DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on August 26th, 2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 12-15 are pending.
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 § 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,451,739 (Christ et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Christ et al. discloses a container for holding a source of radioactive emission (‘Containers for the transportation and/or storage of radioactive materials, particularly irradiated fuel elements needing a shielding for keeping back the radioactive rays.’), the container having a jacket and including one or more wire arrays, the one or more wire arrays being formed in any (c) longitudinally or transversely (‘The container jacket is encased by a metal casing 2, e.g. of steel, which has the function of shielding against gamma radiation. … It is particularly desirable to use for the metal casing 2 wires or cables.’ Also ‘said gamma ray absorbing means comprising wire means wrapped around the exterior surface of said container with a plurality of wraps,’ also all figures).
Christ et al. does not specify whether the jacket is lead, but discloses that lead is a known material for jackets (“a jacket made of uranium, lead, or steel”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use lead for the jacket as in the known art because lead absorbs gamma radiation and using lead for the jacket means a necessary minimal amount of gamma shielding is always present, with additional shielding being added as needed by the wire arrays. This is similar to the prior at solution discussed in Christ using a thin jacket with additional gamma shielding material overlaid (‘Furthermore, there are also known two-part shielding containers which consist of a relatively simply constructed thin walled inner container having barrier functions which is located interchangeably in an outer container having shielding functions and having cooling flanges whereby according to the radioactive inventory of the inner container there is used another outer container designed in each case for the radioactive inventory.’), except the that instead of manufacturing multiple interchangeable secondary shields the wire arrays are used as an adjustable shielding.
Christ et al. does not disclose combining the longitudinally or traverse wire array with spiralled wire formed in circles or looped wire formed in zig-zags or a serpentine formation. The wire array of Christ et al. is a form of gamma radiation shielding, which will absorb gamma radiation according to the well-known Beer-Lambert Law; I = I₀e⁻(μ/ρ)ρt, where I₀: is the initial intensity or dose rate of the gamma radiation before entering the shield; μ: is the linear attenuation coefficient, a value specific to the gamma ray energy and the material (in units of cm⁻¹) ρ: is the density of the shielding material (in units of g/cm³) and t: is the linear thickness of the shield. Based on this, it is clear that only the material and total thickness determine the gamma ray shielding ability of the wire array. Any shape or combination of shapes of wires can be used, with no change in shielding ability as long as the total thickness and density remains the same. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute a spiralled, looped, zig-zag, or serpentine wire array pattern for one or more of the layers of tranverse or longitudinally laid wire as a matter of design choice, the change in pattern making no difference in the operation of the shielding or the container.
Regarding claim 3, Christ et al. discloses the container of claim 1, wherein a wire of the wire array includes a metal wire (‘The container jacket is encased by a metal casing 2, e.g. of steel, which has the function of shielding against gamma radiation. … It is particularly desirable to use for the metal casing 2 wires or cables.’).
Christ et al. does not disclose whether the wire is galvanized, but does disclose steel wires, and it would have been obvious to galvanize steel wires to prevent corrosion and rusting, which is well known problem with alloys containing iron, such as steel. Christ et al. also does not disclose at least one coil of copper wire wrapped around the steel wire. As discussed above, the wire array is used for gamma ray shielding and the shielding ability will depend on the material density and total thickness. Copper is denser than steel so it would make a more effective shielding material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to wrap cooper coils around the galvanized steel wire to increase the density of the shielding while utilizing the steel wire for structural strength.
Regarding claim 4, Christ et al. in view of Kitchin et al. discloses the container of claim 3, wherein the galvanised metal wire is steel wire (‘metal casing 2, e.g. of steel,’).
Regarding claim 9, Christ et al. discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the plurality of wire arrays is arranged to at least partially surround the source (‘comprising wire means wrapped around the exterior surface of said container with a plurality of wraps’).
Regarding claim 12, Christ et al. discloses the claimed invention except for mounting the plurality of wire arrays on more or more panels. However, mounting wire arrays on panels is generally known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute mounting the wire arrays on panels for wrapping the wires directly around the container jacket because panels can be easily added and removed without rotating the container, allowing for more efficient adjustments.
Regarding claim 13, Christ et al. discloses the container of claim 12, wherein the container includes a plurality of wire arrays arranged along the (inherent in the mounting on panels of claim 12, multiples sides require multiple panels with their own arrays), wherein the container includes a plurality of panels (inherent in the mounting on panels of claim 12, multiples sides require multiple panels), each of the plurality of panels being placed around sides of the container, the source being placed centrally in the container such that the plurality of panels surround the source (inherent in the mounting on panels of claim 12, the wire arrays surround the source so the panels they are mounted on must also surround the source).
The claimed invention differs from Christ et al. in placing the wire arrays (and therefore the panels) on the inner side of the container walls, rather than the exterior wall. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to try placing the wire array panels around the inner walls rather than outer walls, as it requires no creativity and would be predicted to operate identically regardless of whether the wire shielding is on the inter or outer surface of the container jacket.
Regarding claim 14, Christ et al. discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the plurality of wire arrays includes an antenna, the antenna being configured to receive radiation and transmit radiation (cooling fins 9, where it is understood that cooling fins receive and transmit radiation in the form of heat).
Regarding claim 15, Christ et al. discloses the container of claim 14, wherein the plurality of wire arrays include a horn-shaped antenna (cooling fins 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 26th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner cites a portion of Christ in the background section that specifies lead as a material for the jacket portion of the container to show that lead jackets are known. Applicant argues that this portion of the reference is discusses accepted principles of types of shielding that should be present in containers for the transport and storage of radioactive materials, but it not present in the inventive container of Christ which proposes “to solve those shortcomings by using a metal casing 2 in place of the lead shielding” and further posits that Christ et al. teaches the metal casing can be applied between the cooling fins or flanges much like the prior art solution of lead shielding.
Examiner will agree that Christ discloses the use lead for the jacket in the background section as already known, but disagrees that the inventive containers of Christ use the metal casing comprising a wire array in place of the jacket, and further disagrees that Christ mentions any prior art solution involving lead between the cooling fins or flanges.
Christ very clearly discloses that the inventive containers contain both a jacket and the wire array referred to as metal casing together (‘The container jacket is encased by a metal casing 2,’ specifically referring to the inventive container, also a jacket is clearly shown in every figure). Christ also never discloses lead shielding between the cooling fins or flanges. The background section mentions that a neutron shielding material can be placed in that location (see “Additionally, there is the neutron shielding which usually is applied between the cooling flanges, occasionally also, in channels of the container support.”), but this an additional material on top of the jacket, and is definitely is not lead, lead being a gamma shielding material and not a neutron shielding material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881