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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, and 16-18 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 112(b)
Rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 12(b) is withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. & 103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the limitation of amended claim 5 "the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned to subject the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas to an electric field between the first electrode and the second electrode so to attract the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas to one of the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the liquid of the liquid source is in a line of flight of the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas towards the one of the first electrode and the second electrode" as amended claim 5 recites overcomes the prior art rejections. Applicants’ remarks are not persuasive given the amended limitation is optional. However, applicants amendment of claim 5, replacing “a radioactive gas” with “an emanating source of a radioactive gas that decays into charged radionuclides” broadens the scope of claim 5. Therefore, a new ground of rejection has been made. See rejections below.
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.
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 5-15 and 19-20 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.
Claim 5 recites “optionally, a second gas outlet, and wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned to subject the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas to an electric field between the first electrode and the second electrode so to attract the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas to one of the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the liquid of the liquid source is in a line of flight of the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas towards the one of the first electrode and the second electrode.” It is unclear if the wherein clause is optional. For the purposes of examination, the wherein clause will be interpreted to be optional.
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 (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.
Claims 5-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Xiang, et al. "Collection and charging characteristics of particles in an electrostatic precipitator with a wet membrane collecting electrode." Journal of Electrostatics 83 (2016): 28-34, hereinafter referred to as Wang, in view of “Aerosol-to-Liquid Particle Extraction System (ALPES).” Tech Briefs, Savannah River National Laboratory, February 1, 2018, hereinafter referred to as Savannah.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches an apparatus for the preparation and isolation of radionuclides, comprising an electric source, an emanation vessel and a collection vessel, wherein the emanation vessel is connected to the collection vessel or wherein the emanation vessel and the collection vessel are comprised in a singular vessel (Fig. 2 as annotated below),
a. wherein the emanation vessel comprises:
ii. optionally, a first gas inlet (Fig. 2 as annotated below),
b. wherein the collection vessel comprises:
i. a first electrode connected to the electric source (Fig. 2 as annotated below),
ii. a second electrode connected to the electric source (Fig. 2 as annotated below),
PNG
media_image1.png
504
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and iii. a liquid section containing a liquid (One of the collecting electrodes was a rigid carbon steel collecting electrode and the other was a wet membrane collecting electrode, which was a water penetrating polypropylene (Table 2). The water flow rate over the membranes was 2.5 L/(m·h)−1 per unit length in the direction of gas flow (Section 2.2, para. [0001])),
iv. optionally, a second gas outlet, and wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned to subject the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas to an electric field between the first electrode and the second electrode so to attract the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas to one of the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the liquid of the liquid source is in a line of flight of the charged radionuclides of the radioactive gas towards the one of the first electrode and the second electrode.
Wang fails to teach i. an emanating source of a radioactive gas that decays into charged radionuclides.
However, Savannah teaches i. a radioactive gas an emanating source of a radioactive gas that decays into charged radionuclides (The ALPES is designed to collect chemical agents; radioactive particles (para. [0004])).
Radioactive particles are an emanating source of radioactive gas that decay into charged radionuclides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device described in Wang to include the teachings of Savannah by using the device described in Wang in the presence of radioactive particles. Savannah teaches collecting radioactive particles because these agents can be used in warfare and “tend to disperse widely in the air when released. Quickly collecting a concentrated sample of these agents is critical to detecting them before they reach harmful dose levels in the air (para. [0001]).”
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the first electrode is placed outside the liquid section (Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the second electrode is placed in the liquid section (wet membrane collecting electrode, which was a water penetrating polypropylene (Table 2) (section 2.2, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the second electrode is positioned in the liquid section such that the second electrode is immersed in a liquid in the liquid section (wet membrane collecting electrode, which was a water penetrating polypropylene (Table 2) (section 2.2, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the second separated electrode is separated from the first electrode by a liquid in the liquid section (Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are electrically isolated from each other (The distance between the discharge and collecting electrodes was 50 mm (section 2.2, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the first electrode is isolated from/ is not in electrical contact with the second electrode (The distance between the discharge and collecting electrodes was 50 mm (section 2.2, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 12, The apparatus according to claim 5 wherein the collection vessel further comprises a holding section connected to the liquid section (Fig. 2 as annotated above).
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the holding section is configured to collect the radioactive gas for a time sufficient to yield charged daughter radionuclides (Fig. 2 above).
The only structure required by claim 13 is a chamber which can hold gas.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the second electrode is provided in, near or behind a liquid of the liquid section (wet membrane collecting electrode, which was a water penetrating polypropylene (Table 2) (section 2.2, para. [0001])).
Regarding claim 15, The apparatus according to claim 5, wherein at least one of the collection vessel and the holding section comprises a gas outlet (Fig. 2, Exhaust).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches wherein the emanation vessel is connected to the collection vessel (Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the emanation vessel and the collection vessel form a singular vessel (Fig. 2 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights