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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/30//2026, with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but, are moot due to a new grounds of rejection based upon a new references, GARNSWORTHY et al. (US 20200221905 A1) and ELIUK et al. (US 20110208350 A1), see below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Concerning claim 15, the search did not find or make obvious the system of claim 10, wherein the body extends longitudinally along a central longitudinal axis from a first, upper surface to a second, lower surface, wherein the body defines a cavity extending into the body from the lower surface to a third, interior surface, the cavity sized and shaped to receive a portion of the container therein, wherein each of the outlet flow path and the at least one inlet flow path is in fluid communication with the cavity.
Claim(s) 16 is/are dependent upon claim 15.
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.
2. Claim(s) 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, 21-23, 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over OHNUKI et al. (US 20100012278 A1) in view of SPENCE et al. (US 8030080 B2) and further in light of GARNSWORTHY et al. (US 20200221905 A1) and ELIUK et al. (US 20110208350 A1).
Regarding claim 10, OHNUKI discloses a system comprising:
a
a container (figs. 1-3; 1, 2, 3) positioned within an interior of the
a closure (3) connected to the container (2) and comprising a body (3) comprising an outlet flow path (3a) and at least one inlet flow path (3b, 3d) the body (3) further comprising at least one pair of opposing
an evaporation station (14) positioned within the interior of the
a gas handling system (13, 12, 15, 11) comprising
a suction line (13, 12) [0071] connected to an outlet (3a) of the outlet flow path, wherein the at least one inlet flow path (3b, 3d) generates a vortex gas flow (fig. 2, vortex/spiral arrows) (abstract) [0071] within the container when suction is applied to the container by the suction line (13, 12) .
But OHNUKI fails to disclose a radiation containment chamber; and a remote manipulator connected to the radiation containment chamber; and the body further comprising at least one pair of opposing planar side surfaces to facilitate grasping of the closure by the remote manipulator;
SPENCE, however, discloses a radiation containment chamber (figs. 1-3; 10) (col. 32, lines 35-40) (col. 33, lines 55-60); and
a remote manipulator (20, 230) connected to the radiation containment chamber (10); and a container (12) positioned within an interior of the radiation containment chamber (10);
(figs. 1-3; 10)
(col. 32, lines 35-40)
(col. 33, lines 55-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OHNUKI, with a radiation containment chamber; and a remote manipulator connected to the radiation containment chamber, as taught by SPENCE, to use for transferring hazardous radioactive liquids to prevent harmful exposure to an operator.
But OHNUKI modified by SPENCE fails to disclose the body further comprising at least one pair of opposing planar side surfaces to facilitate grasping of the closure by the remote manipulator;
GARNSWORTHY, however, discloses a container (200) with a body (240) [0040] that has a diaphragm (250) and that the body (240) comprises at least one pair of opposing planar side surfaces [0062] to facilitate grasping of the closure
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OHNUKI modified by SPENCE, with a body/container with a planar shaped side surfaces for grasping the body/container, as taught by GARNSWORTHY, to use as a substitution of one known body/container shape (planar sides) for another to obtain predictable grasping results.
But OHNUKI modified by SPENCE and GARNSWORTHY fails to disclose a remote manipulator for grasping planar side surfaces.
ELIUK, however, discloses a remote manipulator (figs. 10-11 and 25) for grasping planar side surfaces of vials/containers/bodies (abstract) [0211]
(fig. 10, 1004, 1002)
(fig. 11, 1100, 1104, 1106)
(fig. 25, cap remover 2500 has flat sides/ jaw edges 2545)
(abstract)
[0211].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OHNUKI modified by SPENCE and GARNSWORTHY, with a remote manipulator capable of grasping planar side surfaces of vials/containers/bodies, as taught by ELIUK, to use as a substitution of one known body/container shape gripper type (i.e. capable of grasping planar side surfaces) for another to obtain predictable grasping results.
Regarding claim 17, OHNUKI discloses a method comprising:
providing, within a
a container (1, 2, 3) having a
a closure (3) to the container (2) such that the closure seals against the container,
wherein the closure includes a body (3) defining at least one inlet flow path (3b, 3d) and an outlet flow path (3a) the body (3) including at least one pair of opposing ; and
directing (13, 12, 15, 11) [0071] a flow of gas through the at least one inlet flow path (3b, 3d) of the closure to generate a vortex gas flow (fig. 2, vortex/spiral arrows) (abstract) [0071] within the container.
But OHNUKI fails to disclose within a radiation containment chamber, a container having a radioactive liquid disposed therein; and connecting, using a remote manipulator; and the body further including at least one pair of opposing planar side surfaces to facilitate grasping of the closure by the remote manipulator;
SPENCE, however, discloses a radiation containment chamber (figs. 1-3; 10) (col. 32, lines 35-40) (col. 33, lines 55-60); and
a remote manipulator (20, 230) connected to the radiation containment chamber (10); and a container (12) positioned within an interior of the radiation containment chamber (10) and that the container (12) having a radioactive liquid disposed therein
(figs. 1-3; 10)
(col. 32, lines 35-40)
(col. 33, lines 55-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OHNUKI, with a radiation containment chamber with a remote manipulator connected to the radiation containment chamber and the container having a radioactive liquid disposed therein, as taught by SPENCE, to use for transferring hazardous radioactive liquids to prevent harmful exposure to an operator.
But OHNUKI modified by SPENCE fails to disclose the body including at least one pair of opposing planar side surfaces to facilitate grasping of the closure by the remote manipulator;
GARNSWORTHY, however, discloses a container (200) with a body (240) [0040] that has a diaphragm (250) and that the body (240) comprises at least one pair of opposing planar side surfaces [0062] to facilitate grasping of the closure
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OHNUKI modified by SPENCE, with a body/container with a planar shaped side surfaces for grasping the body/container, as taught by GARNSWORTHY, to use as a substitution of one known body/container shape (planar sides) for another to obtain predictable grasping results.
But OHNUKI modified by SPENCE and GARNSWORTHY fails to disclose a remote manipulator for grasping planar side surfaces.
ELIUK, however, discloses a remote manipulator (figs. 10-11 and 25) for grasping planar side surfaces of vials/containers/bodies (abstract) [0211]
(fig. 10, 1004, 1002)
(fig. 11, 1100, 1104, 1106)
(fig. 25, cap remover 2500 has flat sides/ jaw edges 2545)
(abstract)
[0211].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OHNUKI modified by SPENCE and GARNSWORTHY, with a remote manipulator capable of grasping planar side surfaces of vials/containers/bodies, as taught by ELIUK, to use as a substitution of one known body/container shape gripper type (i.e. capable of grasping planar side surfaces) for another to obtain predictable grasping results.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 11, SPENCE discloses wherein the container (12) has a radioactive liquid (col. 32, lines 35-40) (col. 33, lines 55-60) disposed therein; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 13, SPENCE discloses wherein the remote manipulator (20, 230) is a telemanipulator (col. 12, lines 50-55) (col. 15, lines 20-25); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 14, SPENCE discloses wherein the telemanipulator (20, 230) includes:
an operator controller (60) (col. 12, lines 50-55) (col. 15, lines 20-25) positioned outside of the radiation containment chamber (fig 3; 10); and
an end effector (210, 230) positioned within the radiation containment chamber (10),
wherein the operator controller controls at least one of a position, an orientation, and a state of the end effector (col. 17, lines 53-55) (col. 18, lines 40-45); and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Regarding claim 18, OHNUKI discloses heating (fig. 3, 14) the
But OHNUKI fails to disclose a container having a radioactive liquid disposed therein.
SPENCE, however, discloses a radiation containment chamber (figs. 1-3; 10) (col. 32, lines 35-40) (col. 33, lines 55-60); and
a remote manipulator (20, 230) connected to the radiation containment chamber (10); and a container (12) positioned within an interior of the radiation containment chamber (10) and that the container (12) having a radioactive liquid disposed therein; and a heater (30) (col. 12, lines 25-30).
(figs. 1-3; 10)
(col. 32, lines 35-40)
(col. 33, lines 55-60)
(col. 12, lines 25-30)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA applications) to combine/modify the invention of OHNUKI, with a container having a radioactive liquid disposed therein, as taught by SPENCE, to use for transferring hazardous radioactive liquids to prevent harmful exposure to an operator.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 21, GARNSWORTHY discloses the body (240) [0040] comprises two pairs of opposing planar side surfaces [0062] such that the body has a substantially rectangular cross section; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 22, GARNSWORTHY discloses wherein each planar side surface [0062] has a rectangular shape [0040] [0062]; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 23, GARNSWORTHY discloses that each planar side surface [0062] extends from an upper surface of the body to a lower surface of the body (240) [0040] [0062]; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
Regarding claim 25, OHNUKI discloses that the outlet flow path (fig. 1; of 3a) is enclosed within the body (3) between an inlet (bottom of 3a) and an outlet (top of 3a) of the outlet flow path.
Moreover, regarding claim(s) 27, ELIUK discloses TAT the end effector (of figs. 10-11 and 25) comprises at least one clamp (fig. 10, 1000) or at least one set of mechanical fingers (1000) [0118] operable to grip or clamp the closure by the at least one pair of opposing planar side surfaces (of 1000) (fig. 10, 1004, 1002) (fig. 11, 1100, 1104, 1106) (fig. 25, cap remover 2500 has flat sides/ jaw edges 2545) (abstract) [0118] [0211]; and is obvious for the reasons discussed supra with reference to claim(s) 1, see previous.
2. Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over OHNUKI et al. (US 20100012278 A1) in view of SPENCE et al. (US 8030080 B2); GARNSWORTHY et al. (US 20200221905 A1) and ELIUK et al. (US 20110208350 A1); hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claim 1 and 17 above, and further in light of MANNING et al. (US 20200316230 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 12 AND 20, the combined references disclose the elements of claim 1 AND 17, see previous.
But the combined references fail to disclose wherein the radioactive liquid [0003] comprises one of a radionuclide precursor solution and a radiolabeled compound; AND wherein the radioactive liquid is a radiolabeled compound.
MANNING, however, discloses radiopharmaceutical compounds that are radioactive liquid that comprises a radiolabeled compound [0073] [0147] 9abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with radioactive liquid that comprises a radiolabeled compound, as taught by MANNING, to use as a substitution of one known radiolabeled compound for another radioactive liquid to obtain predictable radiotracer production and utilization results.
2. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over OHNUKI et al. (US 20100012278 A1) in view of SPENCE et al. (US 8030080 B2); GARNSWORTHY et al. (US 20200221905 A1) and ELIUK et al. (US 20110208350 A1) ;hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in light of FUGAZZA et al. (US 20200131224 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 19, the combined references disclose the elements of claim 17, see previous.
But the combined references fail to disclose wherein the radioactive liquid is a radionuclide precursor solution.
FUGAZZA, however, discloses synthesis of radionuclide complex solutions, for their use in the commercial production of radioactive drug substances via providing a radionuclide precursor solution into a first vial (ABSTRACT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with radioactive liquid is a radionuclide precursor solution, as taught by FUGAZZA, to use as a substitution of one known solution (i.e. radionuclide precursor solution) for another radioactive liquid to obtain predictable results of commercial production of radioactive drug substances (abstract).
2. Claim(s) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over OHNUKI et al. (US 20100012278 A1) in view of SPENCE et al. (US 8030080 B2); GARNSWORTHY et al. (US 20200221905 A1) and ELIUK et al. (US 20110208350 A1); hereinafter “the combined references”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in light of HOOVEN et al. (EP 3682920 B1).
Regarding claim(s) 24, OHNUKI discloses that the outlet flow path (fig.1, 3a)
Regarding claim(s) 26, OHNUKI discloses wherein each of the at least one inlet flow path (fig. 1; of 3b) is
But the combined references fail to disclose both of the outlet flow path and the at least one inlet flow path extend through the body, from an upper surface to a lower surface of the body ; and that the inlet flow path is enclosed within the body.
HOOVEN, however, discloses a container (figs. 80-81, 12) with an inlet and outlet (36, 37) and
a body (19) and that the outlet flow path (36 or 37) and the at least one inlet flow path (36 or 37) extend through the body (19), from an upper surface to a lower surface of the body; and
that the inlet flow path (36 or 37) is enclosed within the body (19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the invention of the combined references, with outlet flow path and the at least one inlet flow path extend through the body and/or that the inlet flow path is enclosed within the body, from an upper surface to a lower surface of the body, as taught by HOOVEN, to use as a substitution of one known inlet outlet flow path through a body configuration for another to obtain predictable in and out flow path structural support and isolation results.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Smyth whose telephone number is 571-270-1746. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00AM - 6:00PM; Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272-2328. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW SMYTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights