DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s request for continued examination filed July 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 65-66, 72, 78, and 83 are amended and claims 88-89 are newly added. Claims 65-89 are pending and further considered on the merits.
Response to Amendment
In light of applicant’s amendment, the examiner modifies the grounds of rejection set forth in the previous office action.
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.
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.
Claim 65 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.
Claim 65 recites one or more mobile carriers comprising one or more nanoparticles “configured to become adsorbed to one or more contaminants” and “promoting adsorption of the one or more contaminants to the one or more mobile carriers”. In the former statement, it appears the nanoparticles become adsorbed to the contaminants and in the latter statement it appears the contaminants are adsorbed to the mobile carriers. It is unclear how the mobile carriers can adsorb the contaminants while the nanoparticles of the mobile carriers become adsorbed to the same contaminants. From applicant’s specification, the nanoparticles of the mobile carriers provide an adsorptive effect for charged contaminants rather than vice-versa. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the first clause of claim 65 to recite “comprising one or more nanoparticles configured to
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 65-72 and 78-89 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1/a2) as being anticipated by Mceachern et al., US 2020/0299805 (Mceachern).
Regarding claim 65, Mceachern discloses a system (abstract, figs. 3-4) comprising:
One or more mobile carriers (see “titanium oxide molecular sieve”, abstract) each comprising a core (“polyacrylamide matrix”, ¶ 0039) coated with a porous and non-reactive binding agent comprising one or more types of nanoparticles configured to adsorb one or more contaminants (see “molecular sieve nanomaterial”, ¶ 0036 and “TiO adsorbent”, ¶ 0039):
A first reactor (REF 148, see “batch reactors”, ¶ 0036) configured to:
Receive contaminated water comprising one or more contaminants (via REF 148a, see “lithium from energy process water”, abstract, ¶ 0003-0004, 0021);
Receive the one or more mobile carriers (via REF 149/149a, ¶ 0036);
Receive a solution comprising one or more acids (via REF 315, fig. 4b, ¶ 0044) or one or more bases (via REF 313, fig. 4b, ¶ 0042); and
Output water and the one or more mobile carriers (via REF 150a, fig. 4b, see “residual adsorbent”, ¶ 0043) having the one or more contaminants adsorbed thereto (see “titanium oxide molecular sieve adsorbs lithium ions”, abstract, ¶ 0003-0004);
A first pump comprising a variable speed motor (REF 315, fig. 4b, see “chemical injection pump”, ¶ 0044);
A first programmable logic controller configured to run the first pump (see “control tied to a pH meter” and “the acid added may be in a stoichiometric ratio equivalent” ¶ 0044); and
A first instrument (see “pH meter”, ¶ 0044) configured to measure a quality of a first fluid and send a signal to the first programmable logic controller.
Elements drawn to solutions comprising acids or bases or the contaminated water and its chemical or physical properties do not provide patentable weight to the claimed system since said elements are considered to be materials worked upon by said system rather than a positively recited feature of the system (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 66, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the first pump is configured to dispense the solution comprising one or more acids (¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 67, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the first instrument is a pH meter (¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 68, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the first programmable logic controller is configured to run the first pump until the signal reaches a desired value or tolerance (see “the acid added may be in a stoichiometric ratio equivalent to the uptake of the protons in exchange for lithium”, ¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 69, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the desired value or tolerance is a pH equal to or less than 8 (see “pH of the elution fluid is maintained in the range of pH 0.8 and 2” ¶ 0044).
Regarding claims 70-71, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the first programmable logic controller is configured to run the first pump based on an algorithm including one or more of a mathematical function, an empirical function, fuzzy logic, and machine learning (i.e. mathematical function relating chemical dose to pH, ¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 72, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the first instrument (see “pH meter”, ¶ 0044) is configured to measure the quality (i.e. pH) of the first fluid within the first reactor.
Regarding claim 78, Mceachern discloses a system further comprising:
A solid-solid separation unit (REF 152, fig. 3, ¶ 0043) configured to receive a first reactor effluent (via REF 152a) and output an effluent comprising the one or more mobile carriers associated with one or more contaminants (via REF 150);
A second reactor (REF 148) configured to receive the effluent of the solid-solid separation unit (figs. 3, 4a-b, ¶ 0036);
A second pump comprising a variable speed motor (REF 313, fig. 4b, ¶ 0042);
A second programmable logic controller configured to run the second pump (see “automatic control”, ¶ 0042); and
A second instrument (see “pH sensor”, ¶ 0042) configured to measure a quality of the effluent of the solid-solid separation unit and send a signal to the second programmable logic controller.
Regarding claim 79, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the second pump is configured to dispense a solution comprising one or more bases (¶ 0042).
Regarding claim 80, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the second instrument is a pH meter and the quality of the effluent of the solid-solid separation unit is pH (see “pH sensor”, ¶ 0042).
Regarding claims 81-82, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the second programmable logic controller is configured to run the second pump based on an algorithm including one or more of a mathematical function, an empirical function, fuzzy logic, and machine learning (i.e. mathematical function relating chemical dose to pH, ¶ 0042).
Regarding claims 83-87, Mceachern is relied upon in the rejection of claims 78-82 set forth above.
Regarding claims 88-89, Mceachern discloses a system wherein the second reactor (REF 148, figs. 3-4b) is configured to receive a second solution comprising one or more bases (via REF 313, fig. 4b, ¶ 0042) and one or more brines (via REF 148a).
Elements drawn to solutions comprising bases or brines do not provide patentable weight to the claimed system since said elements are considered to be materials worked upon by said system rather than a positively recited feature of the system (MPEP 2115).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 73-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mceachern.
Regarding claim 73, Mceachern discloses a system further comprising:
A solid-solid separation unit (REF 158, fig. 3, ¶ 0047) configured to receive a first reactor effluent (via REF 230a) and output an effluent comprising water at least substantially free of the one or more mobile carriers and one or more contaminants (¶ 0047); and
Means for neutralizing the pH of the effluent (¶ 0048).
Mceachern does not disclose the means for neutralizing pH of the effluent comprising a variable speed pump, programmable logic controller, or an instrument for measuring a quality of the effluent, whereby a signal is sent to said programmable logic controller. However, Mceachern discloses that it is common to use chemical metering pumps in connection with automated control to maintain or alter the pH of an effluent (¶ 0042, 0044).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Mceachern to utilize the already-disclosed pH metering and dosing control system as described in the rejections above since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art where such duplication provides no more than routine and predictable results absent a showing to the contrary (MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, Part B).
Regarding claim 74, Mceachern discloses the second pump configured to dispense one or more bases or one or more acids (¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 75, Mceachern discloses the second instrument is a pH meter and the quality of the effluent is pH (¶ 0042, 0044).
Regarding claims 76-77, Mceachern discloses a system wherein a second programmable logic controller is configured to run the second pump based on an algorithm including one or more of a mathematical function, an empirical function, fuzzy logic, and machine learning (i.e. mathematical function relating chemical dose to pH, ¶ 0042, 0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose receiving “a solution comprising one or more acids or one or more bases to cause the contaminated water to have a pH equal to or less than 8”. However, as seen in the rejections set forth above, the examiner does not consider elements drawn to the physical or chemical properties of fluids within the system to be structurally limiting, since they are not positively recited as features of the system but are rather materials worked upon by the system (see MPEP 2115). Additionally, applicant does not provide a structural feature linking functional aspects of the claim with the system, namely control logic causing “the contaminated water to have a pH equal to or less than 8”. Therefore, these features are also considered an intended use of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIRK R BASS whose telephone number is (571)270-7370. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
DIRK R. BASS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/DIRK R BASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights