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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/07/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, and 14-20 are as previously presented and Claims 2, 5, and 13 are currently amended.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron et al (US 7,972,412 B2) in view of Aktas et al in Trans Indian Inst Met.
Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 04/28/2026.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2019-147990, based on the machine translation.
Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al and further in view of JP 2019-147990 is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 04/28/2026.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crozier et al (US 5,165,901).
Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al and further in view of Crozier et al is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 04/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to Claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Bergeron et al does not disclose an operative zinc cementation protocol. Claim 1 states “the pH of the acidic aqueous solution prior to the addition of the non-noble metal is in the range of +0.8 to +3.0.” Bergeron et al teaches this range but does not teach maintaining a pH range during reduction of the dissolved noble metal to the elemental noble metal. The limitation of an “operative zinc cementation protocol” is not recited in the claim. Aktas et al teaches cementation with zinc powder is used to recover ruthenium from bath solutions. Aktas et al also teaches a relationship between reaction time and pH based on the mass of zinc as demonstrated in Fig. 5. The pH is maintained based on the selection of the amount of zinc powder. Periodic maintenance and how the maintenance is conducted are not recited as active steps. The claim does not recite what happens during periodic maintenance, e.g. the dosing of acid. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Bergeron et al teaches the claimed range for pH before reduction, and Bergeron et al in view of Aktas et al teaches the claimed pH range during reduction for 10 mg Zn and 20 mg Zn.
Aktas et al teaches the pH rises due to consumption of hydronium ions (page 699), which are present in all aqueous acids. That Aktas et al exemplifies sulfuric acid does not teach away from the relationship amongst pH, amount of zinc powder, and time for Ru cementation. Aktas teaches using 50 mg or more zinc on page 699 but does not teach away from the claimed pH range. Finaly, Aktas et al teaches adding HCl to the sulfuric acid solution as a substitute for the addition of NaCl, not as the source of the hydronium ions. Aktas et al is used as a secondary reference to demonstrate the relationship between pH and quantity of zinc. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zeytuncu et al in The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society teaches optimum cementation condition of ruthenium with experimental design. The pH of the solution was 0.5-1.5 (abstract). Ruthenium-containing solutions were prepared from a standard solution, and distilled water was used (page 263). The pH of the solution is the most effective factor. Lower pH values lead to an increase in the active surfaces/dissolution rate, and the remaining ruthenium concentration in the solution increases with the decrease of pH of the solution (page 266).
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