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 Species B (moving target) and 1 (precursor plasma) in the reply filed on 11/07/25 is acknowledged. 2. Additionally, Applicant elected the Z-pinch neutron source species of claim 30 (first compression electrode at first end and second compression electrode at second end with inner and outer precursor supplies) vs. the species of claim 21 (inner and outer electrode, outer electrode extending axially beyond the inner electrode with plasma formation and injection device) in a voicemail dated 01/08/26 3. Claim s 6 (species A), 21-24, 25 and 32 (species 2) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the repl ies dated 11/07/25 and 01/08/26 . 4. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13, 16, 18-27, and 30-34 are pending. Claims 6, 21-25, and 32 ae withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-13, 16, 18-20, 26-27, 31-32, and 33-34 are examined herein. Allowable Subject Matter 5 . Claim 13 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. Claims 31 and 33-34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112 6 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 7 . The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 8 . Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 9 . Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. 10 . Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 11 . This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph , because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “flow moving device configured to…” in claim 9; “radionuclide extractor configured to…” in claim 18; and “target recycling unit configured to…” in claim 19 . 12 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The limitations of claims 9, 18, and 19 are discussed at [0120] of the published application. The disclosure only describes the particular structure of only the flow moving device recited in claim 9 (“such as a pump”). This portion of the specification merely restates the function of the limitations recited in claims 18 and 19 and provides no description of the structure associated with the limitations. 13 . If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 14 . The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 15 . Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. 16. Claim limitations “radionuclide extractor configured to…” in claim 18; and “target recycling unit configured to…” in claim 19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The extractor and recycling unit are discussed at [0120] of the published application. However, the disclosure fails to set forth any structure associated with these limitations. Therefore, the claims lack an adequate written description (MPEP 2181(IV): Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph .) . Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 17 . 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. 18 . Claim s 18, 19, 27, 30, 31 and 33-34 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. 19 . Claim limitations “radionuclide extractor configured to…” in claim 18; and “target recycling unit configured to…” in claim 19 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The extractor and recycling unit are discussed at [0120] of the published application. However, the disclosure fails to set forth any structure associated with these limitations. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. 20. Regarding claim 27, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the assembly region” in claim 20. It appears that claim 27 should be dependent on claim 21, which introduces the assembly region. 21. Regarding claim 30, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “into the Z-pinch plasma with a radially sheared axial flow.” The parent claim 20 merely introduces “a Z-pinch plasma.” Claims 31, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because the depend on claim 30 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 22 . 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. 23 . 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. 24. 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. 25. Claims 1- 2 , 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wessel et al., US 2011/0019789 . 26. Regarding claim 1, Wessel discloses a system for radionuclide production (Figs. 2-3 and [0003]) , the system comprising: a compact plasma-based fusion neutron source (10) configured to generate a neutron flux ([0040]) ; and a target holder (24) configured to hold a target ([0047]) comprising neutron-activatable nuclides ([0055]) , the target holder being arranged with respect to the compact plasma-based fusion neutron source to expose the target to the neutron flux and produce radionuclides through neutron activation of the neutron- activatable nuclides (see Figs. 2 and 3 and [0047]) . 27. Regarding claim 2, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 and further di sc lo s es a system wherein the produced radionuclides comprise 99Mo ([0025], [0055-6]) . 28. Regarding claim 16, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses a system further comprising a neutron moderator (22) arranged in a path of the neutron flux (see Figs. 2 and 3) and configured to reduce an average neutron energy of the neutron flux prior to the neutron flux reaching the target ([0047]) . 29. Regarding claim 20, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses a system wherein the compact plasma- based fusion neutron source comprises (see Fig. 1) a Z-pinch-based neutron source comprising a reaction chamber (14) having a Z-pinch axis (12) , the Z-pinch-based neutron source being configured to form a Z-pinch plasma along the Z-pinch axis inside the reaction chamber and generate the neutron flux from the Z-pinch plasma ([0040-42]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 30 . 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. 31 . 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. 32. 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. 33. Claim s 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel et al., US 2011/0019789 in view of Ishitsuka et al., EP 2 104 113 34. Regarding claim 3, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 but is silent as to the isotope that is used to produce the 99Mo. Wessel however, discloses that the 99Mo is produced by “neutron flux incident on [the activatable radionuclide precursor] whereby controlled activation of the activatable radionuclide precursor is realized ([0025-6]). Ishitsuka teaches that 98Mo provides 99Mo through the reaction 98Mo( n,y )99 Mo, where n stands for a neutron and y stands for a gamma particle (see Abst . and [0004]) . Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ 98Mo as the “activatable radionuclide precursor” to predictably produce the 99Mo in Wessel. 35. Regarding claim 4, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 but does not disclose a target comprising MoO3 dissolved in a solution. Ishitsuka discloses a system for producing 99Mo from neutron activation of 98Mo ([0004]) wherein the neutron activation target is MoO3 dissolved in a solution ([0008-0010]: ammonium molybdate is the solution obtained when MoO3 is dissolved in aqueous ammonium). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the MoO3 solution taught by Ishitsuka as the target in the system of Wessel for the predictable advantage of reducing the amount of radioactive waste produced when solid MoO3 is irradiated (see [0007]). 36. Claim s 7- 10, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel et al., US 2011/0019789 in view of Piefer US 2011/0096887. 37. Regarding claim 7, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 but does not disclose a system in which the target moves with respect to the neutron source. Piefer discloses a system for radionuclide production by neutron irradiation ( Abst ., [0002-3]), the system comprising ([0050]) a neutron source (10/11) and a target holder (90), wherein the target holder is configured to move the target with respect to the compact plasma-based fusion neutron source during exposure of the target to the neutron flux ([0064]) . One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the solution-based target circulation system of Piefer with the system of Wessel for the predictable advantage of enabling ease of downstream chemical separation and heat removal ([0112]). 38. Regarding claim s 8 , 10 , and 12, Wessel as modified by Piefer makes claim 7 obvious. Piefer further teaches a system wherein the target holder comprises a plurality of helical conduit s exposed to the neutron flux and configured to circulate a flow of the target therealong , each conduit comprising a conduit inlet configured to receive the flow of the target prior to exposure of the target to the neutron flux, and a conduit outlet configured to discharge the flow of the target after exposure of the target to the neutron flux ([0064]) . One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the solution-based target circulation system of Piefer with the system of Wessel for the reasons stated above. 39. Regarding claim 9, Wessel as modified by Piefer makes claim 7 obvious. Piefer further teaches a system further comprising a flow moving device configured to control the flow of the target along the at least one conduit ([0066]) . One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the solution-based target circulation system of Piefer with the system of Wessel for the reasons stated above. 40. Regarding claims 18 and 19, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 but does not disclose a system comprising a solution-based target. Piefer discloses a system for radionuclide production by neutron irradiation ( Abst ., [0002-3]), the system comprising ([0050]) a neutron source (10/11) a target holder (90), a radionuclide extractor configured to receive the exposed target from the target holder and extract the produced radionuclides from the exposed target ([0064]), and a target recycling unit configured to receive the exposed target from the target holder and recycle non-activated neutron-activatable nuclides from the exposed target for use in further production of radionuclides ([0066]) . One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the solution-based target circulation system of Piefer with the system of Wessel for the predictable advantage of enabling ease of downstream chemical separation and heat removal ([0112]). 41. Claim s 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessel et al., US 2011/0019789 in view of Shumlak et al., US 2020/0058411. 42. Regarding claim 26, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 but does not disclose a system comprising a Z- p inch based neutron source with an embedded radially sheared axial flow. Shumlak teaches a Z-pinch-based neutron source (Fig. 1, [0004-0007], [0015]) configured to form the Z-pinch plasma with an embedded radially sheared axial flow ([0045-6] , [0104], [0108] ). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to substitute the Z-pinch based neutron source taught by Shumlak for the Z-pinch-based neutron source of Wessel for the predictable advantage of increasing plasma stability and temperature ([0045]). 43. Regarding claim 30, Wessel discloses the system of claim 1 but does not disclose a system comprising a Z-pinch based neutron source with a radially sheared axial flow. Shumlak teaches a Z-pinch-based neutron source (Fig. 1, [0004-0007], [0015]) comprising: a plasma confinement device comprising a reaction chamber (138) , a first compression electrode disposed at a first end of the reaction chamber (122) , and a second compression electrode disposed at a second end of the reaction chamber (124) spaced apart from the first end along the Z-pinch axis (see Fig. 1) ; a precursor supply device coupled to the plasma confinement device and comprising: an inner precursor supply unit comprising an inner injector (106) , the inner precursor supply unit being configured to supply, through the inner injector, an inner precursor medium into the reaction chamber ([0049]) ; and an outer precursor supply unit comprising an outer injector (112) disposed radially outwardly of the inner injector with respect to the Z-pinch axis (see Fig. 1) , the outer precursor supply unit being configured to supply, through the outer injector, an outer precursor plasma into the reaction chamber at an outer velocity ([0051]) ; and a main power supply (114) configured to supply power to the plasma confinement device to apply a voltage between the first compression electrode and the second compression electrode configured to energize and compress the inner precursor medium and the outer precursor plasma into the Z- pinch plasma with a radially sheared axial flow ([0052], [0104], [0108]) . One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to substitute the Z-pinch based neutron source taught by Shumlak for the Z-pinch-based neutron source of Wessel for the predictable advantage of increasing plasma stability and temperature ([0045]). 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 . Additional References The attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892) cites additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6882 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jack Keith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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