Replies to post #1742 on LITHIUM STOCKS AND CHARTS

[TradingCharts]

My question to Grok about new patent application for ibat.

why is there a new patent application for the patent that was given Dec 24 2024?

MODULAR EXTRACTION APPARATUS
Publication number: 20250121329
Abstract: Apparatuses and methods for extracting desired chemical species including, without limitation, lithium, specific lithium species, and/or other chemical compounds from input flows in a modular unit. The input flows may be raw materials in which lithium metal and/or lithium species are dissolved and/or extracted. The apparatuses and methods may include daisy chain flow through separate tanks, a column array, and/or combinations thereof.
Type: Application
Filed: December 20, 2024
Publication date: April 17, 2025
Applicant: International Battery Metals, Ltd.
Inventor: John L. BURBA

Modular extraction apparatus
Patent number: 12172129
Abstract: Apparatuses and methods for extracting desired chemical species including, without limitation, lithium, specific lithium species, and/or other chemical compounds from input flows in a modular unit. The input flows may be raw materials in which lithium metal and/or lithium species are dissolved and/or extracted. The apparatuses and methods may include daisy chain flow through separate tanks, a column array, and/or combinations thereof.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 12, 2024
Date of Patent: December 24, 2024
Assignee: International Battery Metals, Ltd.
Inventor: John L. Burba https://patents.justia.com/assignee/international-battery-metals-ltd

Grok answer.

The situation you’ve described involves two patent records for a Modular Extraction Apparatus by International Battery Metals, Ltd. with the same inventor, John L. Burba, and nearly identical abstracts. One is a patent application (Publication number: 20250121329, filed December 20, 2024, published April 17, 2025) and the other is a granted patent (Patent number: 12172129, filed January 12, 2024, granted December 24, 2024). The question is why a new patent application was filed so soon after the grant of a seemingly identical patent. Here’s a critical analysis of possible reasons, grounded in patent law and practice, while avoiding speculation beyond what’s supported by the information:
Continuation or Divisional Application:
The new application (20250121329) could be a continuation, continuation-in-part (CIP), or divisional application related to the granted patent (12172129). These types of applications are often filed to pursue additional claims or variations of the invention based on the original disclosure.

Continuation: The applicant might be seeking broader or different claims that were not granted in the original patent. For example, the granted patent’s claims might be narrow, and the new application could aim to secure broader protection or cover alternative embodiments.

Divisional: If the original application contained multiple inventions (e.g., different configurations of the modular extraction apparatus), the USPTO might have required the applicant to split them into separate applications. The new application could cover a distinct invention from the same original disclosure.

Continuation-in-Part: If the new application includes additional subject matter (e.g., improvements or new data) not in the original filing, it could be a CIP. However, the identical abstracts suggest minimal new subject matter, making this less likely unless the claims or specifications differ significantly.

The filing date of the application (December 20, 2024) is close to the grant date of the patent (December 24, 2024), which is consistent with a continuation or divisional, as these are often filed during prosecution or shortly after a patent is granted.

Refinement of Claims or Response to USPTO Restrictions:
During the prosecution of the original patent (12172129), the USPTO might have issued a restriction requirement, indicating that the application covered multiple distinct inventions (e.g., daisy chain flow vs. column array configurations). The applicant may have elected to pursue one set of claims in the granted patent and filed the new application to cover the non-elected invention(s).

Alternatively, the applicant might have amended the claims in the original application to secure the grant but filed the new application to pursue claims that were abandoned or not allowed in the original prosecution.

Strategic Patent Portfolio Expansion:
Companies often file multiple related applications to build a robust patent portfolio, especially for valuable technologies like lithium extraction, which is critical for battery production. The new application might target specific aspects of the modular extraction apparatus (e.g., a particular tank design or column array configuration) to create layered protection or cover potential competitor workarounds.

The identical abstracts suggest the inventions are closely related, but the claims in the new application could focus on different details or applications not covered by the granted patent’s claims.

Administrative or Procedural Issues:
It’s possible the new application corrects an error or oversight in the original patent, such as a claim scope that was too narrow or a specification issue. However, this is less common post-grant unless the applicant seeks a reissue, which doesn’t appear to be the case here since 20250121329 is a new application, not a reissue.

Another possibility is that the new application was filed to align with international patent strategies, such as securing priority for foreign filings, though the timing (after the grant) makes this less likely.

Market or Competitive Considerations:
The lithium extraction industry is highly competitive, with significant demand for efficient and scalable technologies. International Battery Metals, Ltd. might have filed the new application to preempt competitors or strengthen their market position by covering additional variations of the technology.

The new application could also be a response to emerging market needs or technological advancements, though the identical abstracts suggest the core invention remains the same.

Why the Abstracts Are Identical
The identical abstracts indicate that the core invention—apparatuses and methods for extracting lithium or other chemical species using modular units with daisy chain flow, column arrays, or combinations—hasn’t changed significantly. However, patent applications often reuse abstracts while differing in their claims or detailed specifications. The claims, which define the legal scope of protection, are likely where the differences lie. For example:
The granted patent (12172129) might have claims focused on the daisy chain flow through tanks.

The new application (20250121329) might claim the column array or a specific combination of configurations.

Evidence and Context
The search results confirm that International Battery Metals, Ltd. is actively patenting in the lithium extraction space, with another recent application (Publication number: 20240367989, filed April 24, 2024) for preparing lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide using ion exchange resin. This suggests a broader strategy to protect multiple aspects of lithium processing technology.

The timing (new application filed four days before the original patent’s grant) strongly supports the idea of a continuation or divisional application, as applicants often file such applications late in the prosecution of the parent patent to pursue additional claims.

The Justia Patents listing for International Battery Metals, Ltd. shows both the granted patent and the new application, reinforcing that they are distinct filings despite their similarities.

Critical Perspective
While the establishment narrative (e.g., USPTO records) suggests a straightforward continuation or divisional filing, it’s worth questioning whether the applicant is engaging in patent evergreening—filing multiple applications to extend protection on the same core technology. This practice is common in high-stakes industries like lithium extraction but can stifle competition if used excessively. Without access to the full specifications and claims, it’s hard to confirm this, but the close timing and identical abstracts raise the possibility. On the other hand, the modular nature of the technology (tanks, columns, or combinations) naturally lends itself to multiple patentable inventions, justifying separate filings.
Conclusion
The new patent application (20250121329) was likely filed as a continuation or divisional application to pursue additional claims or distinct aspects of the modular extraction apparatus not covered by the granted patent (12172129). This could be due to a USPTO restriction requirement, a desire to broaden the patent portfolio, or a strategic move to cover specific configurations (e.g., column array vs. daisy chain flow). The identical abstracts suggest the core invention is the same, but differences in the claims or specifications are driving the new filing. For definitive insight, you’d need to compare the claims of both documents, available through the USPTO database or services like Google Patents.