DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 23 April 2026. Claims 1-
23 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 16 and
21.
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 .
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “1042”, “1052” and “1054”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tener (U.S. Patent No. 4,427,005). Regarding claim 21, Tener discloses a loading apparatus (Fig. 1) for supporting a radioactive seed carrier (the radioactive seed carrier is not positively recited in the claim, however the loading device of Tener is configured to support a radioactive seed carrier as the loading apparatus of Fig. 1 is configured to support both a shell conforming to a breast and a breast as shown in Fig. 2-4 and disclosed at col. 3, lines 25-53), said loading apparatus comprising:
a base (composed of template bridge 10 and template blocks 11 and 12 as shown in Fig. 1 and disclosed at col. 2, lines 33-36) comprising:
a loading bed configured to support the radioactive seed carrier (area encompassed by templates 11/12 and bridge 10 as shown in Fig. 3-4), wherein the loading bed comprises a curved, partially hemispherical cut-out (formed by shell 40/41; col. 2, lines 60-68 – col. 3, lines 1-9) configured to receive a spherical radioactive seed carrier placed in the loading bed (see Figs. 3-4);
and at least one guide channel (needle holes) 16 configured to guide one or more radioactive seeds within the radioactive seed carrier, wherein the at least one guide channel includes rows of guide channels (Figs. 3-4) configured to guide the one or more radioactive seeds into the radioactive seed carrier at a plurality of levels (col. 3, lines 25-68). While Tener does not disclose explicitly that the curved, partially hemispherical cut-out is semi-hemispherical, Tener makes such obvious as Tener teaches that the shell 40/41 (which forms the cut-out), is shaped to conform to the user’s breast (see claim 2), and it is well-known that the general shape of a breast is semi-hemispherical (as also shown in cross-section of Figs. 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cut-out to be semi-hemispherical as Tener discloses that the cut-out conforms to the breast of the patient (see claim 2 and Abstract of Tener).
Regarding claim 22, a height of the loading bed is adjustable due to tightening loosening of bolt/nut 46/47 and screws 50 (col. 3, lines 31-44; and col. 2, lines 60-68 – col. 3, lines 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 1-15, while the prior art teaches a loading apparatus comprising: a loading bed configured to support a radioactive seed carrier configured to receive one or more radioactive seeds, the radioactive seed carrier comprising a biocompatible material configured for placement at a treatment area with the one or more radioactive seeds embedded in the radioactive seed carrier; and at least one guide channel positioned in the loading apparatus adjacent to the radioactive seed carrier and configured to guide the one or more radioactive seeds into the radioactive seed carrier, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a loading apparatus as claimed by Applicant, wherein the loading apparatus is configured to mechanically move the loading bed relative to the at least one guide channel.
Regarding claims 16-20, while the prior art teaches a loading apparatus for supporting a radioactive seed carrier having a thickness defined between opposite and substantially planar first and second surfaces, said loading apparatus comprising: a loading bed configured to support the radioactive seed carrier; said loading bed having at least one guide channel configured to guide one or more radioactive seeds within the thickness of the radioactive seed carrier without penetrating the first and second surfaces of the radioactive seed carrier, wherein the at least one guide channel includes rows of guide channels configured to guide the one or more radioactive seeds into the radioactive seed carrier at a plurality of levels between the first and second surfaces, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a loading apparatus as claimed by Applicant, wherein the loading apparatus further comprises a base, wherein the bases comprises the loading bed, wherein the base has the entry side having the at least one guide channel, and the base further comprises an exit side, wherein the entry side is thicker than the exit side.
9. Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 23, while the prior art teaches a loading apparatus for supporting a radioactive seed carrier, said loading apparatus comprising: a base comprising: a loading bed configured to support the radioactive seed carrier, wherein the loading bed comprises a semi-hemispherical cut-out configured to receive a spherical radioactive seed carrier placed in the loading bed; and at least one guide channel configured to guide one or more radioactive seeds within the radioactive seed carrier, wherein the at least one guide channel includes rows of guide channels configured to guide the one or more radioactive seeds into the radioactive seed carrier at a plurality of levels, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a loading apparatus for supporting a radioactive seed carrier as claimed by Applicant, wherein the loading bed is configured to move the radioactive seed carrier relative to the at least one guide channel while the radioactive seed carrier is on the loading bed.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 April 2026 with respect to the objections to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of objection are presented above in light of the replacement amendments to the Drawings.
11. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. As such, claims 21 and 22 are rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to broadening of claim 21.
12. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights