FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/12/24 is acknowledged.
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 25-28 and 30-31 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.
Dependent claim 25 is indefinite in regards to the phrase: “wherein the neutron absorbing material is formed of a granular material.”. Dependent claim 27 is indefinite in regards to the phrase: “wherein the neutron thermalizing material is formed of a granular material.”. Dependent claim 30 is indefinite in regards to the phrase: “wherein the one or more additive materials is formed of a granular material.”. It is very unclear in said three claims what limitation applicant is trying to actually claim. Claims 25, 27 and 30 are written as “product-by-process” type claims, wherein the neutron absorbing material, the neutron thermalizing material and the one or more additive materials are all initially formed from granular starting materials, but it is unclear if their final form remains in granular/powder final form?
All other list claims are being rejected here because they are either directly or indirectly dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
EXAMINATION NOTE
In independent claim 1, it should be noted that the three functional requirements that the radiation shielding apparatus comprises: 1) a matrix material, 2) a neutron absorbing material and 3) a neutron thermalizing material (i.e. also called a thermal moderator), can easily be met by a single material. As way of illustration only, a polyethylene polymer can readily function as the matrix material, as well as the neutron absorbing material (due to its hydrogen-rich nature) and as well as the neutron thermalizing material (also due to its hydrogen-rich nature) all at the same time.
Furthermore, Applicant’s newly added claim limitation of: “the neutron absorbing material configured to generate the gas from neutron absorption.”, as set forth in amended independent claim 1 (09/03/25), is deemed to be a “method of use” type limitation when using the claimed radiation shielding apparatus.
Furthermore, due to the indefinite nature of applicant’s dependent claims 25-28 and 30-31, it is not really possible to evaluate them accurately for prior-art purposes.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 23-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hall et al. U.S. Patent Number 3,827,982.
Hall et al. discloses moldable lead containing composition wherein dry lead powder is subsequently mixed with other components (e.g. polymers, binders, aggregates etc.). During the production process all free water is removed from the lead composition to produce a self-supporting dry lead composition. This dry lead composition can be used as a matrix into which aggregates and other materials are dispersed. Said compositions are made to contain void spaces (e.g. 38%, 14.4% etc.), see column 11, lines 19-44, and thus fully meet Applicant’s independent claim 1 limitations of: “the matrix comprising one or more gas volumes configured to accommodate a generation of a gas”. Said composition can be used as a radiation (e.g. neutron) shield material, such as in nuclear reactors, see column 1, lines 1-54 and column 12, line 47 to column 13, line 50.
Applicant’s claims are deemed to be anticipated over the porous radiation shielding articles made by the processes set forth in EXAMPLE 3 and EXAMPLE 6.
Hall et al.’s EXAMPLE 3 reads as followed: “A mixture was prepared from dry ingredients in the following weight proportions: 80 parts lead powder (minus 200 mesh), 12 parts polyethylene beads (1500-2000 micron diameter), 4 parts polyethylene powder (150-200 micron diameter), 2 parts lithium hydroxide mono hydrate (LiOH . H2O), 1 part boric acid. Sufficient water was added to form a thick putty-which subsequently was cast in a mold to cure. Hydrogen atoms in different type compounds and aggregate sizes are added as ingredients in this example.”.
Please note the following facts: 1) said lead powder functions as a matrix material, as a neutron absorbing material and as a thermally conductive material (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 5, 32 and 34); 2) said polyethylene beads and polyethylene powder, individually function as neutron absorbing materials, as neutron thermalizing materials and as insulating materials (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 7, 32 and 35); 3) said lithium hydroxide mono hydrate functions as a neutron absorbing material, as neutron thermalizing material and as a thermally conductive material (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 5, 32 and 34); and 4) boric acid functions as a neutron absorbing material and as a neutron thermalizing material.
Hall et al.’s EXAMPLE 6 reads as followed: “A dry mixture was prepared consisting, by volume, of the following ingredients: 45 parts lead powder (325 mesh) 20 parts lead powder (100 mesh) 15 parts portland cement ,10 parts boron nitride S parts lamp black. A stiff paste with good workability was made with the addition of water, which then was placed in a mold. The excess water was expressed through drainage holes in the mold by rodding and vibration, and a small amount of the dry powder was placed on top and rodded thoroughly into the surface to remove small amounts of slurry rising to the top. Free water was lost by evaporation as well as by chemical action with the portland cement.”.
Please note the following facts: 1) said lead powder functions as a matrix material, as a neutron absorbing material and as a thermally conductive material (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 5, 32 and 34); 2) said portland cement functions as a porous matrix material when dried (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 7 and 36-37), as a neutron absorbing material, as a neutron thermalizing material, and as an insulating material (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 6, 32 and 35), 3) said boron nitride functions as a neutron absorbing material, as a neutron thermalizing material and as a thermally conductive material (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 5, 32 and 34); and 4) said lamp black functions as a thermally conductive material (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 5, 32 and 34).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 23-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sayala U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2005/0258405 A1.
Sayala discloses multi-component composite materials which contain internal voids, and thus fully meet Applicant’s independent claim 1 limitations of: “the matrix comprising one or more gas volumes configured to accommodate a generation of a gas”. Said multi-component composite materials can be used to improved shielding of neutron and gamma radiation emitting from transuranic, high-level and low-level radioactive wastes. Selective naturally occurring mineral materials are utilized to formulate, in various proportions, multi-component composite materials. Such materials are enriched with atoms that provide a substantial cumulative absorptive capacity to absorb or shield neutron and gamma radiation of variable fluxes and energies. The use of naturally occurring minerals in synergistic combination with formulated, polymer modified asphaltene and maltene grout matrix, modified cement grout matrix, and polymer modified polyurethane foam grout matrix, provide the radiation shielding product. These grout matrices are used as carriers for the radiation shielding composite materials and offer desired engineering and thermal attributes for various radiation management applications, see abstract.
Applicant’s claims are deemed to be anticipated over the “Admixture Composite Material F (see FIG. 6)” as set forth in paragraphs [0111]-[0118], also see paragraph [0066] which uses a type C polymer modified polyurethane foam carrier grout matrix (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 7 and 36-37) for the various required additives.
Please note that said type C polymer modified polyurethane foam carrier grout matrix also functions as a neutron absorbing materials, as a neutron thermalizing materials and as an insulating material (reads on applicant’s dependent claims 6, 32 and 35-36).
The various required additives, as set forth in paragraphs [0112]-[0117] (e.g. inorganic boron containing compound, inorganic lead containing compounds and metal hydride materials), also function as a neutron absorbing materials, as a neutron thermalizing materials and as thermally conductive materials.
Claim(s) 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hall et al. U.S. Patent Number 3,827,982 or Sayala U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2005/0258405 A1.
Hall et al. and Sayala have both been described above, and their individual disclosures are deemed to anticipate Applicant’s claims because to make radiation shielding articles from functionally graded mixtures would have been at once envisaged since the use of functionally graded mixtures to make radiation shielding articles is ubiquitous in the radiation shielding art.
In any case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the individual disclosures of Hall et al. and Sayala to make radiation shielding articles from functionally graded mixtures since such falls directly within the individual disclosures of said references, in light of their disclosure to different concentration amounts, different components used and different mixing times. As way of illustration only, using a reduced mixing time in the preparation of the radiation shielding composition can easily result in a composition that is functionally graded since it has not had time to be homogenized.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/25 with the amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive to put the claims in condition for allowance for the reasons set forth above. Additional examiner comments are set forth next.
Claims 25-28 and 30-31 continue to be 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. Applicant contends that claims 25, 27 and 30 are not “process-by-product” types claims because they are not dependent from a “product-by-process” base claim. The Examiner disagrees because these claims are on their face “product-by-process” type claims. It is wholly irrelevant if they are not dependent on a “product-by-process” claim for this to be true. Furthermore, applicant just asserts that the claims are clear, but the examiner disagrees for the reasons of record.
Applicant further argues that neither Hall et al. nor Sayala, teach or suggest the following features of amended independent claim 1: A) “a matrix formed of a matrix material, the matrix comprising one or more gas volumes configured to accommodate a generation of a gas;” and B) “a neutron absorbing material mixed with the neutron thermalizing material, the neutron absorbing material configured to generate the gas
from neutron absorption.”.
Examiner response is as followed: As set forth above, in the individual prior-art rejections made over Hall et al. and Sayala, Applicant’s limitation of: A) “a matrix formed of a matrix material, the matrix comprising one or more gas volumes configured to accommodate a generation of a gas;” is completely and clearly met by their individual disclosures. In regards to Applicant’s limitation of: B) “a neutron absorbing material mixed with the neutron thermalizing material, the neutron absorbing material configured to generate the gas from neutron absorption.”, it is also fully met since Hall et al. and Sayala radiation absorbing articles would inherently generate gas from neutron absorption since it is well known in the art that a composition and its properties are in separatable. In any case, said limitation is a “method of use” type limitation when using the actually claimed radiation shielding apparatus.
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 JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764