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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has incorporated the subject matter of dependent claim 33 into claim 1. Applicant argues that the features of original dependent claim 33 is not taught or suggested by the combination of cited references. This argument is unpersuasive since Monroy-Guzman discloses a method where the titanium is a solution of TiCl3 or TiCl4 (i.e., where the titanium is combined with a counter anion capable of producing a soluble salt). Since after amendment, claim 30 directly depends on claim 1, Applicant is noted to have already recognize the thrust of the rejection grounds that the chloride ion of TiCl3 or TiCl4 as a counter anion capable of producing a soluble salt.
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.
Claims 4 and 31 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.
Claim 4 is unclear because claim 4 depends on claim 3 which recites the recitation that the mineral acid is a halogen acid while claim 4 also recites mineral acid is selected from the group consisting of hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid and a combination thereof. Although, hydrochloric acid is narrower than claim 3, Claim 4 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the contradictory features introduced by claim 4 are also a required feature of the claims.
Claims 19-25 are unclear because claim 19 recites the recitation that the metal source comprises a metal, metalate, or metallic salt. However, claim 19 depends on claim 1 which is already limited to wherein the metal source is titanium; and wherein the titanium is combined with a metal oxide, metal hydroxide, phosphate, tetrefluoroboride, phosphorus hexafluoride, tosylate, acetate, formate or any other counter anion capable of producing a soluble salt. Claim 19 thus does not further limit claim 1 and instead expands on the metal source to include metal and metalate. Claim 19 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the contradictory features introduced by claim 19 are required feature of the claims. Claims 20-25 depend on claim 19.
Claim 31 is unclear because claim 31 depends on claim 30 which recites the recitation that the titanium to a titanium salt selected from the group consisting of TiCl3, TiCl2 TiCl4, and a combination thereof. Claim 31 expands the scope of the titanium to nitrates, halides, and combinations thereof. Claim 31 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the contradictory features introduced by claim 31 are required feature of the claims.
Claim 32 is unclear because claim 32 recites the recitation that the metal source comprises an unoxidized titanium metal or metal carbonyl. However, claim 32 depends on claim 1 which is already limited to wherein the metal source is titanium; and wherein the titanium is combined with a metal oxide, metal hydroxide, phosphate, tetrefluoroboride, phosphorus hexafluoride, tosylate, acetate, formate or any other counter anion capable of producing a soluble salt. Claim 32 thus does not further limit claim 1 and instead expands on the metal source to include unoxidized titanium metal or metal carbonyl. Claim 32 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the contradictory features introduced by claim 32 are required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 which limits the mineral acid to a halogen acid. Claim 4 thus does not further limit claim 3 since it also increases the scope of the invention according to claim 4 to include nitric acid and sulfuric acid which are not halogen acids. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 19 depends on claim 1 which recites the recitation that the metal source comprises a metal, metalate, or metallic salt. However, claim 1 is already limited to wherein the metal source is titanium; and wherein the titanium is combined with a metal oxide, metal hydroxide, phosphate, tetrefluoroboride, phosphorus hexafluoride, tosylate, acetate, formate or any other counter anion capable of producing a soluble salt. Claim 19 thus does not further limit claim 1 and instead expands on the metal source to include metal and metalate. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 31 depends on claim 30 which limits the titanium to a titanium salt selected from the group consisting of TiCl3, TiCl2 TiCl4, and a combination thereof. Claim 31 thus does not further limit claim 30 and instead expands on the titanium salt in claim 30 since it also includes nitrates, halides and combinations thereof. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 16-23, 25-31, 34-44, 48-49, 53, 55-62, 64, 66-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monroy-Guzman et al (“Titanium Molybdate Gels as Matrix of 99Mo/99mTc Generators” submitted with the IDS filed 8/4/2022) in further view of Evans (US 4,280,053 submitted in the IDS filed 8/4/2022) and in further view of Bennett (US 5,802,438 submitted in the IDS filed 8/4/2022).Regarding Claim 1, Monroy-Guzman discloses a method for producing a titanium-molybdate (Ti-Mo) for a molybdenum-99/technetium-99m (Mo-99/Tc-99m) generator comprising:
(1) dissolving MoO3 in NH4OH to form a molybdate solution and adjusting the pH to 4.5 by adding HCl and adding the molybdate solution dropwise to a solution containing TiCl3 or TiCl4 dissolved in HCl to provide a Ti-Mo composition;
(2) adjusting the pH of the Ti-Mo gel with NH4OH; and drying and crushing the resulting gel; and
(3) irradiating the Ti-Mo gel (see Page 11-12, Experimental Section).
Monroy-Guzman therefore disclose a method for making titanium-molybdate (i.e., a titanium-molybdate) where a Mo composition (MoO3) is combined with a metal source which is a titanium combined with a counter anion capable of producing a soluble salt (TiCl3 or TiCl4 solution) and the pH adjusted with a base (NH4OH) to precipitate a plurality of metal-Mo.
Monroy-Guzman does not disclose the method for forming the titanium molybdate comprising reacting a metal molybdenum in a liquid medium with a first acid to provide a Mo composition. Monroy-Guzman does not disclose precipitating a plurality of particulates.
Regarding reacting a metal molybdenum material with acid, Bennett discloses a method for generating crystalline 99MoO3 comprising irradiating 100Mo using a particle accelerator apparatus to produce an initial supply of 99Mo (see Col 12, Ln 40-46), dissolving 99Mo metal in an oxygen-containing primary solvent (acid) including HNO3, H2SO4, or H2O2 (see Col 16, Ln 4-25) and thereafter dried to generate 99MoO3 crystals (see Col 16, Ln 25-28). Bennett further discloses the crystalline 99MoO3 used for 99mTc generation where the parent nuclide (99Mo) is manufactured in a cost-effective and safe manner without the generation of nuclear wastes (See Col 5, Ln 61-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method for producing a titanium molybdate gel for Tc-99m generation, as disclosed by Monroy-Guzman where the MoO3 is obtained by the chemical conversion of Mo99 by dissolving in HNO3 or H2SO4 (acids), as disclosed by Bennett, because it is a cost-effective and safe method without the generation of nuclear wastes.
Regarding particulates, Evans discloses a method for producing a metal-molybdate technetium-99m (Tc-99m) generator comprising: (1) mixing solutions containing molybdate obtained by dissolving MoO3 with ammonium hydroxide (i.e., a Mo composition) and zirconium salts or salts of other cations (i.e., metal source) in strongly acidic solution; (2) increasing the pH of the solution by addition of an alkali to precipitate the metal molybdate (see Col 3, Ln 37-42). Evans also discloses where besides zirconium molybdate, similar techniques are used to make titanium molybdate (see Col 3, LN 45-50). Evans further discloses that the molybdate precipitates are particles (see Abstract and Examples). Evans further discloses that the particles can be packed in finely divided form into a column as a generator (see Abstract) and where the generator is convenient and simple to use (see Col 2, Ln 38-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method for preparing a Tc-99m generator as disclosed by Monroy-Guzman where the Ti-Mo is precipitated to precipitate a plurality of Ti-Mo particulates as disclosed by Evans as a known method for forming molybdate where the result would predictably be suitable for packing into Tc-99m generators.
Regarding Claim 2, Bennett discloses a method comprising a nitric acid and sulfuric acid (i.e., mineral acids).
Regarding Claim 5, Bennett discloses a method comprising water (see Col 16, Ln 17).
Regarding Claim 6, Bennett further discloses the method where dissolving the acid comprises a 6-9M HNO3 and where the weight ratio of the metal and primary solvent is from 1-5 : 1-25 (see Col 16, Ln 22). Bennett therefore discloses a method comprising dissolving molybdenum metal where the molar ratio of the metal Mo to the acid is in a range overlapping with 0.1:1 to about 10:1.
Regarding Claim 7, Bennett discloses a method where reacting the metal Mo material subjects the material to an oxidation and a dissolution (see Col 16, Ln 4-25).
Regarding Claim 8, Monroy-Guzman discloses a method where MoO3 is dissolved (see Page 11, Experimental Section). Evans discloses the method where MoO3 is dissolved (see Col 3, Ln 17-18).
Regarding Claims 10-11, Bennett discloses that a preferred embodiment comprises heating to a temperature exceeding 70°C (see Col 16, Ln 4-25). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed.Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare a titanium molybdate by the process suggested by Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans where the temperature for dissolving is in any range overlapping with the range disclosed by Bennett including the claimed ranges to dissolve the Mo.
Regarding Claim 12, As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, it has similarly been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do not overlap but are merely close. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare a titanium molybdate by the process suggested by Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans where the temperature for dissolving is in any range abutting the range disclosed by Bennett including the claimed ranges to dissolve the Mo.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Evans discloses a method where the reagents are combined and precipitation is performed with constant stirring (i.e., mechanical agitation) (see Col 3, Ln 21 and Col 5, Ln 10-18).
Regarding Claims 18-21, Monroy-Guzman discloses a method comprising TiCl3 or TiCl4 (a d-block metal halide salt where the oxidation state of the metal is n = 3 or 4).
Regarding claim 22, Monroy-Guzman discloses where the titanium forms bonds with molybdate since it discloses a titanium molybdate.
Regarding claim 23, Monroy-Guzman discloses a process producing a zirconium molybdate gel which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as comprising oxo-bridge bonds.
Regarding claims 25-26, Monroy-Guzman discloses method producing metal molybdates including titanium molybdate (i.e. discrete structural units of Ti atoms bonded to molybdate (MoO4).
Regarding Claims 27-28, the claims relate to properties of the metal in the metal molybdate produced by the present inventions. Monroy-Guzman appears to disclose a metal that is identical in chemical composition (for example titanium) to the present invention and produced by a method that is substantially identical process and forming a titanium molybdate that is substantially identical. Therefore, the process according to Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett where the metal is titanium is reasonably expected to include the claimed properties of claims 27-28. Applicant may rebut with evidence showing that the titanium in the process according to Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett does not necessarily possess the characteristics.
Regarding claim 30-31, Monroy-Guzman discloses a method comprising TiCl3 or TiCl4.
Regarding Claim 34, Monroy-Guzman discloses a method where the molybdate solution is added to the titanium salt solution. However, it has been held that absent unexpected results it is obvious to change the order of adding ingredients. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method as disclosed by Monroy-Guzman, Bennett and Evans where a molybdate solution and titanium salt solution are added in any order including the titanium source solution to the molybdate solution absent evidence of unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 35, Monroy-Guzman discloses a method where the molar ratio of the Ti:Mo is 1:2 to 2:1 (see Page 12, ¶2 and Table 1, Series B).
Regarding Claim 36, Monroy-Guzman discloses combining the molybdate solution to the titanium source in the form of drops (see Page 11, Experimental Section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to combine the reactants in drops as disclosed by Monroy-Guzman since this forms Ti-Mo gel.
Regarding Claim 37-40, Monroy-Guzman further discloses adding HCl to adjust the pH of the molybdate solution (see Page 12 ¶1). Monroy-Guzman also discloses a method where the titanium chloride is dissolved in water and HCl and further diluted in HCl (see Page 12, ¶1).
Regarding Claim 41, Evans discloses a method where the molybdate salt solution and metal salt solution is combined in a strongly acidic solution (see Col 3, Ln 40). Evans also discloses the alternative method in the examples where an acidic solution with pH of 1 is added to a molybdate solution with higher pH to precipitate the metal molybdate particles (see Examples 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method to prepare the metal molybdate gel with a step for combining the salt solutions in strong acid solution as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans where the pH of the mixture is 1 since this solution keeps the ions in solution until precipitation as suggested by Evans.
Regarding Claim 42, Evans also discloses where an acidic solution with pH of 1 is added to a molybdate solution with higher pH of 4 to 5.5 to precipitate the metal molybdate particles (see Examples 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method to prepare the metal molybdate gel with a step for precipitating by gradually increasing the pH by adding alkali as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans where adjusting the pH is 4 or 5.5 since this pH precipitates the metal molybdate as suggested by Evans.
Regarding Claim 43, Monroy-Guzman discloses a method comprising adjusting pH with ammonium hydroxide (see Page 12, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 44, Evans discloses precipitating the molybdate by gradually increasing the pH of the solution by the addition of alkali (see Col 3, LN 40-42). Monroy-Guzman discloses a method where reagents are combined by dropwise introduction (see Page 11, Experimental Section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to prepare the metal molybdate by gradually increasing the pH with an alkali as disclosed by Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans where the ammonium hydroxide is added dropwise as a typical method for gradually adding ingredients as suggested by Monroy-Guzman.
Regarding Claim 48, Evans further discloses a method where separating comprises filtering to retain the particles (see Col 5, Ln 11-20).
Regarding Claim 49, Evans discloses a method where separating comprises filtering to retain the particles (see Col 5, Ln 11-20).
Regarding Claim 53, Monroy-Guzman discloses the Ti-Mo gel crushed in an agate mortar (i.e., milled) (see Page 12, ¶2).
Regarding Claims 55-56, Evans discloses a method where the particles are sieved to a size between 150-500 µm before packing into the generator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the process for producing metal molybdate gel as disclosed by Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans where milling produces a particle in the range of 150 µm to 500 µm to make the particle suitable for loading into the column of a generator.
Regarding Claim 57, Monroy-Guzman discloses washing the Ti-Mo gel (see Page 12, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 58, Monroy-Guzman discloses the Ti-Mo gel subjected to heat to dry (see Page 12, ¶2). Evans discloses drying molybdate gels (see Example 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to dry the molybdate gel as disclosed by Evans so that it can be used to form the generator.
Regarding Claim 59, Monroy-Guzman discloses irradiating the Ti-Mo.
Regarding Claim 60, Bennett discloses a method where a metal molybdenum target is irradiated to provide Mo99.
Regarding Claim 61-62, Bennett further discloses a method where the 99Mo is generated by irradiating a circular metal molybdenum target which is circular in configuration and has the thickness of 5-50 mm and diameter of 5-20 mm (i.e. discs or tubules) (see Col 14, Ln 12-15).
Regarding Claim 64, the claim is obvious for the same reasons as applied above in claim 1 and because Bennett discloses oxidizing a metal Mo.
Regarding claim 66, the claim is obvious for the same reasons as applied above in claim 1 and because Bennett discloses a method dissolving a metal Mo.
Regarding claim 67, the claim is obvious for the same reasons as applied above in claim 1 and because reacting in Bennett necessarily comprises combining with the acid.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Scadden et al (“Radiochemistry of Molybdenum”, National Academy of Sciences, 1960, pp. 1-38 submitted in the IDS filed 8/4/2022).
As applied to Claim 1, Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett suggest a method for preparing titanium molybdate comprising irradiating a metal molybdenum and forming a titanium molybdate for Tc-99 generation where the metal molybdate is dissolved in acid to form molybdate, and the titanium molybdate is precipitated from an acidic solution comprising molybdate and titanium salt by adjusting the pH with a base.
Regarding Claims 3, Monroy-Guzman, Bennett and Evans do not disclose dissolving the metal molybdenum with a halogen acid.
Scadden discloses dissolving metallic molybdenum with dilute nitric acid, warm aqua regia (i.e., nitric acid and hydrochloric acid), or hot concentrated sulfuric acid which produces solutions with molybdenum in solution as an oxygenated anion (i.e., molybdate) (see Page 2, Bottom). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method as disclosed by Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans where a warm aqua regia (i.e. a nitric acid and hydrochloric acid is used to dissolved the metallic molybdenum, as disclosed by Scadden, as the mere substitution of one known equivalent for dissolving molybdenum for another with a reasonable expectation that the warm aqua regia would dissolve the molybdenum as suggested by Scadden.
Claims 9 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monroy-Guzman, Bennett and Evans as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Jonsson et al (US 4,440,729 submitted in the IDS file 8/4/2022.
As applied to Claim 1, Monroy-Guzman, Bennett and Evans suggest a method for preparing titanium molybdate comprising irradiating a metal molybdenum and forming a titanium molybdate for Tc-99 generation where the metal molybdate is dissolved in acid to form molybdate, and the titanium molybdate is precipitated from an acidic solution comprising molybdate and titanium salt by adjusting the pH with a base.
Jonsson discloses a method for chemical dissolution of molybdenum comprising acid dissolving molybdenum where heat is removed from the reaction because the reaction is exothermic and NO2 gases generated from the reaction with nitric acid can react with oxygen and condense as nitric acid (see Col 1, Ln 50-60 and Col 6, Ln 3 to Col 7, Ln 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention perform a method to prepare the metal molybdate gel with a step for acid dissolving metal molybdenum as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Bennett and Evans where heat is removed from the aqueous medium as disclosed in Jonsson to reduce generation of NO2 which is toxic.
Regarding Claims 13-14, Jonsson discloses that a temperature of 50°C is desirable for maintaining reaction velocity (see Col 7, Ln 16-43). Jonsson also discloses that temperatures between 30°C and 40°C is the best condition for promoting the reforming of nitric acid (see Col 7, Ln 37-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention perform a method to prepare the metal molybdate gel with a step for acid dissolving metal molybdenum as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Bennett and Evans where the temperature is maintained between 30°C and 40°C if preventing NO2 generation is more desired than reaction velocity for environmental reasons.
Claims 45-47 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett as applied to Claim 1 or 48 and in further view of Courty et al (US 4,141,861 submitted in the IDS filed 8/4/2022).
As applied to Claim 1, Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett suggest a method for preparing a titanium molybdate for Tc-99 generation where the metal molybdate is dissolved in acid to form molybdate, and the titanium molybdate is precipitated from an acidic solution comprising molybdate and titanium salt by adjusting the pH with a base.
As applied to Claim 48, Evans further discloses a method where separating comprises filtering to retain the particles.
Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett do not disclose a temperature of the metal-Mo composition before precipitating and before filtering.
Regarding Claims 45-47, Courty discloses a method for producing an iron and molybdenum gel comprising reacting a solution of ferric salts and soluble molybdate (see Col 2, Ln 34-37). Courty further discloses a method where the temperature of the mixture is maintained between 0 and 15°C (see Col 4, Ln 15-22). Courty suggests that the process comprising mixing at the temperature between 0°C and 15°C produces a homogeneous product and avoids suspended solid particles of MoO3 (see Col 4, Ln 11-22 and Col 7, Ln 43-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method to prepare the metal molybdate gel with a step for precipitating the metal molybdate gel as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett where the temperature throughout precipitation is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with 0 to 15°C as disclosed by Courty including 3 to 10°C and expect to produce homogeneous metal molybdate gel particles.
Regarding Claim 52, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method to prepare the metal molybdate gel with a step for precipitating the metal molybdate gel as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans where the temperature throughout precipitation is in any workable or optimum range overlapping with 0 to 15°C as disclosed by Courty including 3 to 10°C and expect to produce a homogeneous metal molybdate gel. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method to prepare the metal molybdate gel with a step for separating after precipitating the metal molybdate gel as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett where there is no change in temperature after precipitation to simplify the process and expect to produce homogeneous metal molybdate gel particles.
Claims 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett as applied to Claim 49 and in further view of Jones et al (US 6,136,740 submitted in the IDS filed 8/4/2022).
As applied to Claim 49, Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett suggest a method for preparing a titanium molybdate for Tc-99 generation where the metal molybdate is dissolved in acid to form molybdate, and the titanium molybdate is precipitated from an acidic solution comprising molybdate and titanium salt by adjusting the pH with a base and wherein the Ti-Mo particulates are separated with a filter to retain at least most of the metal-Mo particulates.
Evans discloses filtering with a Buchner funnel (see Example 1). However, Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett do not specifically disclose where the filter is a metal filtering surface.
Jones discloses a method for making an inorganic particulate material comprising a step of separating an aqueous medium and acid from suspended particles by vacuum filtering rapidly in a stainless-steel Buchner funnel (see Col 7, Ln 3-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform a method to prepare the metal molybdate gel with a step for filtering to separate the metal-Mo particulates from the liquid medium as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Evans, and Bennett where the Buchner funnel comprises a stainless steel as disclosed in Jones and expect the stainless steel to be able to separate the particles from the aqueous medium as in Jones.
Claim 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, Evans, and Monroy-Guzman as applied to Claim 53, and in further view of Fukushima et al (US 2005/0156144 submitted in the IDS filed 8/4/2022).
As applied to Claim 53, Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, and Evans suggest a method for preparing titanium molybdate comprising irradiating a metal molybdenum and forming a titanium molybdate for Tc-99 generation where the metal molybdate is dissolved in acid to form molybdate, and the titanium molybdate is precipitated from an acidic solution comprising molybdate and titanium salt by adjusting the pH with a base and where the titanium molybdate gel is crushed in a mortar before being loaded into column as a generator (see Page 12) but does not specifically disclose wet milling.
Fukushima discloses a method for preparing gel compositions where wet milling is used instead of manual grinding in a mortar for mass production (see [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the method to prepare the titanium molybdate gel as disclosed in Monroy-Guzman, Bennett, Evans, and Monroy-Guzman where the precipitate is wet milling is used instead of a manual grinding in a mortar as disclosed by Fukushima to mass produce the product.
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 MICHAEL FORREST whose telephone number is (571)270-5833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10AM-6PM).
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, Sally A Merkling can be reached at (571)272-6297. 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.
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738