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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no undue search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification (e.g., Group I is classified in G21K5/08 whereas Group II is classified in G21G1/00) (see p. 2 of the Requirement for Restriction/Election); and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention (e.g., prior art disclosing an effector of a target irradiation system would not necessarily also disclose a method of operating a target irradiation system and prior art disclosing a method of operating a target irradiation system would not necessarily also disclose an effector of a target irradiation system). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims and Prosecution
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application examined herein.
This application has been transferred to a new examiner. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINNEY KIL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3191. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8:30 AM - 6:30 PM ET.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/27/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, a copy of NPL Document 1 has not been provided. However, this document is cited in the attached PTO-892 and a copy of the document is provided herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “a column receiving the sealing force and being positioned to press onto the platen, via an orbicular surface to facilitate positioning of the column relative to the platen, to transmit the sealing force on to the irradiation target”. It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what is “via an orbicular surface”. It is further unclear what feature(s) “facilitate[s] positioning of the column” or “transmit[s] the sealing force”. Additionally, a “surface” typically refers to an outer part of an object1. However, it is unclear from the claim what the “orbicular surface” is a “surface” of.
The term “substantially” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites “a target case housing a stacked plurality of irradiation targets”. It is unclear the relationship between the “stacked plurality of irradiation targets” and the “irradiation target” previously recited in parent claim 1.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Solid Target System with In-Situ Target Dissolution” (“Gelbart”) in view of US Patent No. 9,168,642 (“Cho”).
Regarding claim 1, Gelbart (see FIGS. 1, 3-7 (see FIGS. 3, 5 annotated below)) discloses an effector (“target holder”) of a target irradiation system (“target irradiation system”, “target station”), the effector operable to apply a sealing force on to an irradiation target (“target”), the effector comprising:
a platen operable to press against the irradiation target;
a column receiving the sealing force and being positioned to press onto the platen to transmit the sealing force on to the irradiation target; and
forcing the platen against the irradiation target to facilitate alignment of the platen and the irradiation target.
PNG
media_image1.png
597
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gelbart, FIG. 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
597
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gelbart, FIG. 5 (annotated)
Gelbart appears to be silent as to the specific mechanisms of the effector and does not appear to disclose an orbicular surface or a collar as recited in claim 1.
Cho (see FIGS. 3, 5) is similarly directed towards an effector (10) comprising a platen (12) operable to press against an object and a column (11) receiving a sealing force and being positioned to press onto the platen (3:54-58, 4:37-53, 5:22-29). Cho teaches the effector comprises an orbicular (i.e., spherical or circular2) surface (19) to facilitate positioning of the column relative to the platen and a collar (27) receiving the column to surround the column, the collar attached to the column and the platen and being resiliently deformable so as to, while allowing the sealing force to be transmitted on to the platen via the orbicular surface, force the platen against the object to facilitate alignment of the platen and the object (4:43-60, 5:22-32). Cho further teaches the effector mechanism provides the advantages of reliably, safely, precisely, and firmly grasping and holding the object via suction (1:5-9, 4:3-14, 5:22-35). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to modify Gelbart’s effector to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho (including the orbicular surface and collar) for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Gelbart in order to enhance reliability, as suggested by Cho, would have been obvious to a POSA. Using the known technique of suction to grasp and transport an object would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 6, Gelbart (see FIGS. 1, 3-7 (see FIGS. 3, 5 annotated above)) discloses a target irradiation system (“target irradiation system”, “target station”), comprising:
an irradiation chamber (“irradiation chamber”) defining an opening configured to receive an inner face (e.g., top face in FIG. 5) of an irradiation target (“target”) to seal the irradiation chamber and allow a beam to irradiate the irradiation target (Abstract); and
an effector (“target holder”) operable to affect a sealing force on to the irradiation target to sealingly engage the irradiation target with the opening of the irradiation chamber, the effector including
a platen engaging with an outer face (e.g., bottom face in FIG. 5) of the irradiation target to press the inner face of the irradiation target against the opening of the irradiation chamber, the inner face and the outer face of the irradiation target being opposite to each other,
a column receiving the sealing force and being positioned to press onto the platen to transmit the sealing force on to the irradiation target, and
forcing the platen against the opening of the irradiation chamber via the irradiation target to facilitate alignment of the platen and the irradiation chamber to seal the inner face of the irradiation target against the irradiation chamber.
Gelbart appears to be silent as to the specific mechanisms of the effector and does not appear to disclose an orbicular surface or a collar as recited in claim 6.
Cho (see FIGS. 3, 5) is similarly directed towards an effector (10) comprising a platen (12) operable to press against an object and a column (11) receiving a sealing force and being positioned to press onto the platen (3:54-58, 4:37-53, 5:22-29). Cho teaches the effector comprises an orbicular surface (19) to facilitate positioning of the column relative to the platen and a collar (27) receiving the column to surround the column, the collar attached to the column and the platen and being resiliently deformable so as to, while allowing the sealing force to be transmitted on to the platen via the orbicular surface, force the platen against the object to facilitate alignment of the platen and the object (4:43-60, 5:22-32). Cho further teaches the effector mechanism provides the advantages of reliably, safely, precisely, and firmly grasping and holding the object via suction (1:5-9, 4:3-14, 5:22-35). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to modify Gelbart’s system to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho (including the orbicular surface and collar) for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Gelbart in order to enhance reliability, as suggested by Cho, would have been obvious to a POSA. Using the known technique of suction to grasp and transport an object would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the effector of claim 1 and the target irradiation system of claim 6. Gelbart discloses the platen is defined by an end of a holder (FIGS. 3, 5 (annotated above)). Cho also teaches the platen is defined by an end of a holder (12, 13) and teaches the holder extends between the end and an opening (e.g., defined by 28) of a cavity (e.g., defined by 21a, 22a, 28) formed in the holder, the cavity extending in the holder towards the platen, the collar being fastened to the opening of the cavity to allow the column to be received into the cavity via the collar (FIGS. 3, 5, 4:65-5:2). Thus, Gelbart, modified to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho, would have resulted in the features of claims 4 and 11.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the effector of claim 4 and the target irradiation system of claim 11. Cho teaches the cavity defines a groove (21a, 22a) seating a ball (19) defining the orbicular surface such that the column is allowed to push against the ball when disposed in the cavity (FIGS. 3, 5, 3:67-4:6, 5:11-18). Thus, Gelbart, modified to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho, would have resulted in the features of claims 5 and 12.
Regarding claim 7, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 6. Cho teaches the collar defines an aperture (e.g., center of 27) surrounded by a fenestrated portion adapted to deform to allow the column to move while forcing the platen against the irradiation target to facilitate alignment of the platen and the outer face of the irradiation target (FIGS. 3, 5, 4:43-60, 5:22-32). Thus, Gelbart, modified to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho, would have resulted in the features of claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 6. Cho teaches the orbicular surface is a spherical surface of a ball (19) seated in a groove (21a, 22a), the ball being in contact with (e.g., via at least element 18) a flat end of the column (FIGS. 3, 5, 3:37-4:6, 5:11-18). Thus, Gelbart, modified to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho, would have resulted in the features of claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 6. Gelbart discloses a robotic manipulator (“pneumatic actuator”, “manipulator”) attached to the effector and configured to press the column to press the irradiation target (FIGS. 1, 3, 5 (see FIGS. 3, 5 annotated above)).
Regarding claim 14, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 13. Gelbart discloses a target case (“target cassette”) housing a stacked plurality of irradiation targets (FIGS. 1, 8, p. 4: “Fresh targets (up to 10 usually, with a practical limit of 20) are pre-loaded in the detachable target cassette”), the robotic manipulator suitable to position the effector to engage with the stacked plurality of irradiation targets via an opening of the target case to retrieve the irradiation target (FIGS. 1, 5, p. 2: “Three pneumatic actuators remove a fresh target from the cassette”).
Regarding claim 15, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 13. Gelbart discloses a dissolution vessel (“dissolution vessel”, “dissolution cell”) configured to process the irradiation target after irradiation (FIG. 1, p. 2: “This self-contained unit automatically places the targets in the irradiation position and at the end of irradiation transfers them to an integral dissolution cell”), the robotic manipulator configured to insert the irradiation target into the dissolution vessel via the effector after irradiation of the irradiation target (FIGS. 1, 7, p. 2: “Three pneumatic actuators remove a fresh target from the cassette, place it in the irradiation chamber, and insert it in the dissolution vessel at the end of the irradiation”).
Regarding claim 16, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 6. Gelbart discloses the effector is configured to engage with the irradiation target to cool the irradiation target while the irradiation target is being irradiated in the irradiation chamber and the irradiation target comprises at least one cooling channel (“cooling channel”) (FIG. 2, p. 2: “The face of the target is clad with the irradiated material and cooling channels on the back are designed to dissipate the heat load while maintaining the target face temperature at the desired level”). Cho teaches the effector defines at least one conduit (14, 17) fluidly communicating with a surface of the object to form at least one coolant passage extending between the effector and object (FIGS. 3, 5, 3:53-4:14). Thus, Gelbart, modified to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho, would have resulted in the features of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 16. Cho teaches the effector is configured to hold the irradiation target by suction of the irradiation target via the at least one coolant passage (FIGS. 3, 5, 1:5-9, 3:53-4:14). Thus, Gelbart, modified to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho, would have resulted in the features of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 6. Gelbart discloses the irradiation chamber defines a plurality of walls extending outwardly from the opening, each of the plurality of walls being outwardly splayed away from the opening so as to push the irradiation target into alignment with the opening of the irradiation chamber (FIGS. 1, 5).
Claims 2-3 and 8-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelbart in view of Cho further in view of US Patent No. 6,129,527 (“Donahoe”).
Regarding claim 2, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the effector of claim 1. Cho teaches the collar defines an aperture (e.g., center of 27) surrounded by a slot extending around the aperture to allow the collar to deform to allow the column to move while forcing the platen against the irradiation target to facilitate alignment of the platen and the irradiation target (FIGS. 3, 5, 4:43-60, 5:22-32). Cho does not appear to teach the slot is a plurality of arcuate slots as recited in claim 2. Donahoe (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards an actuator (10) comprising a column (14) and a collar (44, 46) receiving the column to surround the column, the column being linearly movable within the collar (1:7-10, 1:33-41, 2:4-15). Donahoe teaches the collar defines an aperture (54) surrounded by a plurality of arcuate slots (e.g., between 52, 54, 56, 57) extending around the aperture to allow the collar to deform to allow the column to move and facilitate alignment (2:4-15, 2:59-67). Donahoe further teaches its collar mechanism provides the advantages of axially and radially aligning the column (2:59-67). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include Donahoe’s alignment collar mechanism in the modified Gelbart’s effector for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Gelbart in order to provide axial and radial alignment, as suggested by Donahoe, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 3, Gelbart in view of Cho and Donahoe teaches the effector of claim 2. Donahoe teaches the plurality of arcuate slots includes at least three arcuate slots interleaved with each other and extending spirally towards the aperture (FIGS. 1-2). Thus, Gelbart, modified to include the effector mechanism as taught by Cho and the alignment collar mechanism as taught by Donahoe, would have resulted in the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 7. Cho teaches the fenestrated portion includes an arcuate slot that at least partially surround the aperture (FIGS. 3, 5, 4:43-60, 5:22-32). Cho does not appear to teach the slot is a plurality of arcuate slots that are radially spaced apart from each other as recited in claim 8. Donahoe (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards an actuator (10) comprising a column (14) and a collar (44, 46) receiving the column to surround the column, the column being linearly movable within the collar (1:7-10, 1:33-41, 2:4-15). Donahoe teaches the collar defines an aperture (54) surrounded by a fenestrated portion including a plurality of arcuate slots (e.g., between 52, 54, 56, 57) that at least partially surround the aperture and are radially spaced apart from each other (2:4-15, 2:59-67). Donahoe further teaches its collar mechanism provides the advantages of axially and radially aligning the column (2:59-67). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include Donahoe’s alignment collar mechanism in the modified Gelbart’s effector for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Gelbart in order to provide axial and radial alignment, as suggested by Donahoe, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 9, Gelbart in view of Cho teaches the target irradiation system of claim 7. Cho teaches the fenestrated portion includes an arcuate slot extending spirally towards the aperture (FIGS. 3, 5, 4:43-60, 5:22-32). Cho does not appear to teach the slot is at least three arcuate slots interleaved with each other as recited in claim 9. Donahoe (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards an actuator (10) comprising a column (14) and a collar (44, 46) receiving the column to surround the column, the column being linearly movable within the collar (1:7-10, 1:33-41, 2:4-15). Donahoe teaches the collar defines an aperture (54) surrounded by a fenestrated portion including at least three arcuate slots (e.g., between 52, 54, 56, 57) interleaved with each other and extending spirally towards the aperture (2:4-15, 2:59-67). Donahoe further teaches its collar mechanism provides the advantages of axially and radially aligning the column (2:59-67). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include Donahoe’s alignment collar mechanism in the modified Gelbart’s effector for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Gelbart in order to provide axial and radial alignment, as suggested by Donahoe, would have been obvious to a POSA.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Application Status Information
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. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For 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.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface
2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orbicular