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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 04 March 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 6, filed 04 March 2026, that the limitation “a neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board is greater than 87%” in amended claim 1 is no longer an alternative limitation, has been fully considered and is persuasive. However, a new rejection of claim 1 is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 04 March 2026, that Kushibe in view of Ataka fails to disclose “the boron-containing material includes at least one of calcium borate of boron carbide, wherein a specific gravity in a dry condition is in a range from 0.65 to 1.5” have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Kushibe discloses that the boron-containing material is boron carbide (Kushibe page 8, paragraph 3, lines 1-2; CAS shows that the chemical formula for boron carbide is B4C), and Ataka discloses that a specific gravity in a dry condition is in a range from 0.65 to 1.5 (Ataka, page 7, last paragraph, lines 6-7). See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushibe et al. (JP Patent No. 2014089127 A), hereinafter Kushibe (English machine translation provided in a prior office action), as evidenced by the CAS Substance Detail: Boron Carbide, hereinafter CAS, in view of Ataka et al. (JP Patent No. 2002145655 A), hereinafter Ataka (English machine translation provided in a prior office action), and Li et al. (“10B areal density: a novel approach for design and fabrication of B4C/6061Al neutron absorbing materials”, 2017), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Kushibe discloses a neutron beam shielding (page 3, paragraph 9, line 1) gypsum-based (page 3, paragraph 9, line 2) building board (page 3, paragraph 9, line 3) comprising:
gypsum (page 3, paragraph 9, line 2);
a boron-containing material (page 4, paragraph 2, lines 1-2) containing boron in an amount ranging from 1.0 parts by mass to 120 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the gypsum (page 8, paragraph 7, lines 2-3); and
a water reducing agent (page 9, paragraph 2, lines 1-2), and
wherein the boron-containing material includes at least one of calcium borate or boron carbide (page 8, paragraph 3, lines 1-2; CAS shows that the chemical formula for boron carbide is B4C).
Kushibe fails to disclose that the water reducing agent is in a range from 0.05 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the gypsum, wherein a specific gravity in a dry condition is in a range from 0.65 to 1.5, and wherein a neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board is greater than 87%.
However, Ataka discloses that the water reducing agent is in a range from 0.05 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the gypsum (page 4, third paragraph from last, line 2), and
wherein a specific gravity in a dry condition is in a range from 0.65 to 1.5 (page 7, last paragraph, lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe to include that the water reducing agent is in a range from 0.05 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the gypsum, and wherein a specific gravity in a dry condition is in a range from 0.65 to 1.5, based on the teachings of Ataka that these values ensure that the building board has increased strength (Ataka, page 4, second paragraph from last) while maintaining convenience and cost-effectiveness (Ataka, page 4, paragraph beginning “The present inventors…”).
Kushibe in view of Ataka fails to disclose that a neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board is greater than 87%.
However, Li discloses that a neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding building board is greater than 87% (page 241, column 2, text immediately following equation (3)).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; 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). In the case at hand, Li teaches a neutron shielding rate of 99%, which lies inside the claimed range of “greater than 87%”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka to meet the claimed neutron shielding rate.
Regarding claim 2, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 1.
In addition, Kushibe discloses that the calcium borate of the boron-containing material is colemanite (page 8, paragraph 3, line 1).
In addition, Ataka discloses that the water reducing agent is one or more kinds selected from a naphthalene-based water reducing agent and a melamine-based water reducing agent (page 4, paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that the water reducing agent is one or more kinds selected from a naphthalene-based water reducing agent and a melamine-based water reducing agent, based on the additional teachings of Ataka that melamine-based water reducing agents are less expensive than alternative agents (Ataka, page 4, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 3, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 1.
In addition, Kushibe discloses that the boron-containing material is boron carbide (page 8, paragraph 3, lines 1-2).
