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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/9/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 09/08/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-917 are canceled, Claims 918-945 are currently amended, and Claims 946-957 are new.
Claim Objections
Claims 946 and 950 are objected to because of the following informalities: in each claim, in line 9, “silicon-based compound” should be “silicon-based compounds” or “a silicon-based compound.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 925-957 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 918, 925, 932, and 939 all a percentage without a basis, e.g. mass, volume, or mole. The lack of a basis makes the limitation unclear. Correction is required, though new matter will be subject to analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
In Claim 919, it is not clear what “leaching the palladium at a rate about 5 time faster or more than aqua regia” means. The claims do not recite any metes or bounds (e.g. leaching conditions) to compare the claimed method with the rate of leaching with aqua regia.
Claim 920 recites the limitation "the acetic acid solvent" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 918 recites “glacial acetic acid as a water-miscible organic solvent.” Further recitations of “acetic acid solvent” also need to be amended.
In Claim 926, it is not clear what “leaching the palladium at a rate about 5 time faster or more than aqua regia” means. The claims do not recite any metes or bounds (e.g. leaching conditions) to compare the claimed method with the rate of leaching with aqua regia.
Claim 927 recites the limitation "the acetic acid solvent" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 925 recites “glacial acetic acid as a water-miscible organic solvent.” Further recitations of “acetic acid solvent” also need to be amended.
Claim 934 recites the limitation "the acetic acid solvent" in lines 9 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 932 recites “glacial acetic acid as a water-miscible organic solvent.” Further recitations of “acetic acid solvent” also need to be amended.
In Claim 940, it is not clear what “leaching at least two of palladium, platinum, and rhodium … at a rate at least 1 time to at least 20 times faster or more than aqua regia” means. The claims do not recite any metes or bounds (e.g. leaching conditions) to compare the claimed method with the rate of leaching with aqua regia.
Claim 941 recites the limitation "the acetic acid solvent" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 939 recites “glacial acetic acid as a water-miscible organic solvent.” Further recitations of “acetic acid solvent” also need to be amended.
Claim 956 recites multiple uses of “and/or” thereby rendering the selection of options unclear. Correction is required.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 918-957 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claims 918, 925, 932, and 939, Foley et al teaches recovering metals from an acid catalyst, but Foley et al does not suggest recovering at least platinum from a catalytic converter with glacial or anhydrous acetic acid as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) regarding the basis of the percent composition, applicant argues a percentage is a dimensionless number … no further basis or unit is required.” The examiner disagreed with applicant’s argument, since it is well known in the metallurgical art that a percent composition, not including purity, may be represented based on a mass of a substance, the volume of a substance, or the atomic or molar composition of a substance. Those three units of measurement are not equivalent.
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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/TIMA M. MCGUTHRY-BANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights