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 .
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 32-36 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.
Regarding claim 32, the claim discloses “a passivation region supported by the substrate and positioned over the neutron generation region and configured to seal against diffusion of the third material into the passivation region and against diffusion of an ambient substance into the passivation region,” where according to claim 1, the third material is the intermediate layer: “the intermediate layer comprising a third material different from the first and second materials.” However, the specification discloses, “in some embodiments, the passivation region 410 has a coefficient of diffusion for the material of the neutron generation layer 110 (e.g., lithium) of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less”, “Other materials that are known to inhibit diffusion of lithium may be used to make the passivation region 410 positioned over the neutron generation layer 110”, and “a passivation region 410 positioned over the neutron generation layer 110”. It is not clear, in light of the specification, if the passivation region is configured to seal against diffusion of the intermediate layer (third material), or the neutron generation region, which may contain lithium. For the purposes of examination, the passivation region will be taken to seal against diffusion of lithium (neutron generation region).
Claims 35 and 36, present indefinite functional limitations. “Coefficient of diffusion” and “gas permeability” are not constants. These variables are dependent on material, material thickness, pressure, temperature, and other relevant values. Neither the claims nor the specification clearly lays out what limitations allow the passivation region to achieve a “coefficient of diffusion for second material of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less”, or a “gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less.” Therefore, the scope of claims 35 and 36 exceeds the scope of the disclosure and renders these claims indefinite.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite due to their dependency on claim 32 as rejected above.
Claim 33 is further rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of “lithium fluoride, lithium sulfide, lithium carbonate, magnesium fluoride, carbon, diamond-like carbon, (ultra)nanocrystalline diamond, or a polymer” is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons:
The members of the Markush claim are not members of the same recognized chemical class. Lithium is classified as an alkali metal, while carbon is a specific chemical element which is non-metal, and polymers are a structural class of large molecules. Further, lithium is held together by metallic bonds, while carbon and polymers are formed through covalent bonds. Moreover, the architecture or lithium, carbon, and a polymer are different. Carbon is formed by a continuous lattice, while lithium is formed by a crystal lattice, and polymers are formed by long intertwined molecular chains. Lithium, carbon, and polymers are not members of the same chemical class and do not share structural similarities.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5-7, 28-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shioda et al. (US 20160270202 A1), hereinafter referred to as Shioda.
Regarding claim 1, Shioda teaches a neutron generation target, comprising: a substrate comprising a first material (The substrate is often made of copper (para [0006)]));
a neutron generation region supported by the substrate and comprising a second material different from the first material, the second material being configured to generate neutrons when exposed to a charged particle beam (Specifically, the present invention is a target for neutron generation, including a substrate coated with a palladium layer and a lithium layer such that a surface of the lithium layer is irradiated with charged particles to generate neutrons (para [0015]);
and an intermediate layer supported by the substrate and positioned between the substrate and the neutron generation region, the intermediate layer comprising a third material different from the first and second materials (Additionally, a palladium layer is formed between the lithium layer and the substrate (para [0007])), the third material being configured to sequester hydrogen and to facilitate heat transfer from the neutron generation region to the substrate (This palladium layer is formed to inhibit protons that have been applied and passed through the lithium layer from reaching copper (substrate) (para. [0007])). (Palladium is a good heat conductor and placed between lithium and copper will facilitate heat transfer.)
Regarding claim 5, Shioda teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the first material is selected from copper, gold, diamond-like carbon, diamond, and copper-diamond composites (The substrate is often made of copper (para [0006)])).
Regarding claim 6, Shioda teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the first material is copper (The substrate is often made of copper (para [0006)])).
Regarding claim 7, the target of any one of claims 1-6 claim 1, wherein a thickness of the substrate is from 5 millimeters (mm) to 12 mm (A disk-shaped copper substrate of φ 135 mm × 8 mm thickness was prepared (para. [0032])).
Regarding claim 28, Shioda teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the target comprises an adhesion layer positioned between the intermediate layer and the neutron generation region (a barrier layer added between a lithium layer and a palladium layer (para. [0034])) and configured to facilitate bonding of the intermediate layer to the neutron generation region through metallic bonds, covalent bonds, electrostatic interactions, intermaterial diffusion, or any combination thereof (However, in a lithium-palladium state diagram, there exists a region in which a eutectic alloy is formed at a eutectic temperature of 145° C. Therefore, by the combination of lithium and palladium, eutectic alloy may be formed. Since a lithium-palladium eutectic alloy, which is a heterophase, inhibits hydrogen entered lithium from reaching the palladium layer, it reduces the function of the palladium layer and decreases the neutron generation capability of the target. Additionally, the heterophase decreases the adhesion strength between the palladium layer and the lithium layer. A palladium layer undergoes dimensional changes, that is, it expands during hydrogen absorption and shrinks during hydrogen release, and such a decrease in adhesion strength causes separation during dimensional changes in the palladium layer. From this discussion, the present inventors have considered that, to maintain the capability of the target and prevent separation, suppression of the formation of a eutectic alloy at the interface between a lithium layer and a palladium layer is necessary (para [0012]-[0014])) ( For each sample, a metal film of copper, iron, nickel, cobalt, titanium, or zirconium was formed as a barrier layer on a palladium plate (dimension: 20 mm×20 mm, 2 mm thick) by plating, sputtering, (para. [0029])).
Regarding claim 29, Shioda teaches the target of claim 28, wherein the adhesion layer comprises titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, holmium, nickel, palladium, platinum, zinc, silver, aluminum, gold, bismuth, or a mixture or an alloy thereof, or a carbide thereof (As a constituent material for the barrier layer, a metal selected from … nickel, titanium, and zirconium or an alloy containing any of these metals is preferable (para. [0019])).
Regarding claim 31, Shioda teaches the target of claim 28, wherein a thickness of the adhesion layer is from 100 nanometers (nm) to 2 μm (the thickness of the barrier layer is preferably within a range of 0.5 to 5 μm (para. [0020])).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yurevich et al. (RU 2610301 C1), hereinafter referred to as Yurevich.
Regarding claim 2, Shioda does not explicitly teach the target of claim 1, wherein the target has a width from 5 centimeters (cm) to 20 cm.
However, Yurevich teaches wherein the target has a width from 5 centimeters (cm) to 20 cm (a target diameter of 10 cm (para. [0035]). (“If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” (MPEP 2131.03)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda, to incorporate the teachings of Yurevich such that the target has a width of 10cm. Doing so allows for optimization of the number of hours of continuous radiation (Yurevich, para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Shioda does not explicitly teach the target of claim 2, wherein the width is 10 cm.
However, Yurevich teaches the target of claim 2, wherein the width is 10 cm (a target diameter of 10 cm (para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda, to incorporate the teachings of Yurevich such that the target has a width of 10cm. Doing so allows for optimization of the number of hours of continuous radiation (Yurevich, para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Shioda teaches the target of claim 1, wherein thermal conductivity of the first material is from 300 watts per meter-kelvin (Wxm1xK-1) to 1000 Wxm1xK1 (The substrate is preferably made of copper as before. As described above, although the target surface temperature as a result of proton irradiation is relatively low, the target needs to be cooled. Copper has high heat conductivity and thus is a metal suitable as a water-cooled substrate (para. [0017])).
Shioda does not explicitly teach the thermal conductivity of the first material (copper as disclosed in Shioda) is from 300 watts per meter-kelvin (Wxm1xK-1) to 1000 Wxm1xK1.
However, Yurevich teaches wherein thermal conductivity of the first material is from 300 watts per meter-kelvin (Wxm1xK-1) to 1000 Wxm1xK1s (The basis of the target site is a housing 14 made of a material with a high coefficient of thermal conductivity…Such material may be copper, characterized by a thermal conductivity of 400 W / (m⋅grad). (para. [0027])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shioda to include the teachings of Yurevich such that the copper substrate disclosed in Shioda has a thermal conductivity of 400 w/mgrad because it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that copper is characterized by having a thermal conductivity of 400 w/mgrad, and therefore claim 4 is inherent to Shioda. The use of a material with this thermal conductivity “is due to the need to minimize, as far as possible, the temperature drop across the metal thickness from the lithium layer to the surface to be cooled. (Yurevich, para. 0027]).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tatami et al. (WO 2018225761 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tatami.
Regarding claim 25, Shioda does not teach wherein the target comprises a sub-intermediate layer positioned between the substrate and the intermediate layer and configured to facilitate bonding of the substrate to the intermediate layer through metallic bonds, covalent bonds, electrostatic interactions, intermaterial diffusion, or any combination thereof.
However, Tatami teaches wherein the target comprises a sub-intermediate layer (metal layer (C) 13) positioned between the substrate and the intermediate layer (In a preferred embodiment, as shown in Fig. 1(b), the graphite film (A) 11 and the layer of raw material for radioactive substance production (B) 12 are laminated via a metal layer (C) 13. (para. [0015])) (See figure 1b below) and configured to facilitate bonding of the substrate to the intermediate layer through metallic bonds, covalent bonds, electrostatic interactions, intermaterial diffusion, or any combination thereof (The method for forming the metal layer (C) is not particularly limited, and any commonly used thin film formation method such as vapor deposition, sputtering, EB (Electron Beam) vapor deposition, ion plating, or plating can be used (para. [0046])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Tatami by placing the metal later C, disclosed in Tatami, in between the substrate and palladium layer, disclosed in Shioda. Doing so, allows for heat to be efficiently diffused throughout the target, and prevents target deformation (Tatami, para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 26, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 25, wherein the sub-intermediate layer comprises an alloy comprising titanium, copper, and silver.
However, Tatami teaches wherein the sub-intermediate layer comprises an alloy comprising titanium, copper, and silver (The material of the metal layer (C) is preferably at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, titanium, nickel, iron, copper, tantalum, tungsten, gold, silver, platinum, and ruthenium, and more preferably gold, nickel, titanium, or tantalum (para. [0030])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Tatami by placing the metal later C, which can be made of silver, copper and titanium, disclosed in Tatami, in between the substrate and palladium layer, disclosed in Shioda. Doing so, allows for heat to be efficiently diffused throughout the target and prevents target deformation (Tatami, para. [0013]).
Regarding claim 27, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 25, wherein a thickness of the sub-intermediate layer is from 1 pm to 10 pm.
However, Tatami teaches the target of claim 25, wherein a thickness of the sub-intermediate layer is from 1 μm to 10 μm (therefore, the thickness of the metal layer (C) is preferably 1 μm or less (para. [0031])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Tatami by placing the metal later C, which can be 1 μm, disclosed in Tatami, in between the substrate and palladium layer, disclosed in Shioda. Doing so ensures any reaction between the substrate and intermediate layer does not occur when the target is irradiated, and target deformation is avoided (Tatami, para. [0030]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda, as applied to claim 1 and claim 28 above, and in further view of Stora et al. (US 20110235766 A1) hereinafter referred to as Stora.
Shioda does not explicitly teach the target of claim 28, wherein the adhesion layer comprises 90 wt.% or 95 wt.% of titanium.
However, Stora teaches wherein the adhesion layer comprises 90 wt.% or 95 wt.% of titanium (In the preferred embodiment, the titanium alloy is a TA6V alloy comprising 90% Ti, 6% Al and 4% V (para. [0048])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Stora such that the adhesion layer (barrier layer disclosed in Shioda) is 90% titanium. Incorporating a material with 90% titanium is useful for creating strong bonds. Titanium does not corrode easily and is cost efficient.
Claims 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kaae (US 4597936 A) hereinafter referred to as Kaae.
Regarding claim 32, Shioda does not teach wherein the target comprises a passivation region supported by the substrate and positioned over the neutron generation region and configured to seal against diffusion of the third material into the passivation region and against diffusion of an ambient substance into the passivation region.