In addition, Ataka discloses that the water reducing agent is one or more kinds selected from a naphthalene-based water reducing agent, a polycarboxylic acid-based water reducing agent, a lignin-based water reducing agent, and a melamine-based water reducing agent (Ataka, page 4, paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that the water reducing agent is one or more kinds selected from a naphthalene-based water reducing agent, a polycarboxylic acid-based water reducing agent, a lignin-based water reducing agent, and a melamine-based water reducing agent, based on the additional teachings of Ataka that melamine-based water reducing agents are less expensive than alternative agents (Ataka, page 4, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 6, Kushibe discloses a method of manufacturing (page 11, “Examples 2-1 to 2-6”) a neutron beam shielding (page 3, paragraph 9, line 1) gypsum-based (page 3, paragraph 9, line 2) building board (page 3, paragraph 9, line 3), comprising:
kneading a raw material (page 10, paragraph titled “Preparation of radiation shielding material composition 1) containing at least gypsum (page 3, paragraph 9, line 2), a boron-containing material (page 4, paragraph 2, lines 1-2), a water reducing agent (page 9, paragraph 2, lines 1-2), and water (page 4, paragraph 3, line 2) to form a gypsum slurry (pages 11-12, paragraphs labeled “Preparation of radiation shielding material composition 2” through “Molding dry gypsum block”);
molding the gypsum slurry (page 12, paragraph labeled “Molding dry gypsum block”); and
curing the gypsum slurry molded in the molding (page 12, paragraph labeled “Molding dry gypsum block”, line 3);
wherein, in the raw material (page 4, paragraph 3), an amount of boron contained in the boron-containing material is in a range from 1.0 parts by mass to 120 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of gypsum (page 8, paragraph 7, lines 2-3), and
wherein the boron-containing material includes at least one of calcium borate or boron carbide (page 8, paragraph 3, lines 1-2; CAS shows that the chemical formula for boron carbide is B4C).
Kushibe fails to disclose that the gypsum is dihydrate gypsum, wherein, the raw material contains the water reducing agent in a range from 0.05 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of dihydrate gypsum, wherein a specific gravity in a dry condition of the neutron beam shielding gypsum- based building board obtained after the curing is in a range from 0.65 to 1.5, and wherein a neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board is greater than 87%.
However, Ataka discloses that the gypsum is dihydrate gypsum (page 3, last paragraph, line 1),
wherein, the raw material contains the water reducing agent in a range from 0.05 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of dihydrate gypsum (page 4, third paragraph from last, line 2), and
wherein a specific gravity in a dry condition of the neutron beam shielding gypsum- based building board obtained after the curing (page 3, last paragraph, line 7) is in a range from 0.65 to 1.5 (page 7, last paragraph, lines 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe to include that the gypsum is dihydrate gypsum, wherein, the raw material contains the water reducing agent in a range from 0.05 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of dihydrate gypsum, and wherein a specific gravity in a dry condition of the neutron beam shielding gypsum- based building board obtained after the curing is in a range from 0.65 to 1.5, based on the teachings of Ataka that these values ensure that the building board has increased strength (Ataka, page 4, second paragraph from last) while maintaining convenience and cost-effectiveness (Ataka, page 4, paragraph beginning “The present inventors…”).
Kushibe in view of Ataka fails to disclose that a neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board is greater than 87%.
However, Li discloses that a neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding building board is greater than 87% (page 241, column 2, text immediately following equation (3)).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; 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). In the case at hand, Li teaches a neutron shielding rate of 99%, which lies inside the claimed range of “greater than 87%”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka to meet the claimed neutron shielding rate.
Regarding claim 7, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 6 discloses the method of manufacturing a neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 6.
In addition, Kushibe discloses that the calcium borate of the boron-containing material is colemanite (page 8, paragraph 3, line 1).
In addition, Ataka discloses that the water reducing agent is one or more kinds selected from a naphthalene-based water reducing agent and a melamine-based water reducing agent (page 4, paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that the water reducing agent is one or more kinds selected from a naphthalene-based water reducing agent and a melamine-based water reducing agent, based on the additional teachings of Ataka that melamine-based water reducing agents are less expensive than alternative agents (Ataka, page 4, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 8, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 6 discloses the method of manufacturing a neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 6.
In addition, Kushibe discloses that the boron-containing material is boron carbide (page 8, paragraph 3, lines 1-2).
In addition, Ataka discloses that the water reducing agent is one or more kinds selected from a naphthalene-based water reducing agent, a polycarboxylic acid-based water reducing agent, a lignin-based water reducing agent, and a melamine-based water reducing agent (Ataka, page 4, paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that the water reducing agent is one or more kinds selected from a naphthalene-based water reducing agent, a polycarboxylic acid-based water reducing agent, a lignin-based water reducing agent, and a melamine-based water reducing agent, based on the additional teachings of Ataka that melamine-based water reducing agents are less expensive than alternative agents (Ataka, page 4, paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 11, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 1.
In addition, Kushibe discloses that the boron-containing material is boron carbide (page 8, paragraph 3, lines 1-2; CAS shows that the chemical formula for boron carbide is B4C).
In addition, Li discloses that the neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding building board is greater than 98% (page 241, column 2, text immediately following equation (3)).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; 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). In the case at hand, Li teaches a neutron shielding rate of 99%, which lies inside the claimed range of “greater than 98%”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to meet the claimed neutron shielding rate.
Regarding claim 13, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 6 discloses the method of manufacturing a neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 6.
In addition, Kushibe discloses that the boron-containing material is boron carbide (page 8, paragraph 3, lines 1-2; CAS shows that the chemical formula for boron carbide is B4C).
In addition, Li discloses that the neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding building board is greater than 98% (page 241, column 2, text immediately following equation (3)).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; 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). In the case at hand, Li teaches a neutron shielding rate of 99%, which lies inside the claimed range of “greater than 98%”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to meet the claimed neutron shielding rate.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as respectively applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Awata et al. (JP Patent No. H09142915 A), hereinafter Awata (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 4, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 1.
Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li fails to disclose that a surface material is disposed on a first surface side and on a second surface side that is opposite to the first surface, and the surface material is one kind selected from a base sheet for a board, a glass fiber non-woven fabric, and a glass mat.
However, Awata discloses that a surface material is disposed on a first surface side and on a second surface side that is opposite to the first surface (page 4, paragraph 7, line 6 discloses pouring the slurry between board base papers, i.e., such that board base papers are located on opposite surface sides of the slurry), and the surface material is one kind selected from a base sheet for a board, a glass fiber non-woven fabric, and a glass mat (page 4, paragraph 7, line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that a surface material is disposed on a first surface side and on a second surface side that is opposite to the first surface, and the surface material is one kind selected from a base sheet for a board, a glass fiber non-woven fabric, and a glass mat, based on the teachings of Awata that the base sheets enhance the water repelling properties of the board while maintaining its fireproofing properties (Awata, page 2, paragraphs 4-6).
Regarding claim 9, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 6 discloses the method of manufacturing a neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 6.
Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li fails to disclose that the gypsum slurry is disposed between surface materials in the molding, and wherein the surface material is one kind selected from a base sheet for a board, a fiberglass non-woven fabric, and a glass mat.
However, Awata discloses that the gypsum slurry is disposed between surface materials (page 4, paragraph 7, line 6 discloses pouring the slurry between board base papers, i.e., such that board base papers are located on opposite surface sides of the slurry) in the molding (page 4, paragraph 8), and
wherein the surface material is one kind selected from a base sheet for a board, a fiberglass non-woven fabric, and a glass mat (page 4, paragraph 7, line 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that the gypsum slurry is disposed between surface materials in the molding, and wherein the surface material is one kind selected from a base sheet for a board, a fiberglass non-woven fabric, and a glass mat, based on the teachings of Awata that the base sheets enhance the water repelling properties of the board while maintaining its fireproofing properties (Awata, page 2, paragraphs 4-6).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as respectively applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (“Plaster board, General Incorporated Gypsum Board Industry”, 2016), hereinafter Yamazaki (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 5, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 1.
Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li fails to disclose that the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board has a second grade exothermic property or higher.
However, Yamazaki discloses that that the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board has a second grade exothermic property or higher (page 1, Table 2-3, row 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that that the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board has a second grade exothermic property or higher, based on the teachings of Yamazaki that a second or higher grade exothermic property is equivalent to a second or higher grade flame retardant property, which enhances the safety standards of the building board (Yamazaki, page 1, Table 2-3, row 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 6 discloses the method of manufacturing a neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 6.
Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li fails to disclose that the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board obtained after the curing has a second grade exothermic property or higher.
However, Yamazaki discloses that the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board obtained after the curing has a second grade exothermic property or higher (page 1, Table 2-3, row 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board obtained after the curing has a second grade exothermic property or higher, based on the teachings of Yamazaki that a second or higher grade exothermic property is equivalent to a second or higher grade flame retardant property, which enhances the safety standards of the building board (Yamazaki, page 1, Table 2-3, row 1).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as respectively applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Maiti et al. (“Flux and dose transmission through concrete of neutrons from proton induced reactions on various target elements”, 2004), hereinafter Maiti, and Wilson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0249753 A1), hereinafter Wilson.
Regarding claim 12, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 1 discloses the neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 1.
Optimizing the energy of the neutron beam is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Li teaches that “the thermal neutron absorbing cross section of 10B is far greater than that of other elements at low neutron energy levels (<
10
-
8
MeV)” (page 239, last paragraph – see also FIG. 3). As such, Li identifies the energy of the neutron beam as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a predictable effect on the thermal neutron absorbing cross section of 10B as shown in FIG. 3. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the energy of the neutron beam and identifies said energy as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the energy of the neutron beam to meet the claimed energy since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li fails to disclose that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by emitting a point source neutron beam onto a building board having dimensions of 20 cm in length, 20 cm in width, and 20 cm in thickness, and by performing a calculation using a calculation code including Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) and conversion factors specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 74.
However, Maiti discloses that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by emitting a point source neutron beam (page 586, column 2, second to last paragraph) onto a building board, and by performing a calculation using conversion factors specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 74 (page 587, column 1, paragraph preceding Equation 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by emitting a point source neutron beam onto a building board, and by performing a calculation using conversion factors specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 74, based on the teachings of Maiti that this calculation produces an accurate and reliable result for the neutron dose (Maiti, page 590, last paragraph to page 591, first paragraph).
Maiti fails to disclose that the building board has dimensions of 20 cm in length, 20 cm in width, and 20 cm in thickness.
However, optimizing the dimensions of the building board is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Maiti teaches an equation for estimating transmitted dose which is dependent on the dimension d in multiple directions (θ) (Equation 1). As such, Maiti identifies the dimensions of the building board as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a mathematically predictable effect on the transmitted dose. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the dimensions of the building board and identifies said dimensions as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the dimensions of the building board to meet the claimed dimensions since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Kushibe in view of Ataka, Li, and Maiti fails to disclose that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by performing a calculation using a calculation code including Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS).
However, Wilson discloses that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by performing a calculation using a calculation code including Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) (paragraphs 0085-0086).
The disclosure of Wilson demonstrates that the function of the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) is known in the art of neutron beam shielding. Wilson also shows that substituting the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) for another code in neutron beam shielding calculations yields a mathematically predictable result. “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka, Li, and Maiti to include that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by performing a calculation using a calculation code including the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 14, Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li as applied to claim 6 discloses the method of manufacturing a neutron beam shielding gypsum-based building board according to claim 6.
Optimizing the energy of the neutron beam is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Li teaches that “the thermal neutron absorbing cross section of 10B is far greater than that of other elements at low neutron energy levels (<
10
-
8
MeV)” (page 239, last paragraph – see also FIG. 3). As such, Li identifies the energy of the neutron beam as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a predictable effect on the thermal neutron absorbing cross section of 10B as shown in FIG. 3. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the energy of the neutron beam and identifies said energy as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the energy of the neutron beam to meet the claimed energy since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li fails to disclose that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by emitting a point source neutron beam onto a building board having dimensions of 20 cm in length, 20 cm in width, and 20 cm in thickness, and by performing a calculation using a calculation code including Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) and conversion factors specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 74.
However, Maiti discloses that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by emitting a point source neutron beam (page 586, column 2, second to last paragraph) onto a building board, and by performing a calculation using conversion factors specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 74 (page 587, column 1, paragraph preceding Equation 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka and Li to include that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by emitting a point source neutron beam onto a building board, and by performing a calculation using conversion factors specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 74, based on the teachings of Maiti that this calculation produces an accurate and reliable result for the neutron dose (Maiti, page 590, last paragraph to page 591, first paragraph).
Maiti fails to disclose that the building board has dimensions of 20 cm in length, 20 cm in width, and 20 cm in thickness.
However, optimizing the dimensions of the building board is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Maiti teaches an equation for estimating transmitted dose which is dependent on the dimension d in multiple directions (θ) (Equation 1). As such, Maiti identifies the dimensions of the building board as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., a mathematically predictable effect on the transmitted dose. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the dimensions of the building board and identifies said dimensions as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the dimensions of the building board to meet the claimed dimensions since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Kushibe in view of Ataka, Li, and Maiti fails to disclose that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by performing a calculation using a calculation code including Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS).
However, Wilson discloses that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by performing a calculation using a calculation code including Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) (paragraphs 0085-0086).
The disclosure of Wilson demonstrates that the function of the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) is known in the art of neutron beam shielding. Wilson also shows that substituting the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) for another code in neutron beam shielding calculations yields a mathematically predictable result. “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kushibe in view of Ataka, Li, and Maiti to include that the neutron beam shielding rate is obtained by performing a calculation using a calculation code including the Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (“Enhancement in the microstructure and neutron shielding efficiency of sandwich type of 6061Al-
B
4
C composite material via hot isostatic pressing”, 2015), hereinafter Park, teaches a neutron beam shielding board comprising boron carbide, wherein the neutron beam shielding rate of the neutron beam shielding board is greater than 98%.
Agosteo et al. (“Shielding data from 100-250 MeV proton accelerators: Double differential neutron distributions and attenuation in concrete”, 2007), hereinafter Agosteo, teaches calculating a neutron beam shielding rate using conversion factors specified in International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 74.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881