Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/287,056

APPARATUS FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL AMMUNITION DISPOSAL AND MATERIAL RECOVERY

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Oct 16, 2023
Priority
May 04, 2021 — provisional 63/183,669 +1 more
Examiner
CHUNG, HOSUNG CHARLES
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
University of Massachusetts
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allowance Rate
287 granted / 486 resolved
-0.9% vs TC avg
Strong +38% interview lift
Without
With
+38.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
511
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§102
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 486 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 7/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is not found persuasive because the International Searching Authority found that there was no inventive step between claim 1-4 and 16-19, therefore there is no unity of invention. See Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority Box No. V. Regarding the argument that there is substantial overlap that would not be burdensome and there are shared substantial features, the Examiner respectfully submits that search burdens are for restrictions made under § 111, not under unity of invention as with this restriction requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. 1. There is an errant dash in “not-immersed.” Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 1. This claim describes how the moveable cathode has a first surface which is not immersed in the aqueous solution and the cleaning implement removes material from the first surface. This would mean the surface would be the long curved surface of the cathode where the copper deposits. However, this surface must be partially immersed in order for the copper to plate, contrary to what is claimed which states that this surface is not immersed at all. Due to this conflicting language, this claim is indefinite. For examination purposes “a first surface which is not immersed” will be interpreted as partially immersed. 2-14. These claims are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, U.S. Patent No. 10,514,242 B1 in view of Pretorius et al., W.O. Int’l Pub. No. 2017/191605 A1 [hereinafter Pretorius]. The body of the claim is generally written with parentheses following the limitations indicating the prior art’s teachings and/or examiner notes. 1. The following references render this claim obvious. I. Yang An apparatus for electrochemical ammunition disposal and material recovery (apparatus for electrochemical ammunition disposal and material recovery; Yang title, abstract, figs. 2-4), the apparatus comprising: a vessel (acid bath 300; Yang col. 9 l. 36 – col. 10 l. 25, figs. 2-4) for holding an acidic aqueous solution (acidic aqueous solution 310; id.); an anode at least partially immersed in the acidic aqueous solution (anode 220 at least partially immersed; id.); physically separated from the anode, a … cathode (cathode 250; id.) …; and a power supply for applying a voltage between the anode and the cathode (power supply 500; id.). II. Movable Cathode - Pretorius Yang is silent on a movable cathode at least partially immersed in the aqueous solution, wherein the movable cathode in a first position has a first surface which is not immersed in the aqueous solution; and a cleaning implement to remove material on the first surface of the cathode. However, Pretorius teaches an apparatus comprising a movable cathode at least partially immersed in the aqueous solution (partially immersed cylindrical cathode 40 rotated by an electric motor; Pretorius p. 8 l. 30 – p. 9 l. 6, figs. 1-2 & 4-5), wherein the movable cathode in a first position has a first surface which is not immersed in the aqueous solution; and a cleaning implement to remove material on the first surface of the cathode (scraper 60 and the portion of the cathode 40 which it scrapes off the copper while the cathode 40 rotates would be above the electrolyte level since they are at the bottom of the opening to the tank 22; Pretorius p. 8 l. 30 – p. 9 l. 24, figs. 1-2 & 4-5). Pretorius further teaches the apparatus comprises a solids-capture tank 68 to catch copper removed by the scraper 60 which is made of a polymer such as PVC. Id. Pretorius teaches that it would be beneficial to ameliorate a batch/semi-batch process which loses operation time and manual handling by the operating staff which consumes time and increases the risk of injury. Pretorius p. 2 ll. 5-14. Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s apparatus with Pretorius’s apparatus comprising at least a rotating cathode, insulating cleaning implement, collection container, and motor in order to ameliorate a batch/semi-batch process which loses operation time and manual handling by the operating staff which consumes time and increases the risk of injury. 2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the cleaning implement is a cleaning edge that is placed against the first surface, such that, by relative movement of the cathode against the cleaning edge, material on the surface can be removed from the cathode (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection). 3. The apparatus of claim 2 wherein the cathode is cylindrical and is moveable against the cleaning edge by rotation (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection). 4. The apparatus of claim 2 wherein the cleaning edge is positioned such that material removed from the cathode surface can be collected in a collection container and is prevented from re-entering the vessel (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection). 5. The apparatus of any of claim 2 wherein the cleaning edge is electrically insulating (the scraper 60 which is made of a polymer such as PVC, which a person having ordinary skill would understand to be electrically insulating). Pretorius p. 8 l. 30 – p. 9 l. 24, figs. 1-2 & 4-5. 6. The apparatus of claim 1 having a hollow, solution permeable container wherein the anode is located within the hollow, solution permeable container (anode 220 within solution-premeable container 200). Yang col. 9 ll. 55-59, fig. 4. 8. The apparatus of claim 6 wherein the hollow, solution permeable container comprises an electrically insulating, porous shell (solution permeable container 200 comprises solution permeable outer layer 2010 of electrically insulating material). Yang col. 9 ll. 55-59, fig. 3. 9. The apparatus of claim 6 wherein the hollow, solution permeable container has a first end and a second end and a perimeter surface extending from the first end to the second end and the hollow-solution permeable container is mounted with the first end and second end horizontal to each other and to enable rotation of the container to provide agitation of contents of the container (so configured). Yang figs. 2-3. 10. The apparatus of claim 9 further comprising a motor to rotate the hollow- solution permeable container (motor rotates container). Yang col. 10 ll. 1-25, fig. 2. 11. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the anode comprises ammunition to be disposed (assorted cartridges in container). Yang col. 9 ll. 60-67, fig. 2. 12. The apparatus of claim 1 comprising an agitator to agitate ammunition to be disposed in the acidic aqueous solution (agitator 400). Yang col. 9 ll. 36-47, fig. 2. 13. The apparatus of claim 1 comprising a motor to rotate the cathode (rejected for similar reasons stated in the claim 1 rejection). 14. The apparatus of claim 1 comprising a drain for the vessel. Yang Is silent on this. However, Pretorius teaches a spent electrolyte outlet 32. Pretorius p. 8 ll. 21-29, figs. 2-3. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this to empty electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s apparatus with Pretorius’s outlet in order to empty electrolyte. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Pretorius as applied to claim 6 previously, and further in view of Moskovchenko et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0101699 A1 [hereinafter Moskovchenko] and Cox, U.S. Patent No. 5,282,934. 7. The apparatus of claim 6 wherein the anode is a piece of conductive metal electrically connected to a power source by a coated wire dangling into the hollow, solution permeable container the coated wire being physically and electrically connected to the anode. Yang is silent on this. However, power must be supplied to the anode somehow. Moskovchenko teaches anode leads inside a rotating container where the leads make materials they contact to become anodes, that is, they supply the power to the anodes. Moskovchenko [0071], fig. 7. Cox teaches an apparatus comprising lead 118 which comprises an insulated wire which then electrically connects. Cox col. 9 ll. 1-20, col. 10 ll. 15-33, figs. 6 & 9. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the insulation prevents the current from going to unwanted places. Therefore, it would have been obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aforementioned prior art’s apparatus by taking Cox’s insulated wire to prevent current from going to unwanted places and then placing Cox’s insulated wire within the permeable container and make contact with the anodes as taught by Moskovchenko in order to power the anodes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hosung Chung whose telephone number is (571) 270-7578. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday, 9 AM - 6 PM CT. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached on (571) 272-8902. 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. /HOSUNG CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 16, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12729449
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR ELECTROCATALYTIC HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
4y 2m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12723314
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL GENERATION OF SYNGAS AND OTHER USEFUL CHEMICALS
2y 1m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12709810
METHOD FOR OPERATING AN ELECTROLYZER FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
3y 6m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12703926
ELECTROPLATING SYSTEMS AND METHODS WITH INCREASED METAL ION CONCENTRATIONS
3y 4m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12703920
ELECTROLYZER STACK END PLATE ASSEMBLY WITH FLUID-ISOLATING INSERT(S)
3y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+38.3%)
3y 0m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 486 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month