However, Kaae teaches the target of claim 1, wherein the target comprises a passivation region (outer seal layer 20) supported by the substrate and positioned over the neutron generation region (spherical core 12, formed of a lithium-containing compound) and configured to seal against diffusion of the third material into the passivation region and against diffusion of an ambient substance into the passivation region (The outer seal layer 20 is zirconium carbide having a specific stoichiometric ratio of Zr to C which is found to prevent lithium diffusion from the core and loss of lithium from the particle when subsequent coating layers are deposited (para. [0004]) (the seal layer 20 serves as a first gas-retentive barrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20) over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda. Doing so prevents the formation of undesirable compounds that degrade the performance of the target.
Regarding claim 33, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 32, wherein the passivation region comprises lithium fluoride, lithium sulfide, lithium carbonate, magnesium fluoride, carbon, diamond-like carbon, (ultra)nanocrystalline diamond, or a polymer.
However, Kaae teaches wherein the passivation region comprises lithium fluoride, lithium sulfide, lithium carbonate, magnesium fluoride, carbon, diamond-like carbon, (ultra)nanocrystalline diamond, or a polymer (The outer seal layer 20 is zirconium carbide having a specific stoichiometric ratio of Zr to C which is found to prevent lithium diffusion from the core and loss of lithium from the particle when subsequent coating layers are deposited (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20), which incorporates carbon, over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda. The incorporation of this ZRC layer is beneficial because the layer withstands high temperature (Kaae, para. [0010]) and is effective as a barrier for both lithium and tritium, preventing unwanted compounds to form and degrade the performance of the target.
Regarding claim 34, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 32, wherein a thickness of the passivation region is from 1 µm to 10 µm.
However, Kaae teaches the target of claim 32, wherein a thickness of the passivation region is from 1 µm to 10 µm (the ZrC seal layer 20 is deposited continuously circumferentially about the pyrocarbon-coated core to a thickness of at least about 10 microns (para. [0011])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20), which is at least 10 microns, over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda. Making the layer at least 10 microns allows the layer to prevent lithium loss while not adding to the volume of the target without affording additional benefits (Kaae; para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 35, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 32, wherein the passivation region has coefficient of diffusion for second material of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less.
However, Kaae teaches the target of claim 32, wherein the passivation region has coefficient of diffusion for second material of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less (The outer seal layer 20 is zirconium carbide having a specific stoichiometric ratio of Zr to C which is found to prevent lithium diffusion from the core and loss of lithium from the particle when subsequent coating layers are deposited (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20) over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda, such that the passivation region has coefficient of diffusion for second material of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less, because under proper conditions including pressure, temperature and thickness of the passivation region (Kaae; outer seal 20), the passivation region disclosed in Kaae inherently possesses a coefficient of diffusion of 1 x10-13 square centimeters per second (cm2/s) or less. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized this inherency. The condition is motivated by the goal of the outer seal 20, disclosed in Kaae, to prevent the diffusion of lithium.
Regarding claim 36, Shioda does not teach the target of claim 33, wherein the passivation region has gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less.
However, Kaae teaches teach the target of claim 33, wherein the passivation region has gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less (The outer seal layer 20 is zirconium carbide having a specific stoichiometric ratio of Zr to C which is found to prevent lithium diffusion from the core and loss of lithium from the particle when subsequent coating layers are deposited (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Shioda to include the teachings of Kaae by placing the passivation region (outer seal layer 20) over the neutron generation region (lithium layer; para. [0001]) disclosed in Shioda, such that the passivation region has gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less, because under proper conditions including gas molecule size, temperature, and thickness of the passivation region (Kaae; outer seal 20), and moisture content, the passivation region disclosed in Kaae inherently possesses a gas permeability of 100 (cm3xmm)/(m2xdayxatm) or less. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized this inherency. The condition is motivated by the goal of the outer seal 20, disclosed in Kaae, to prevent the diffusion of lithium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mica Einhorn whose telephone number is (571) 272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached on (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