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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 2A in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
Drawings
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 edge of the first layer must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant has elected Figure 2A, but there is no edge of the first layer shown & labeled in Figure 2A. The edge 318 of the first channel 312 is shown and labeled, and the edge 330 of the second channel 322 is shown and labeled, and so it is unclear if one of these is the claimed edge, or if the “edge of the first layer” is a different feature. If so, it must be shown & labeled if it is to be explicitly recited in the claims.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “318” has been used to designate both “edge” and “apex” in the Specification.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “302” has been used to designate both “first layer” and “target substrate” in the Specification.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 338, 329, 808, 904.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 4 has a leading line but no reference numeral (between 308 and 304).
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.
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 first layer thickness being between 2 to 100 times thicker than the second layer must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant has elected Figure 2A, but Figure 2A (and all the other Figures, as far as Examiner can tell) not only does not show first layer 302 thickness at least 2x the thickness of second layer 308, but actually shows the opposite relationship—second layer 308 is repeatedly shown as thicker than first layer 302. It is unclear if the claims are incorrect or if the Drawings are incorrect.
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
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.
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a center" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear what the center is a center of. A center of the one or more first channels? A center of the support structure? A center of the first layer?
Claim 1 is indefinite because it conflicts with the Drawings. Figure 2A was elected, and Figure 2A does not appear to show what is recited in (iii) of claim 1: the support structure 310 comprising one or more first channels 312 adjacent to the second surface 306 of the first layer 302, wherein each of the one or more first channels 312 defines a continuous fluid path (interior of 312) from a center (of ?) to the second surface 306 of the first layer 302 to an edge (where?) of the first layer 302. Even without knowing what the “center” is a center of, and where the “edge” is, it still does not appear any interpretation of Figure 2A shows the above limitation. Specifically, Examiner cannot see where in Figure 2A one or more first channels 312 defines a path from a center of anything to the second surface 306 of the first layer 302 to an edge of anything. Instead, possibly second channels 322 have a path from a center 328 of themselves to an edge (not labeled but would be a radially outer edge opposite the center 328). However, the claim does not recite the second channels. Accordingly, it is unclear if claim 1 is directed to a non-elected embodiment, or if “first” channels should recite “second” channels, or something else entirely. Please do not make any amendments directed towards a non-elected embodiment in an attempt to clarify claim 1.
The claims are indefinite because they conflict with the Drawings. Figure 2A was elected, and Figure 2A does not show the first layer thickness being between 2 to 100 times thicker than the second layer. As far as Examiner can tell, not only do the Figures not show first layer 302 thickness at least 2x the thickness of second layer 308, but actually show the opposite relationship—second layer 308 is repeatedly shown as thicker than first layer 302. It is unclear if the claims are incorrect or if the Drawings are incorrect. Alternatively, it is unclear if the claims intended to recite the support structure 310 being thicker than another feature instead of the first layer 302.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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, 4-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bykov (In situ study of the blistering effect of copper with a thin lithium layer on the neutron yield in the 7Li(p,n)7Be reaction).
Regarding claim 1, Bykov discloses (see § 2 Experimental apparatus, second paragraph) an article (“Sample 7”) comprising: (i) a first layer (“copper disc”) comprising a material with high thermal conductivity (copper), the first layer comprising a first surface (left/proton side in Fig. 1) and a second surface (right side) opposite the first surface; (ii) a second layer (“thin lithium layer”) comprising lithium, the second layer being supported by the first surface of the first layer (“A thin lithium layer .. was evaporated in a vacuum on a copper disc from the side of the proton beam”); and (iii) a support structure (aluminum disc: “A planar aluminum disc with a hole in the center to feed cooling water and two holes on the periphery to drain water is attached to the back side of the copper disc”) comprising one or more materials different from the material of the first layer (Al ≠ Cu), the support structure comprising one or more first channels (id.) adjacent to the second surface of the first layer (id. “back side”), wherein each of the one or more first channels defines a continuous fluid path from a center to the second surface of the first layer to an edge of the first layer (unclear per the above indefiniteness rejections, but as best understood by Examiner, this is fulfilled by Bykov’s aluminum disc having a “center to feed cooling water and two holes on the periphery to drain water”).
Regarding claim 2, Bykov anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses that said article is a neutron generation target (“7Li(p,n)7Be,” § Introduction).
Regarding claims 4-15 and 17-18, Bykov anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the article has a circular shape (“disc” as cited above; see also Fig. 24a) and a diameter of the article is from about 5 centimeters (cm) to about 20 cm (“144 mm,” § 2 Experimental apparatus, second paragraph, which is about 14 cm); the diameter is about 10 cm (“144 mm,” § 2 Experimental apparatus, second paragraph, which is about 14 cm); thermal conductivity of the material of the first layer is from about 300 W × m-1 × K-1 to about 1000 W × m-1 × K-1 (thermal conductivity of copper is within this range); the material with high thermal conductivity is selected from copper, gold, diamond, and copper-diamond composites (copper, as cited above); the material with high thermal conductivity is copper (as cited above); a thickness of the first layer is from about 1 millimeter (mm) to about 12 mm (“8 mm,” § 2 Experimental apparatus, second paragraph); the thickness is selected from about 2 mm, about 3 mm, about 4 mm, about 5 mm, about 8 mm, or about 10 mm (“8 mm,” § 2 Experimental apparatus, second paragraph); the first layer is about 2 times, about 5 times, about 10 times, about 20 times, about 50 times, about 60 times, about 70 times, about 80 times, about 90 times, or about 100 times thicker than the second layer (8 mm is 95 times thicker than 84 μm); wherein the second layer comprises from about 92 percent by weight (wt.%) to about 98 wt.% of Li7 isotope (the second layer is lithium which has a natural abundance of 92.41% 7Li); a thickness of the second layer is from about 15 micrometers (μm) to about 180 μm (“A 84 μm thick lithium layer,” § 3.1, top left of page 66); the thickness of the second layer is from about 90 μm to about 100 μm (“A 84 μm thick lithium layer,” § 3.1, top left of page 66); the second layer is supported by the first surface of the first layer by being bonded to the first layer through metallic bonds, electrostatic interactions, intermaterial diffusion, or any combination thereof (vacuum evaporation, § 2 Experimental apparatus, second paragraph, which forms a metallic bond); thermal conductivity of the material different from the material of the first layer is from about 50 W × m-1 × K-1 to about 300 W × m-1 × K-1 (aluminum thermal conductivity is within this range); and the material different from the material of the first layer is selected from aluminum, titanium, magnesium, zinc, tungsten, nickel, cobalt, vanadium, and tin, or any combination thereof (“A planar aluminum disc,” § 2 Experimental apparatus, second paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bykov.
Regarding claim 3, Bykov anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the article has a weight (implicit) but does not appear to explicitly suggest the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have optimized the weight of the article to be from about 500 gram (g) to about 1,000 g, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Bykov anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the support structure has a thickness (implicit) but does not appear to explicitly suggest the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have optimized the thickness to be from about 10 mm to about 25 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights