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. Claim Status Claims 1-15 a re pending and examined. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 11/21/2023, 4/11/2024, 5/9/2024, 8/1/2024, 11/19/2024, 11/19/2024, 10/22/2025, 11/25/2025, 12/20/2025, 2/10/2026, and 3/5/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Examiner’s Note : although the submissions received 8/1/2024, 12/20/2025, and 2/10/2026 are third party submissions under 37 CFR 1.290, the contents therein have been considered similarly to an information disclosure statement. Therefore, they have been listed as information disclosure statements in the instant Office action. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, “wherein the liquid medium is selected from alcohols, aldehydes and ketones, and polar aprotic solvents”, which is grammatically incorrect. It appears that the above limitation needs to be amended to recite, “wherein the liquid medium is selected from alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, and polar aprotic solvents” to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim limitation(s) “ means for applying [the halide reagent] onto the sample ” , “means to take samples from the material to be tested”, and “means to store samples” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder "means" coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1 4 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [005 8 ] of the Pre-Grant Publication of the instant Application, US 20 24 /0 183786 A1 ( Helmbrecht et al, hereinafter “ Helmbrecht ”) teaches the means for applying the halide reagent being a spraying unit, dropping unit, rubbing unit, including sponges, brushes, sanding paper, and stamping unit . For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the means for applying the halide reagent to be a spraying unit, dropping unit, rubbing unit, including sponges, brushes, sanding paper, and stamping unit , and equivalents thereof. [0058] of Helmbrecht teaches the means to take samples from the material to be tested being spatulas. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the means to take samples from the material to be tested to be spatulas, and equivalents thereof. [0058] of Helmbrecht teaches the means to store samples being sample vials. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the means to store samples to be sample vials, and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “material to protect the tester” in claim 15. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [005 8 ] of Helmbrecht teaches the material to protect the tester being gloves or safety glasses with UV protection . For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the material to protect the tester to be gloves or safety glasses with UV protection , and equivalents thereof. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). 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 s 1-15 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the term “waste” (…soil, dust, waste…electronic (waste) products…). However, the scope of what constitutes waste is unclear, as reasonable minds may disagree on which materials are useless and which still possess utility. Further clarification is needed. Claims 2-15 are rejected at least for depending on a rejected claim. Claim 3 similarly recites the term “waste” and is similarly rejected as in claim 1. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “electronic (waste) products…”. It is unclear if the electronic products need to be waste or not in order to satisfy the claim. Further clarification is needed. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites, “a solid substrate…a liquid medium…a halide reagent…”. It is unclear if these components are the same as or different from the previously recited solid substrate, liquid medium, and halide reagent recited in claim 1. Further clarification is needed. Claim 6 contains similar issues regarding the recitation of, “…a solid substrate…a halide reagent…a liquid medium”, and claim s 12 and 14 contain similar issues regarding the recitation of, “a halide reagent”, and the claims are similarly rejected. Regarding claim 9, the claim recites that the halide reagent may comprise monovalent metal cations capable of perovskite formation. However, the scope of the claim is unclear, as it is unclear which monovalent metal cations are capable of perovskite formation. Further clarification is needed. Further regarding claim 9, the phrase, “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 11 recites the limitation "the sample" in Ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the sample" in Lns . 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites that the carrier is of an absorbent material. However, the meaning of this limitation is unclear. Does this limitation mean that the carrier carries an absorbent material, or that the carrier itself is made of an absorbent material? Further clarification is needed. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jumonville et al. (US Pat. No. 2010/0086616; hereinafter Jumonville ). Regarding claim 12, Jumonville discloses a testing unit ([0015], [0067]) , comprising a solid carrier provided with a halide reagent ([0067], [0077], [0092]-[0093]) . In regards to the testing unit being suitable for use in the method of claim 1, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Regarding claim 1 3, Jumonville discloses the testing unit according to claim 12, wherein the carrier is of an absorbent material ([0092]-[0093]) . Regarding claim 14, Jumonville discloses a testing kit ([0015], [0067]) comprising a halide reagent and means for applying it onto the sample ([0067], [0077], [0092]-[0093]. See the Claim Interpretation section above, where the means for applying the halide reagent has been interpreted under 112(f) to include sponges) . In regards to the testing kit being suitable for carrying out the method of claim 1, see MPEP 2111.02, which states that, “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Regarding claim 15, Jumonville discloses the testing kit according to claim 14 further comprising means to store samples ([0114], See the Claim Interpretation section above, where the means to store samples includes sample vials) . 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al., CH 3 NH 3 Br solution as a novel platform for the selective fluorescence detection of Pb 2+ ions, 2019, Scientific Reports, Vol. 9, No. 15840, Pgs. 1-7 (hereinafter Yan ; already of record on the IDS received 11/21/2023) in view of Kayano et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0177604; hereinafter Kayano ) . Regarding claim 1, Yan discloses a method for the detection of the presence of lead in a solid substrate suspected of containing lead (Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para., the paper coated with PbBr 2 solution can be considered a solid substrate suspected of containing lead) . The method comprises the steps of - contacting a solid substrate suspected of containing lead with a reagent composition comprising a liquid medium and a halide reagent capable of reacting with lead to form a lead halide perovskite (Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para.) . - subjecting the substrate to a light source with a wavelength that is shorter than the emission wavelength of the lead halide perovskite, and detecting the light emittance (Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para., the letters BJTU emit visible green light after irradiation with UV light. UV light has a shorter wavelength than visible light) . Yan fails to explicitly disclose that the solid substrate is selected from painted surfaces, glass, metals, electronic products, soil, dust, waste, food and feed products, personal care products, cleaning products, and rock. Kayano is in the analogous field of methods for lead detection ( Kayano [0001]) . Kayano teaches electronic products as a solid substrate ( Kayano ; [0001], [0021]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Yan with the teachings of Kayano so that the solid substrate is an electronic product, as Kayano teaches that electronic products frequently contain lead, which is detrimental to human health ( Kayano ; [0002], [0005]) . Regarding claim 2, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan further discloses that the step of contacting the solid substrate suspected of containing lead with reagent composition is carried out in situ (as best understood, Yan teaches on-site contacting of a substrate suspected of containing lead with a reagent composition in Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para.) . Regarding claim 3, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan further discloses that the solid substrate is electronic (waste) products (see Claim 1 above at Kayano teaching electronic products in [0001], [0021]) . Regarding claim 4, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan further discloses that the step of contacting a solid substrate suspected of containing lead with the reagent composition is carried out by providing one or more droplets of a liquid medium containing a halide reagent dissolved or suspended therein on the solid substrate (Yan; Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para.) . Regarding claim 5, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 4. Modified Yan fails to explicitly disclose that the liquid medium is provided by spraying. However, Yan teaches loading a liquid medium onto a substrate (Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para.) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose the method of providing the liquid medium to be spraying from a finite number of identified, predictable ways to apply a liquid medium, i.e. it would have been obvious to try spraying the liquid medium to optimize the dispersal of the liquid medium on the solid substrate. Regarding claim 6, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan fails to explicitly disclose that the step of contacting a solid substrate suspected of containing lead with the reagent composition is carried out by contacting the solid substrate with an absorbent material containing a halide reagent and a liquid medium. However, Yan teaches loading a liquid medium onto a substrate (Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para.) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose the method of providing the liquid medium to be by contacting the solid substrate with an absorbent material containing the reagent and a liquid medium, i.e. it would have been obvious to try applying the reagent composition via contacting the solid substrate with an absorbent material containing the reagent composition, as absorbent materials such as rollers and sponges can be used to apply a uniform layer of a coating to a substrate. Regarding claim 8, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan further discloses that the halide reagent comprises Br (Yan; Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para.) . Regarding claim 9, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan further discloses that the halide reagent comprises an organoamine cation which is an organoammonium cation of the formula R1R2R3N+, in which R1, R2, and R3 are selected from hydrogen and C1-C10 alkyl, C4-C10 aryl, C4-C10 alkylaryl , and C4-C10 arylalkyl, with at least one of R1, R2, and R3 being selected from C1-C10 alkyl, C4-C10 aryl, C4-C10 alkylaryl , and C4-C10 arylalkyl (Yan; Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para.) . Regarding claim 10, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan further disclose that the halide reagent comprises a halide compound selected from halides of methylammonium (Yan; Pg. 1 1 st Para., Pg. 4 Last Para.-Pg. 5 1 st Para.) . Regarding claim 11, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan fails to explicitly disclose that the sample is contacted with an oxidizing agent prior to contacting with the halide reagent. Kayano further teaches contacting the sample with an oxidizing agent prior to contacting with a reagent ( Kayano ; [0010]-[0011], [0015]-[0016]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Yan with the teachings of Kayano so that the sample is contacted with an oxidizing agent prior to contacting with the halide reagent, as Kayano teaches that contacting the sample with an oxidizing reagent will render other contaminants inert that may otherwise react with the reagent ( Kayano ; [0010]-[0011], [0015]-[0016]) . Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Kayano as applied to claim s 1-6 and 8-11 above, and further in view of Acik et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0003074; hereinafter Acik ) . Regarding claim 7, modified Yan discloses the method according to claim 1. Modified Yan fails to explicitly disclose that the liquid medium is selected from alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, and polar aprotic solvents. Acik is in the analogous field of forming lead halide perovskites ( Acik [0009]) . Acik teaches a liquid medium that is selected from alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, and polar aprotic solvents ( Acik ; [0009]-[0010]) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Yan with the teaching of Acik so that the liquid medium is selected from alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, and polar aprotic solvents, as Acik teaches that lead halide perovskites can be formed using organic halide precursors dissolved in an alcohol ( Acik [0009]-[0010]) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT John McGuirk whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1949 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8am-530pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Capozzi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3638 . 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. /JOHN MCGUIRK/ Examiner, Art Unit 1798