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 .
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species B (Pb-203) in the reply filed on 06/05/25 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 13-15, 17, 19, and 34-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
3. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11, and 12 are examined herein. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13-15, 17, 19 and 34-37 are pending. Claims 13-15, 17, 19, and 34-37 are withdrawn.
Drawings
4. 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 “removal tab” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11, and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
7. Regarding claim 1, the recitation “and defining an inner volume said target cover” is unclear because it is self-referential. It is unclear what structure defines an inner volume.
8. Regarding claim 9, the recitation wherein the target material pellet comprises a metallic pellet, oxide, salt, or spotted on as a liquid and allowed to dry” is unclear. Firstly, claim 1 does not positively recite the target material pellet. This limitation is introduced in claim 2. Further, the recitations oxide, and salt refer to particular chemical materials and it is unclear how these limitations further limit the structure of the pellet. Finally, the recitation “spotted on as a liquid and allowed to dry” is directed to a method of making a target and does not place clear structural limitations on the recited target. Moreover, such a process would result in a target film and not a target pellet, so it is unclear how this limitation further limits the pellet as recited in claim 9.
9. Regarding claim 12, The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
10. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 11 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 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.
12. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
13. 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.
14. Claims 1-3, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henriksen et al., US 2019/0311819 in view of Abbasi, US 2017/0062087.
15. Regarding claim 1, Henriksen discloses a cyclotron target ([0001]; Figs. 2, 4, 6, 7), comprising: a target backing (30), comprising an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface defining a target material depression (32) sized to receive a target material pellet (50) the inner surface defining an annular groove (Fig. 4, Fig. 7, [0043]) sized to receive a seal element (34); a seal element (34) disposed within the annular groove (Fig. 4, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, [0043]), a target cover (10+52) removably fixed to the target backing ([0043], [0049]) and defining an inner volume said target cover (Figs. 6 and 7).
Henricksen discloses that its seal element is a rubber o-ring, but further suggests that it “may be any other material that is inert, heat-resistant…and sufficiently compressible ([0044]). Abbasi teaches a cyclotron target (0002], Fig. 6, [0032]) comprising a wire seal element (metal O-rings 204a, b) disposed in an annular groove (202). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the metal o-rings taught by Abbasi in the target of Henriksen because Henriksen expressly suggests that such a modification can be made and because metal is likely to degrade less under irradiation than rubber. Further, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
16. Regarding claim 2, Henricksen as modified by Abbasi makes claim 1 obvious. Henricksen further discloses a cyclotron target further comprising a target material pellet (50) disposed within said target material depression ([0045]).
17. Regarding claim 3, Henricksen as modified by Abbasi makes claim 1 obvious. Henricksen further discloses a cyclotron target, wherein said target backing comprises silver, copper, or gold ([0041]).
18. Regarding claim 9, Henricksen as modified by Abbasi makes claim 1 obvious. Henricksen further discloses a cyclotron target wherein the target material pellet comprises a metallic, oxide, or salt material ([0045]).
19. Regarding claim 10, Henricksen as modified by Abbasi makes claim 1 obvious. Henricksen further discloses a cyclotron target wherein the target cover comprises aluminum ([0037], [0047])
20. Regarding claim 12, Henricksen as modified by Abbasi makes claim 1 obvious. Henricksen further discloses a cyclotron target wherein the target cover has a diameter of 25 mm and a thickness of 0.01 mm ([0058]). However, the cyclotron target of Henriksen would function no differently if the thickness of the target cover was changed, so changing its size is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Where the only different between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform different than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
21. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henriksen et al., US 2019/0311819 in view of Abbasi, US 2017/0062087.
22. Regarding claim 8, Henricksen as modified by Abbasi makes claim 1 obvious. Abbasi is silent as to the particular metal of its seal elements. Hirschfield teaches an accelerator target (column 1, lines 11-14) comprising an indium seal element (column 3, lines 31-32). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ an indium o-ring in the target of Henricksen. Henriksen establishes that indium seals fall within the scope of the materials suggested to be suitable for the o-rings by Henricksen ([0044]) and 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646