DETAILED ACTION
Election
Claims 1-20 are pending. Applicant’s election of Invention I without traverse in the Reply filed 13 April 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 1-17. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s). The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 5-6 and 16 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5
It is unclear what constitutes a “geometry that is complementary to” a tube. The feature that distinguishes a “complementary” geometry from a “non-complementary” geometry is unknown and unclear.
Claim 16
The intended use phrase “the secondary irradiation target material is to occupy an entire volume defined by the intermediate cavity” is unclear. The claim subject matter is defined by an intended result (i.e., occupy entire volume) to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 9-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abolaban ("Production of actinium-225 from a (n, p) reaction: Feasibility and pre-design studies", Nukleonika 66, no. 2 (2021): 61-67) in combination with Abolaban (US 10,867,716).
Claim 1
The Abolaban article discloses an inner tube (containing Nickel) having an inner cavity; an outer tube (outer barrel shield); and an intermediate cavity (containing Radium) between the tubes. A primary target material (Nickel) is in the inner cavity. A secondary target material (Radium) is in the intermediate cavity. Neutrons (from Cf-252) hit the primary target material (Nickel) to generate an emission (protons). This emission hits the primary target material (Radium) to produce a radioisotope (Ac-225). Particularly note Abolaban at Figure 9 and the description thereof.
The Abolaban patent discloses an embodiment showing an arrangement of nested tubes (e.g., Figure 10). Modification of the Abolaban article to have included a nested tube arrangement, as suggested by the Abolaban patent, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, especially since it is the same Abolaban in the article and in the patent.
Claims 9-10
In Abolaban, the neutrons hitting the nickel will generate photons, typically gamma rays.
Claim 12
Cf-252 neutrons hitting nickel will generate thermal neutrons.
Claim 13
In Abolaban, 226Ra (p, pn) 225Ra will occur.
Claim 14-16
In Abolaban, Radium-226 fills the intermediate cavity.
Claim 17
No dimensions are recited. Thus, the dimensions of a nuclear reactor, and a flux thimble tube therein, can be of any (large) size. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims are relative dimensions, but the apparatus having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abolaban in combination with Abolaban as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holden (US 2014/0226774).
Holden shows that it is well known in the art to use end caps to close ends of an irradiation target assembly. For example, note the last sentence in paragraph [0034]. The skilled artisan would understand that end caps allow for efficient insertion and removal of material, and reuse of the assembly. Modification of Abolaban to have included end caps, as suggested by Holden, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reese (US 2012/0027152).
Reese teaches an inner tube (34) having inner cavity; an outer tube (32); and an intermediate cavity (38) between the tubes. A primary target material (moderator) is in the inner cavity. A secondary target material (uranium) is in the intermediate cavity. Neutrons hit the primary target material to generate an emission (thermal neutrons). This emission hits the primary target material (uranium) to produce a radioisotope (fission products).
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because the sentence “The inner tube comprises an outer surface surrounded by the inner surface of the outer tube, and a primary irradiation target material” is unclear. It is unclear in the sentence whether: (1) the inner tube comprises the primary irradiation target material; (2) the inner tube’s outer surface is surrounded by the primary irradiation target material; or (3) something else. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-8, and 11 are 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 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 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 Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights