the column, the strip solution from the stripping solution input), water 28 removed from the lithium chloride containing solution and recovered, and resupplied to intercalated lithium absorbent column(s) 18, or can be supplied to any other step in this or an associated process that requires the supply of water (C10/L9-30, the strip solution configured to remove lithium from the sorbent material, providing, as an output of the column, the output stream for use as a recycled strip solution).
With respect to claims 22 and 29, the direct lithium extraction method of claim 21, is taught above. See 112 rejections above, Harrison teaches flushing with 1-8 bed volumes (C9, wherein the output stream is loaded with lithium and displaces the brine stream).
With respect to claims 23 and 30, the direct lithium extraction method of claim 21, is taught above. See 112 rejections above, Harrison teaches upon reaching saturation, flow of the solution that includes lithium chloride to column stopped, and the column is flushed with 1-8 bed volumes of water (C9, when the sorbent material is saturated with lithium thereby forming a saturated portion of the sorbent material, the brine stream is stopped from the first step to the second step and the strip solution displaces brine remaining in the saturated portion of the sorbent material).
With respect to claims 24 and 31, the direct lithium extraction method of claim 21, is taught above. See 112 rejections above, Harrison teaches the column is flushed with 1-8 bed volumes of water (C9, the column comprises a bed volume).
With respect to claims 25 and 32, the direct lithium extraction method of claim 24, is taught above. See 112 rejections above, (with respect to claim 32, Examiner notes optional limitations are not given patentable weight, in the interest of compact prosecution), Harrison teaches the column is flushed with 1-8 bed volumes of water (C9, the strip solution displaces the brine stream in the bed volume).
With respect to claims 26 and 33, the direct lithium extraction method of claim 24, is taught above. See 112 rejections above, Examiner notes optional limitations are not given patentable weight, in the interest of compact prosecution, Harrison teaches flow rates controlled to be between 1 and 4 bed volumes per hour, implying measurement of flow rate (C8/L55-67, C17, a flow rate of strip solution may be measured such that a bed volume of strip solution is flowed through the input to the column).
With respect to claims 27 and 34, the direct lithium extraction method of claim 21, is taught above. See 112 rejections above, Harrison teaches solvent extraction (C4, C9-C10, C17-C19, abstract, wherein the lithium is extracted through a solvent extraction system).
Claim(s) 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrison (US 9,034,294).
With respect to claim 28, Pregnitz teaches a simulated moving bed adsorptive separation apparatus comprising columns connected with valves which provide a plurality of inputs and outputs to the columns, the column(s) loaded with sorbent (abstract, (C1-C2), the sorbent can include zeolites, alumina, clays, among others (C7/L46-61, see instant specification 0030 which indicated alumina as a sorbent, configured to absorb lithium), where the valving provides the ability to route the streams in a variety of ways (Figures). Examiner notes the limitations with respect to the streams and routing are directed to a material worked upon and an intended use, absent clarification of structural differences, the material on worked upon by a system does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115), and intended use of the apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114).
With respect to claim 29, the direct lithium extraction method of claim 21, is taught above. See 112 rejections above, examiner notes intended use of the apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114), examiner notes the material on worked upon by a system does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
With respect to claim 30, See 112 rejections above, examiner notes intended use of the apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114), examiner notes the material on worked upon by a system does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
With respect to claim 31, See 112 rejections above, Pregnitz teaches columns and simulated moving beds, the column comprises a bed volume.
With respect to claim 32, the direct lithium extraction method of claim 24, is taught above. See 112 rejections above, examiner notes optional limitations are not given patentable weight.
With respect to claim 33, examiner notes optional limitations are not given patentable weight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights