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 and Prosecution
1. Claims 12-31 are pending in this application. Claims 12 and 22 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
3. Regarding the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant states that claim 24 depends on claim 22. Thus, it must specify a further limitation of the structure of claim 22. Claim 24 is purely functional. It is unclear what further structural limitation the functional limitation of claim 24 encompasses. In other words, what structural modification would one make to the device of claim 22 to achieve the device of claim 24? The rejection is maintained.
4. Applicant’s arguments, and the currently amended claim language are substantially the same as was previously presented. The examiner maintains the position that Neuboron clearly discloses a target enclosed between a cap and the beamline, wherein the cap is secured to the beamline.
5. Applicant admits that Neuboron discloses a structural attachment between the cap of the target and the end of the accelerating tube (04/15/26 Arguments, p. 7/8 with added emphasis: “Rather, the target plates are fixes to the retarder (within the beam shaping body) or to the end portion of the accelerating tube.”). This is stated clearly at [0053] of Neuboron (emphasis added):
The first plate 121 and the second plate 122 are fixed to the retarder 22 or the end of the accelerating tube 111 through connecting members such as bolts or screws or other fixing structures such as welding, or the first plate 121 and the second plate 122 are first connected and then one of them is fixed to the retarder 22 or the end of the accelerating tube 111.
6. Perhaps the below annotated Figures will aid Applicant’s understanding. Neuboron’s target is disposed at the end of the beamline (Fig. 1). The cap is disposed on the target facing away from the beam (Fig. 2). The specification states the cap is secured to the beamline ([0053]). When Figs. 1 and 2 of Neuboron are merged, the result is the same as Applicant’s Fig. 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
7. Therefore, the prior art Neuboron clearly discloses the beamline/target/cap arrangement recited in claims 12 and 22. The prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claim 24 is 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.
10. Regarding claim 24, it is unclear how the structure of the support structure is delimited by the functional recitation. One of ordinary skill has no way of ascertaining when a given support structure meets the functional limitation and when it does not (“when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear.” MPEP 2173.05(g)).
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 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuboron CN 207856090 (see attached Espacenet translation) in view of Kuznetsov, et al., “Beam Injector for Vacuum Insulated Tandem Accelerator.”
15. Regarding claim 12, Neuboron discloses a method (see Fig. 1), comprising: propagating a charged (C ) particle beam from an accelerator (11) along a beamline (111) toward a neutron generating layer (14) of a target (Figs. 2, 5, and 6) to form a neutron beam ([0031], wherein the target is enclosed between a cap (122’) and the beamline (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the cap is secured to the (see Fig. 1, [0053]) and the neutron generating layer is on a side of the target facing the beamline (see Fig. 2); and cooling the target using a nozzle (1213’) protruding from a center of a target support structure facing a cooling inlet of the cap (see Fig. 5), wherein the nozzle is configured to direct a flow of coolant from the cooling inlet outwardly through a plurality of cooling channels (P’) extending along the support structure to a plurality of cooling outlets (OUT’) at a periphery of the cap (see Figs. 5, 6, and [0054-7]).
Neuboron is silent as to the characteristics of its accelerator. Kuznetsov teaches an accelerator for a BNCT system (Abstract) that performs a neutron generation method (Fig. 3) comprising: propagating a charged particle beam from an ion source (3), through a pre-accelerator (4), through a tandem accelerator (8), and along a beamline (9) toward a neutron generating target assembly (10), wherein the pre-accelerator is outside of the tandem accelerator and positioned prior to the tandem accelerator along the beamline (see the section entitled “Injector Design”). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the beam injector methodology taught by Kuznetsov with the method of Neuboron because Kuznetsov teaches that its injector “ensure[s] beam parameters and reliability of the facility operation required for clinical applications” (Abstract).
16. Regarding claim 13, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 12 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a method wherein the target is enclosed in the cap and the beamline such that a vacuum seal is present between the target and an interior volume of the beamline (see Fig. 1 and [0053]; the accelerator tube 111 of Neuboron is part is a linear accelerator {see [0031]} and is thus under vacuum) and a water seal is present between the target, the cooling inlet of the cap and the plurality of cooling outlets at the periphery of the cap ([0057])
17. Regarding claim 14, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 12 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a method wherein the neutron generating layer comprises Lithium ([0036]).
18. Regarding claim 15, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 12 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a method wherein the plurality of channels form a configuration of parallel spiral windings (see Fig. 6, [0054]).
19. Regarding claims 16 and 17, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 12 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a method, further comprising: directing, using the cooling inlet, coolant in a downstream to upstream direction with respect to a beam axis and directing, using the plurality of cooling outlets, coolant in an upstream to downstream direction with respect to the beam axis (see Figs. 2, 5, and 6; [0057]).
20. Regarding claims 18 and 19, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 12 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a method wherein the target further comprises an interlayer comprising vanadium interposing the neutron generating layer and the target support structure (Fig. 2, 13 and [0036]).
21. Regarding claim 20, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 12 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a method further comprising: positioning a protective layer over a side of the neutron generating layer facing the beamline (Fig. 2, 15).
22. Regarding claim 22, Neuboron discloses a neutron beam system (Fig. 1), comprising: an accelerator (11) configured to accelerate a charged particle beam (C ) along a beamline (111) toward a target a target (T; Figs. 2, 5, and 6, ref. 14 ) between a cap (122’) and a vacuum part of the beamline (the accelerator tube 111 of Neuboron is part is a linear accelerator {see [0031]} and is thus under vacuum), wherein the cap is secured to the beamline ([0053]), the target configured to generate a neutron beam from the charged particle beam, the target comprising (Fig. 2): a heat-removal support structure (12) comprising (Figs. 5 and 6) a nozzle (1213’) protruding from a center of the heat-removal support structure, and a layer of neutron generating material (14) mounted on the heat-removal support structure, wherein the heat-removal support structure comprises a plurality of channels (P’) formed in a surface of the heat-removal support structure and configured to distribute a flow of coolant directed at the center of the heat-removal support structure toward a periphery of the heat- removal support structure (see Fig. 6 and [0057]). Neuboron is silent as to the structure of its accelerator.
Kuznetsov teaches an accelerator (Fig. 3 and the section entitled “Injector Design”) for a BNCT system (Abstract) comprising: an ion source (3) configured to generate a charged particle beam; a pre-accelerator (4) configured to accelerate the charged particle beam; a tandem accelerator (8) configured to further accelerate the charged particle beam, wherein the pre-accelerator is outside of the tandem accelerator and positioned prior to the tandem accelerator along the beamline (9). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the beam injector methodology taught by Kuznetsov with the method of Neuboron because Kuznetsov teaches that its injector “ensure[s] beam parameters and reliability of the facility operation required for clinical applications” (Abstract).
23. Regarding claim 23, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 22 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a system wherein the neutron generating material comprises Lithium ([0036]).
24. Regarding claim 24, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 22 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a system wherein the heat-removal support structure is configured to accommodate a heat flux of up to about 4 MW/m2 ([0007], [0057]).
25. Regarding claims 25 and 26, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 22 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a system wherein the plurality of channels form a configuration of parallel spiral windings that evenly distribute cooling across a maximum area of the surface of the heat-removal support structure (Fig. 7; [0054], [0062]).
26. Regarding claim 27, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 22 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a system wherein the heat-removal support structure is made of copper ([0036]).
27. Regarding claims 28 and 29, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 22 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a system further comprising: an interlayer comprising vanadium interposing the layer of neutron generating material and the heat-removal support structure (Fig. 2, 13 and [0036]).
28. Regarding claim 30, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 22 obvious. Neuboron further discloses a system further comprising: a protective layer positioned on top of the layer of neutron generating material (Fig. 2, 15).
29. Regarding claim 31, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 22 obvious. Kuznetsov further teaches an accelerator, wherein the tandem accelerator is configured to strip electrons from the charged particle beam (Fig. 1, 9).
30. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuboron CN 207856090 (see attached Espacenet translation) in view of Kuznetsov, et al., “Beam Injector for Vacuum Insulated Tandem Accelerator” in further view of Park et al., US 2017/0062086.
31. Regarding claim 21, the modification of the method of Neuboron with the accelerator of Kuznetsov renders claim 12 obvious. Neuboron further teaches each cooling channel of the plurality of cooling channels follows a curved path along the support structure (see Fig. 6 and [0054]) but does not teach the channels comprising a curved transition between a bottom and a side. Park teaches cooling channels in a target substrate wherein a channel surface of each cooling channel comprises a curved transition between a bottom of the channel surface and a side of the channel surface (see [0008], [0071]), noting that this shape is functionally equivalent to the stepped configuration of Neuboron. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found such a modification to be obvious. Additionally, forming curved cooling channel surfaces would provide the predictable advantage of improving laminar flow of the coolant therethrough.
Double Patenting
32. Electronic terminal disclaimed dated 04/15/26 was approved.
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.
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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
Prosecution Insights