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 Status
The claims are newly amended to add features that were previously in Claim 15 and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-9, filed12/19/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 under Final have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US Pub.:2020/0155715) and evidenced by the University of Alabama “Accepted Half-Lives of Commonly Used Radioisotpes” (AHL).
As to Claims 1, 5, 11 and 15, Tsai describes a radioactive microsphere composition (para. 8) comprising uniformly mixing a radioactive compound with a glass powder (para. 47) that is melted (para. 47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that there are no pores. Some of the radioactive compounds have a half-life between one year to thirty years (see para. 21, see cobalt-60).
To the glass material, there is a coating layer (para. 26), which can include a polymer coating layer (para. 30). The radioactive isotope used are many (para. 21), but can include cobalt 60, which has a half life of about 5 years (see the “Accepted Half-Lives of Commonly Used Radioisotpes” attached).
Since glass is not porous, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the same composition used the same way would substantially have no pores.
As to Claims 2 and 3, Tsai teaches that the glass material is a microsphere (para. 42, 43), which can be considered “encapsulated within” and the outside of the microsphere can be considered a shell.
As to Claim 6, Tsai teaches that the polymer material coats the glass and radioactive mixture (see above). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the radioactive material can be considered embedded within the substrate.
As to Claim 7, Tsai teaches that the radioactive material is mixed with the glass material (see above). To the glass material, there is a coating layer (para. 26), which can include a polymer coating layer (para. 30). The coating material contains the radioactive material inside. Therefore, the one side of the coating can be considered a first region and the other side of the coating can be considered a second region.
As to Claim 9, Tsai teaches that the polymer coating can include polyvinyl pyrrolidone (para. 30).
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and evidenced by AHL as applied to claims 2 or 15 above, and further in view of Gray (US Pub.: 2019/0175768).
Gray teaches that alumina and silica in the glass components can be activated to undesirable radionuclides when placed in a neutron beam (para. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the glass of Tsai and evidenced by AHL includes silica, as taught by Gray, which facilitates containment of the waste.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and evidenced by AHL as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Day (US Pat.: 5039326).
Tsai describes a radioactive microsphere (title) for use in the body, such as for use in bones, cartilage, ligaments (para. 2). Tsai does not describe the shape of the microsphere to be substantially rectangular.
Day describes a microsphere for use in arthritic joints (title). The microsphere is used to emitting radioactive energy (col. 4, lines 20-25). The microsphere is made up of glass compounds (col. 10, lines 52-53) that can be shaped into rectangles (col. 10, lines 61-62) prior to forming spheres (col. 11, lines 8-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that prior to shaping the compound into spheres, that the radioactive-glass material is shaped into rectangles, as taught by Day for use with the radioactive composition of Tsai and evidenced by AHL because Day explains that these microspheres can be formed into rectangles as an intermediate form prior to formation into spheres to head to predictable and expected results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and evidenced by AHL as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Boyd (EP 3223867).
Tsai describes use of radioactive microsphere to use in tumor treatment (para. 1), but does not describe use of one of the compounds in Claim 12.
Boyd describes radioactive polymeric and glass particles used for treatment of biological issues, particularly tumors (para. 2). The radioactive compound can include Europium-152 (table 78). Further, the particles used for treatment is a glass microsphere (para. 67), which can include a glass particle that can include both irregular particles and beads (para. 70).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Europium-152, as taught by Boyd for use with the glass beads of Tsai and evidenced by AHL because this radiological compound is known to be used to treat tumors.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and evidenced by AHL as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moharrer (CN 108292537), EPO translation, and further in view of Moon (KR 2019/0063586).
Tsai and evidenced by AHL describes microspheres of radioactive composition, but does not describe the radioactive compound being stored after use and stabilized in the form of a gradient after use.
Moharer describes a method of processing medical wastes (para. 50). This waste is then further encapsulated (para. 51) in a polymer material to form pellets and solidified (para. 130).
Moharer does not specifically state that the medical waste fragment is distributed across the pellet in the form of a gradient.
Moon describes an absorbing radioactive material (title) that employs fibers (abstract) used in a density gradient (page 2, lines 27-29). Moon explains that the difference in density gradient between the fibers and the adsorbent improves the waste retention (page 5, para. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the different density gradients used to stabilize the waste produces a different waste gradient in the stabilizing structure since the increase retention exists only where the waste has a different density gradient.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process Tsai and evidenced by AHL after use of medical waste, as taught by Moharrer because radioactive waste is known to be encapsulated in a polymer material to form pellets.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the fibers of Moharrer in a density gradient, as taught by Moon for use with the radioactive waste of Tsai and evidenced by AHL in the stabilizing composition of Moharrer because Moon explains that creating a density gradient enables improved adsorbent retention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and evidenced by AHL as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moharrer (CN 108292537), EPO translation, and further in view of Ota (JP 2015/028473).
Tsai and evidenced by AHL describes a radioactive composition but does not describe stabilizing the compound after use in the form of medical waste.
Moharer describes a method of processing medical wastes (para. 50). This waste is then further encapsulated (para. 51) in a polymer material to form pellets and solidified (para. 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stabilize used radioactive composition into encapsulated pellets, as taught by Moharer for use with used radioactive composition of Tsai and evidenced by AHL because these compounds require safe disposal after use.
Moharer does not specifically state that the medical waste fragment is made to have a dimension of at least about 0.1cm.
Ota describes an absorbent for radioactive substrates (title). The material includes a base material used to encapsulate the waste (“see page 4, last para). Ota explains that the shape of the adsorbed materials can be in the form of pellets, balls, granules (page 7, para. 1). The size can range from 10nm to 5,000µm (page 7, para. 4). The adsorbent material can be a polymeric composition (page 5, last para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shape the pellets of Moharer used to stabilize medical radioactive waste into a size of 10nm to 5,000µm, as taught by Ota for use with Tsai and evidenced by AHL because this size range is effective for encapsulating radioactive waste using adsorbent materials.
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai and evidenced by AHL as applied to claims 2 or 15 above, and further in view of Gray (US Pub.: 2019/0175768).
Gray teaches that alumina and silica in the glass components can be activated to undesirable radionuclides when placed in a neutron beam (para. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the glass of Tsai and evidenced by AHL includes silica, as taught by Gray, which facilitates containment of the waste.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US Pub.: 2020/0155715) and evidenced by the University of Alabama “Accepted Half-Lives of Commonly Used Radioisotpes” (AHL) and in view of Moharrer (CN 108292537), EPO translation.
Tsai describes a radioactive microsphere composition (para. 8) comprising uniformly mixing a radioactive compound with a glass powder (para. 47) that is melted (para. 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that there are no pores. Some of the radioactive compounds have a half-life between one year to thirty years (see para. 21, see cobalt-60).
To the glass material, there is a coating layer (para. 26), which can include a polymer coating layer (para. 30). The radioactive isotope used are many (para. 21), but can include cobalt 60, which has a half-life of about 5 years (see the “Accepted Half-Lives of Commonly Used Radioisotopes” attached).
The reference does not describe storing this radioactive contaminant.
Moharer describes a method of processing medical wastes (para. 50). This waste is then further encapsulated (para. 51) in a polymer material to form pellets and solidified (para. 130). AS to the storage feature, Moharrer teaches that the containers may be stored in a space or a facility (para. 211, 207, storage site). As to storing multiple, this is not taught.
As to storing multiple structures, Moharrer teaches storing one container, but does not specifically state storing multiple. However, it has been held that duplicating a feature of a claim is obvious in the art. See MPEP section 2144.04: Duplication of Parts: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stabilize and store medical waste in the method described by Moharrer, for use with the medically-used radioactive compound of Tsai and AHL, after the radioactive material is used and becomes waste as a safe means to secure the composition.
As to Claim 18, Tsai, AHL and Moharrer do not describe spraying of any liquid solutions.
As to the features of Claim 19, Moharrer teaches storing the waste in a storage facility (see above). The reference states that in some cases, the waste can be stored in water or underground (para. 12) or in a facility (para. 13) or in a near-surface landfill facility (para. 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that although the reference does not mention storing the waste on the floor in the facility that this is one viable option when storing containers in a facility unless otherwise stated.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai, AHL and Moharrer as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Moir (JP 2019/045148).
The references do not describe the features of Claims 19 and 20.
As to Claim 19, Mori teaches storing contains 13 (abstract), but does not describe storing multiple contains. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the storage. See MPEP section 2144.04: duplication of parts, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). As to storing in an indoor facility, Mori teaches storing the contains, but does not specifically state that they are stored in an indoor facility. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Mori means storing in an indoor facility when they describe storing the devices.
Nonetheless, Mori states that use of a radioactive material removal device (title) used to remove radioactive iodine (page 2, last para). The device is removable and the filters used within the casing are removable (title and Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the adsorbed-radioactive material in a structure that is removable, as taught by Mori for use with the structure and composition of Tsai, AHL and Moharrer because use of a removal device is known to effectively optimize the storage of radioactive material sorbed using adsorbents.
As to Claim 20, Moir describes storing the device (page 5, para. 2) and that the stored device can be moved (para. 5, para. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 January 23, 2026