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 Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 17-31, in the reply filed on 01/07/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
2. Claim 32 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026.
Status of Application
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/084946, which was filed on 12/09/2021.
Claims 1-16 were originally canceled in this application.
Claims 17-32 are currently pending in this application.
Specification
4. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file.
Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 17-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A. In claim 17, line 1, “Method for producing” should be changed to --A method for producing--.
B. In claim 17, line 5, --,-- should be inserted after “target”.
C. In claims 18-31, line 1, “Method” should be changed to --The method--.
D. In claim 24, line 2, “liquid/liquid” should change to --liquid-liquid--.
E. Claim 25 depends on claim 1, which was originally canceled in the application. The claim should be amended to depend on claim 17.
F. In claim 25, line 2, “liquid/solid” should change to --liquid-solid--.
G. In claim 29, line 2, “step b2)” should be changed to --step b1)-- because step b1) has not been recited in claim 17.
H. In claim 30, line 2-3, “mass separating” should change to --mass-separating--.
G. In claim 31, line 1, “obtainable” should be changed to –prepared-- (or --produced--).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)(Second Paragraph)
6. 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.
Claims 17-31 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A. Regarding claims 17-19, 24-25, & 29-31, the limitations “a target of interest” and “radionuclides of interest” in the claims are not defined. Even though the instant specification lists various materials suitable as target materials for the target of interest, the claim itself must be clear and particularly pointed out.
B. Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “further comprising a step d2) of a second chemical separation and purification after the mass separating step”. However, claim 17 does not recite step d) so this would be unclear or it can be considered that claim 17 is missing (omitting) a step d).
C. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the batch of radionuclides of interest" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
7. 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.
Claim(s) 17-20, 22, 24-28, & 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravn et al. (US 2009/0162278 A1), hereinafter “Ravn et al.”
The instant claims relate to a method for producing high specific activity radionuclides, comprising the steps of:
a) irradiating a target of interest by a particle beam, so as to obtain an irradiated target comprising radionuclides of interest,
b) chemically extracting the radionuclides of interest from the irradiated target, and
c) mass-separating the radionuclides of interest to obtain high specific activity radionuclides.
Ravn et al. discloses a method for large scale production of high-purity radioisotopes, comprising the following steps:
(a) activation of a target by a particle beam,
(b) separation of the isotope from the irradiated target,
(c) ionization of the separated isotope,
(d) extraction from the ion source and acceleration of the ion beam,
(e) mass-separation, and
(f) collection of the isotope (see p. 33, claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Ravn et al. appears to teach the same method as claimed. The method steps a), d), and e) of the reference are the same as steps a), b), and c) of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, the target material is irradiated with high energy particle of >100 MeV energy (p. 9, [0234]. The disclosed energy is falling within the instant claimed range of “between 18 and 200 MeV”.
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitation on “step b), which comprises dissolving the target of interest into an acid solution” is disclosed in the reference (p. 9, [0246]).
Regarding claim 20, producing Gd from Tb is known and taught by the reference (p. 29, [0592] & p. 33, claim 2).
Regarding claim 22, producing Sc from Ti is known and taught by the reference (p. 17, 0442-0453]).
Regarding claim 24, the claim limitation on “step b) comprises liquid-liquid extraction” is disclosed in the reference (p. 9, [0246]).
Regarding claim 25, the claim limitation on “step b) comprises liquid-solid extraction” is suggested by the reference (p. 11, [0299]).
Regarding claim 26, producing Ac from Th is known and taught by the reference (p. 12, [0307]-[0308]).
Regarding claims 27 & 28, producing Er and Lu from the Er and Yb are also known and taught by the reference (p. 18, [0456]).
Regarding claim 31, the claimed high specific radionuclides is taught by the reference (p. 33, claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
Claim(s) 21, 29, & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravn et al. (US 2009/0162278 A1), hereinafter “Ravn et al.”
Ravn et al. discloses a method for large scale production of high-purity radioisotopes as discussed in the precedent paragraph, except for the following differences.
Regarding claim 21, the reference does not teach to use nitric acid as a solvent in the extraction step, it is considered the use of nitric acid is a known and obvious alternative to the citric acid of the reference.
Regarding claim 29, the instant claim further defines that the claimed method “further comprising a step b2) of target coupling comprising: pouring a liquid solution obtained in step b) on a support, heating up and evaporating the liquid solution on the support so as to deposit the radionuclide on the support, and inserting the support comprising the radionuclides of interest into a mass separator”.
The evaporation of the liquid solution before mass separation is obvious and necessary to obtain the solids as a final product.
Regarding claim 30, the instant claim further defines that the claimed method “further comprising a step d2) of a second chemical separation and purification after the mass-separating step”.
It is considered the second separation step is obvious and it will be performed by a person skilled in the art if the purity level requires this.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 23 is 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.
The applied reference (US 2009/0162278 A1) teaches the claimed method as set forth in the instant claim 17, however it does not teach or suggest “exposing metallic titanium to an HBr solution while submitting it to a voltage”. There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention.
Citations
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared.
Conclusion
11. Claims 17-32 are pending. Claims 17-22 & 24-31 are rejected. Claim 23 is objected. Claim 32 is withdrawn. No claims are allowed.
Contacts
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1357. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov.
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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/CNN/
March 13, 2026