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 .
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 11/26/2025. The amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification have been entered. Claims 1-7, 14-16, 19, and 21-24 are pending in the application and examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are further objected to because it is unclear what feature reference characters “4” and “4’” are intending to point to in the drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features in claims 2 and 24 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Claim 2: “wherein the at least one target comprises a cavity” – while the figures show the target (6, 6’) having a through-hole (8) as recited in parent claim 1, the figures do not show a target having a through-hole and a cavity as required by claim 2
Claim 24: “wherein the at least one target in the at least one vacuum chamber has a U-shaped cross-section”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 4, 8, and 10-11: “said first primary beam” should be amended to recite “said first primary energy beam”
Line 5: the phrase “and” should be deleted
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 2, 5-7, 15, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the at least one target comprises a cavity and is arranged so that, in use, the first primary energy beam passes through the cavity and reaches the active material layer”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “the at least one target comprises a through-hole through which the first primary energy beam passes prior to reaching the active material layer”. It is unclear the relationship between the “cavity” and the previously recited “through-hole”. This is further unclear in view if the above drawing objections. The specification would appear to suggest that the “through-hole” and “cavity” are intending to refer to the same feature ([0010]). For purposes of examination, in view of the disclosure, Examiner is interpreting the “cavity” as referring to the same feature as the “through-hole” previously recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the support is hollow and rotatable and comprises a central body with inclined side walls diverging towards a head flange on which the active material layer is disposed and the cooling circuit comprises a first cooling fluid that is sealed inside the support such that the head flange is reachable by the first cooling fluid through the support and a second cooling fluid arranged in heat exchange with the first cooling fluid through the inclined side walls”. It is unclear if the “head flange” is intended to be a positively feature of the “support”. If referring to another structure, it is unclear the relationship between the “active material layer”, “support”, and “head flange” as parent claim 1 previously recites “an active material layer disposed on a support”. This further renders unclear how “the head flange is reachable by the first cooling fluid through the support”. It is further unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear if the claim is intending to recite the “head flange is reachable” by the “first cooling fluid” and the “second cooling fluid”, the “cooling circuit” comprises a “first cooling fluid” and a “second cooling fluid”, or something else. It is also unclear what feature is “through the inclined side walls”.
Claim 6 recites “a further target”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “at least one target”. Does the “at least one target” comprise the “target” recited in parent claim 1 and the “further target” recited in claim 6? Or is the “further target” a different target from the “at least one target”?
Claim 15 recites “wherein the at least one target comprises a concave surface or a concave shell shape, said concave surface or said concave shell shape forming the through-hole”. The specification discloses “the target 6 defines a hollow i.e. concave surface” ([0027]). Thus, in view of the disclosure, a target having a “through-hole” (as previously recited in parent claim 1), would appear to also have a “concave surface or a concave shell shape”. It is therefore unclear how claim 15 is intended to further limit the structure of the radiating device of claim 1.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the at least one target comprises a concave surface or a concave shell shape, wherein the concave surface or the concave shell shape form the through-hole, said through-hole having an axis coincident with a direction of an accelerated deuteron beam”. It is unclear if the “concave surface” is referring to the same surface as the “concave surface” previously recited in parent claim 15. Similarly, it is unclear if the “concave shell shape” is referring to the same shape as the “concave shell shape” previously recited in parent claim 15. It is further unclear the relationship between the “accelerated deuteron beam” and the “first primary energy beam” previously recited in parent claim 1. For example, it is unclear if the “accelerated deuteron beam” is intending to refer to the “first primary energy beam” previously recited in parent claim 1 or another beam.
Claim 23 recites “an additional target”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “at least one target”. Does the “at least one target” comprise the “target” recited in parent claim 1 and the “additional target” recited in claim 23? Or is the “additional target” a different target from the “at least one target”?
Claim 24 recites “wherein the at least one target in the at least one vacuum chamber has a U-shaped cross-section”. It is unclear how a target having a through-hole (as previously recited in parent claim 1) can also have a “U-shaped cross-section”. This is further unclear in view of the above drawing objection.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 6, 14-16, and 22-24, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication No. 2016/022848 (“Baldasaro”) in view of US Publication No. 2019/0103198 (“Nolen”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Baldasaro (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 7-9) a radiating device (700) comprising:
at least one chamber (702, 802, 902),
a first generator (800) configured to produce a first primary energy beam (750, 802, 910), said first primary beam being inside the at least one vacuum chamber ([00096], [000108]-[000112], [000116]), and
an active material layer (706, 906) disposed on a support (720, 722, 724, 726, 730) ([000100]-[000101], [000116]), wherein said active material layer and said support are in the at least one chamber, wherein the radiating device is configured such that the first primary beam is directed to the active material layer and a neutron flux is generated by a nuclear fusion reaction triggered on active material of the active material layer via energy of said first primary beam ([00096], [000109]-[000110], [000116]), and
at least one target (710, 712, 714, 716, 718, 904), wherein the radiating device is configured such that a material included in the at least one target is irradiated by the neutron flux in the at least one chamber ([00096], [000102]),
wherein the radiating device is configured such that the at least one target is disposed between the active material layer and the first generator, the active material layer is disposed between the at least one target and the support, and the at least one target comprises a through-hole (732, 734) through which the first primary energy beam passes prior to reaching the active material layer ([000103], [000105]).
Baldasaro does not appear to disclose the at least one chamber is under vacuum. Nolen (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1A-B) is similarly directed towards a radiating device (10) comprising a first generator configured to produce a first primary energy beam (9) and at least one target (34) ([0039], [0056]-[0057]). Nolen teaches keeping the device under vacuum ([0016], [0047], claim 13). Nolen further teaches the vacuum environment provides the advantages of protecting the device structures from degradation by air ([0016], claim 13). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to have Baldasaro’s at least one chamber under vacuum, as suggested by Nolen, for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Baldasaro in order to protect the structures from degradation, as suggested by Nolen, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 3, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 1. Baldasaro discloses the support is movable and the active material layer is applied on the support such that, while the support is in motion, the first primary energy beam is directed to a portion of the active material layer to generate the neutron flux (FIGS. 7-8, [000120]).
Regarding claim 4, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 1. Baldasaro discloses a cooling circuit (900) configured to remove heat from the support and arranged so that the neutron flux does not pass through the circuit as it reaches the at least one target (FIG. 9, [000117]).
Regarding claim 6, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 4, but does not appear to teach a second generator, a further active material layer, or a further target. However, it would have been obvious to a POSA to include a second generator, a further active material layer, and a further target since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill int he art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8
Regarding claim 14, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 1. Baldasaro discloses the active material layer is arranged orthogonally to a direction of the first primary energy beam (FIGS. 7-8).
Regarding claims 15 and 22, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 1. Baldasaro discloses the at least one target comprises a concave surface or a concave shell shape, said concave surface or said concave shell shape forming the through-hole, said through-hole having an axis coincident with a direction of the primary energy beam (FIGS. 7-8).
Regarding claim 16, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 1. Baldasaro discloses the at least one target comprises a cylinder (734) coaxial with a direction of the first primary energy beam, said cylinder having the through-hole, said through-hole having adequate area to allow passage of the first primary energy beam without obstruction to the first primary energy beam (FIGS. 7-8, [000103]).
Regarding claim 23, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 1, but does not appear to teach an additional target. However, it would have been obvious to a POSA to include an additional target since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill int he art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8
Regarding claim 24, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 1. Baldasaro discloses the at least one target in the at least one vacuum chamber has a U-shaped cross-section (FIG. 7).
Claims 7, 19, and 21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldasaro in view of Nolen further in view of US Publication No. 2010/0215137 (“Nagai”).
Regarding claim 7, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 6. Baldasaro discloses the active material layer comprises Tritium or Lithium ([00084]), but does not appear to disclose the at least one target or the further target comprises one of molybdenum-100, copper-65, zinc-64, or tin-112. Nagai (previously cited) (see FIG. 12A) is similarly directed towards a radiating device comprising a target (24) that is irradiated by a neutron flux ([0152]-[0153], [0155]). Nagai teaches the target may comprise one of molybdenum-100, copper-65, zinc-64, or tin-112 (Tables 1-3, 12, 21). Nagai further teaches the material of the target may be selected based on the desired product nucleus ([0104]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have a target comprising one of molybdenum-100, copper-65, zinc-564, or tin-112 based on the desired product nucleus as taught by Nagai ([0104]; see also Baldasaro, [00072], [00079]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use molybdenum-100, copper-65, zinc-564, or tin-112 for the material of the at least one target or the further target since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the at least one target comprises copper or zinc. Nagai (see FIG. 12A) is similarly directed towards a radiating device comprising a target (24) that is irradiated by a neutron flux ([0152]-[0153], [0155]). Nagai teaches the target may comprise copper or zinc (Tables 1-3, 12, 21). Nagai further teaches the material of the target may be selected based on the desired product nucleus ([0104]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have a target comprising one of copper or zinc based on the desired product nucleus as taught by Nagai ([0104]; see also Baldasaro, [00072], [00079]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use copper or zinc for the material of the at least one target or the further target since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 21, Baldasaro in view of Nolen teaches the radiating device of claim 6, but does not teach the arrangement of the further target as recited in claim 21. Nagai (see FIGS. 10A, 12A, 12C) is similarly directed towards a radiating device comprising a first generator (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) of a first primary energy beam (21) ([0128], [0143], [0152]) directed to an active material layer (“tritium-adsorbed titanium film”) disposed on a support (23) to generate a neutron flux ([0143], [0152], [0155], [0162]), a target (24) irradiated by the neutron flux ([0104], [0152]-[0153], [0163]), and a further target (24). Nagai teaches the further target is arranged on a first side (e.g., a top side) of a plane passing through said support (e.g., a plane extending in a horizontal direction in FIGS. 12A, 12C), and said first generator, the active material layer, and the at least one target are arranged on a second side (e.g., a bottom side) of the plane passing through said support that opposes said first side of the plane passing through said support. Nagai further teaches this arrangement allows for utilization of produced neutrons to the utmost extent within a limited time ([0153]-[0155]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to arrange the modified Baldasaro’s further target in the manner taught by Nagai with respect to the first generator, active material layer, and at least one target, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Baldasaro in order to improve neutron utilization efficiency, as suggested by Nagai, would have been obvious to a POSA. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to arrange the further target on a side opposite the first generator, the active material layer, and the at least one target since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, as best understood, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner notes that amendments to the claims to resolve the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues which significantly alter the scope of the claim may necessitate an updated prior art search that may reveal newly applicable prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the applied prior art is considered to be the closest to Applicant’s invention and does not teach or suggest the configuration and structure of the support and cooling circuit as recited in claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification overcome some, but not all of the prior drawing objections.
Applicant asserts “reference characters 4 and 4’ point to a surface of the support 3 corresponding to an active material layer” (Remarks, p. 1). However, this does not appear to be what is shown in the drawings. Rather, the drawings would appear to show reference character “4” pointing to a bottom surface of elements “6”/“8” and reference character “4’” pointing to a space within element “3” (specifically the vertical line extending through elements “3”, “8”).
Applicant further argues “the cross-section in FIG. 2 also illustrates a u-shaped cross-section” (Remarks, p. 2), citing the specification at paragraph [0032]. Figure 2 does not appear to show the target in any manner. In the event Applicant is referring to Figure 1, Figure 1 does not show either of the targets (4, 4’) having a “U-shaped cross-section”. As noted by Applicant, the instant specification explicitly contrasts a “U-shaped” target with a target having a through-hole: “The target 6 may have additional shapes.... For example, the target may have a U-shaped cross-section, despite the fact that in this case the yield is lower than having a through-hole that is closed in the circumferential direction” ([0032]). The skilled artisan would recognize that a target having a through-hole extending entirely through the target (as shown in Figure 1) does not have a “U-shape[]” (e.g., parallel sides with a closed top/bottom end).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objections, but have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM-5:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646