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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 19 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. As to claim 5, t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term “about” renders indefinite the nitric acid concentration . As to claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "the mercury concentration in the dissolution solution”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As to claim 11 , t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term “about” renders indefinite the temperature . As to claim 1 2 , t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term “about” renders indefinite the temperature . As to claim 1 3 , t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term “about” renders indefinite the time period . As to claim 17 , t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term “about” renders indefinite the nitric acid concentration and the mercury concentration . As to claim 1 9 , t he term “ about ” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term “about” renders indefinite the temperature and the time period . 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. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0348254 A1 to Almond et al. (Almond) . As to claim 14, Almond teaches a process for dissolving aluminum comprising immersing the aluminum in a nitric acid solution containing greater than 0.001 M mercury and applying an electrical current to the solution (Paragraphs 0007 and 0008) . 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 1-9, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,129,6 9 8 to Raviv et al. (Raviv) in view of “Electrolytic Dissolution of Power Reactor Fuels in Nitric Acid” to Clark et al. (Clark) . As to claim s 1 , 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 , Raviv teaches a process for dissolving a metal envelope from spent uranium fuel elements, for example an aluminum envelope, the aluminum connected to a current source as a cathode and dissolved in a 8M (8N) nitric acid electrolytic medium at room temperature, around 20°C , thus a temperature below the boiling point of nitric acid and stopping the application of electrical current after a sufficient time period, the process not comprising an external heat source ( Page 1, Lines 15-28; Page 2, Lines 1-68 ) . This process would allow the heat from the reaction to raise the temperature of the solution. However, Raviv fails to teach that the solution further comprises a catalyst. However, Clark also discusses the electrolytic dissolution of cathodic aluminum in nitric acid and teaches that the addition of 0.001 M mercury increases the aluminum dissolution in the solution (Page 17; Paragraph 3) . Therefore, if would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the nitric acid solution with the addition of 0.001 M mercury in order to increase the aluminum dissolution in the solution as taught by Clark. As to claim 3, the combination of Raviv and Clark teaches the method of claim 1. Raviv further teaches that the metal comprises, at least at an interface, a uranium aluminum alloy (Page 2, Lines 1-40) . As to claim 9, the combination of Raviv and Clark teaches the method of claim 1. Raviv further teaches that the process comprises contacting the electrolytic acid medium with a counter electrode, anode (Example 1) . Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Raviv and Clark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,699,700 to Dhooge (Dhooge) . As to claim 10, the combination of Raviv and Clark teaches the method of claim 1. However, Raviv teaches that the counter electrode comprises platinum. However, Dhooge also discusses electrolytic processes for recovery metals in nitric acid and teaches that in addition to platinum anodes graphite anodes can be used (Column 6, Lines 52-58; Column 7, Lines 7-26) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a graphite anode in place of the platinum anode as a known equivalent as taught by Dhooge (MPEP 2144.06 I I ) . Claim s 1 , 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 1 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,119,658 to Schulz (Schulz) in view of Raviv . As to claim s 1 , 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13, Schulz teaches a process for dissolving a metal, aluminum from spent nuclear fuel, the process comprising placing the metal in an electrolytic acid medium comprising 5M nitric acid and 0.005 M mercury catalyst, the liquid in solution and thus below its boiling point, wherein the dissolution occurs, for, for example 1 minute (0.0167 hours) (Column 1, Lines 9 to 68; Column 3, L ines 3-50; Table 1) . However, Schulz fails to teach that the metal aluminum is connected as a negative electrode. However, Raviv also discusses aluminum dissolution in nitric acid and teaches that by connecting the aluminum to a current source as a cathode, thus negative electrical current, in combination with an anode counter electrode, the aluminum dissolution can occur without dissolution of uranium from the core (Page 2, Lines 1-56) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of Schulz with the negative cathodic connection of Raviv in order to ensure aluminum dissolution without dissolution of uranium from the core as taught by Raviv. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16, 18 and 20 are allowed. Claims 17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is, in the method for dissolving aluminum as claimed , raising the temperature of the solution to its boiling point without the application of any external heat source . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7946 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9 AM to 4 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Lin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /CIEL P CONTRERAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794