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
Claims 1-15 and 20 are currently pending
Claims 16-19 are currently withdrawn from consideration
Claims 21-66 are currently canceled
Claims 12-15 and 20 are currently amended
Claims 1-15 and 20 are currently rejected
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 09/30/2022, 05/28/2024, and 12/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species of a resin with a solvent (claims 1-15 and 20) in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract needs to be on a separate page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “comprising” and should include a colon to further recite “comprising:” for further clarity. FURTHERMORE, line 3 states “comprising astatine, bismuth, and nitric acid;” and instead should state “comprising the astatine, the bismuth, and the nitric acid;” for further clarity. ADDITIONALLY, line 4 states “so that astatine” and instead should state “so that the astatine” for further clarity. ALSO, line 6 states “eluting astatine” and instead should state “eluting the astatine” for further clarity. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 states “of the formula” and instead should state “of a formula” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “organic solvent at” and instead should state “organic solvent of at” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “organic solvent at” and instead should state “organic solvent of at” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 states “organic solvent at” and instead should state “organic solvent of at” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilbur et al. (U.S. 2016/0053345 A1) (hereinafter “Wilbur”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wilbur teaches a process (see paragraphs 4, 7-15, 29, 44, 46, 53, 57-58 and 60) comprising:
(a) contacting a composition comprising astatine and bismuth with nitric acid to form a first solution comprising astatine, bismuth, and nitric acid (see paragraphs 9-15);
(b) contacting a resin with the first solution so that astatine partitions out of the first solution and into the resin (see paragraphs 9-15); and
(c) eluting astatine from the resin (see paragraphs 9-15).
Regarding Claim 2:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the resin is impregnated with a solvent (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 20:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the astatine is 211At (see paragraphs 4 and 7-8).
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.
Claims 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilbur et al. (U.S. 2016/0053345 A1) (hereinafter “Wilbur”).
Regarding Claim 3:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 2, including a solvent (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Although Wilbur does not explicitly recite that the solvent comprises an organic solvent, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the solvent of Wilbur to be an organic solvent for optimization purposes (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 4:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, wherein the organic solvent is polar (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Although Wilbur does not explicitly recite that the organic solvent is polar, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the solvent of Wilbur to be an organic polar solvent for optimization purposes (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 5:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, wherein the organic solvent comprises an optionally substituted C₁-C₁₈ alkyl (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 5, wherein the organic solvent comprises a carbonyl (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 5, wherein the organic solvent comprises an aldehyde, a ketone, an ester, an amide, a carbonate, a carboxylate, or a carbamate (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 8:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 5, wherein the organic solvent is of a formula C₁-C₆ alkyl-C(O)-C₁-C₆ alkyl, wherein each hydrogen atom in C₁-C₆ alkyl is optionally substituted (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 9:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, wherein the organic solvent is octanone (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 10:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, wherein the organic solvent is 3-octanone (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 11:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, wherein the organic solvent is a C1-C18 alkanol (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 12:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, including the astatine (see paragraphs 9-15).
Wilbur does not explicitly teach wherein the astatine has a D-value partition coefficient in the organic solvent of at least 20. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the astatine of Wilbur to have a D-value partition coefficient in the organic solvent of at least 20 for optimization purposes (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 13:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, including the astatine (see paragraphs 9-15).
Wilbur does not explicitly teach wherein the astatine has a D-value partition coefficient in the organic solvent of at least 40. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the astatine of Wilbur to have a D-value partition coefficient in the organic solvent of at least 40 for optimization purposes (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 14:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, including the astatine (see paragraphs 9-15).
Wilbur does not explicitly teach wherein the astatine has a D-value partition coefficient in the organic solvent of at least 60. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the astatine of Wilbur to have a D-value partition coefficient in the organic solvent of at least 60 for optimization purposes (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Regarding Claim 15:
Wilbur teaches the process of claim 3, including the astatine (see paragraphs 9-15).
Wilbur does not explicitly teach wherein the astatine has a D-value partition coefficient in the organic solvent of at least 80. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the astatine of Wilbur to have a D-value partition coefficient in the organic solvent of at least 80 for optimization purposes (see paragraphs 9-15) (see paragraph 44 further discussing the resin is eluted with a solution) (see paragraphs 46, 53, 57-58 and 60).
Other References Considered
Bond et al. (U.S. 2003/0012715 A1) (hereinafter “Bond”) teaches production of ultrapure bismuth-213 for use.
Orlandini et al (U.S. 3,554,693) (hereinafter “Orlandini”) teaches separation of scandium from rare earth metals.
O’Hara (U.S. 2018/0308599 A1) (hereinafter “Hara”) teaches astatine extraction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773