DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 30 July 2026. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-27 are pending. Claims 3, 18, 21, and 26-27 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-17, 19-20, and 22-25 are further considered herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 contains intended use wording. The few positively recited structural features of claim 1 are interpreted to be:
An apparatus comprising:
a plate having a front face and a back face,
wherein stepped slots are on the front face,
wherein channels are on the back face;
the channels configured to allow fluid to flow therein.
The phrase "stepped slots" is interpreted as slots being (or extending) at different vertical levels.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lapham (US 357,211).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 1 April 2026 are herein incorporated by reference.
Lapham teaches an apparatus comprising a (two-sided) plate having a front face and back face. Slots (e.g., B, I) are on the front face. Channels (e.g., B, I) are on the back face. The channels allow fluid (e.g., air, liquid) to flow therein. The wash board can be used when angled, which arranges the slots in a stepped configuration.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12, 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gelbart (“Solid Target System with In-Situ Target Dissolution”).
Gelbart (cited via IDS) teaches a target support plate. The front face has slots (grooves). The back face has cooling channels. Particularly note Figures 2 and 10a. The target can be inclined at 14 degrees to the beam direction to distribute heat, which results in the slots being stepped slots. Collecting an irradiated target material from a target holder, and then separating the desired radioisotope from the collected irradiated target, are necessary conventional steps in the art. Gelbart employs a cyclotron with standard proton beam energy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 7-12, 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin (CA 3,171,820 A1) in combination with Johnson (US 2017/0231080).
Claim 1
Guerin discloses a radioisotope production target (410, 11; 710, 11). Particularly note paragraphs [0066, 0068, 0074]. The target is irradiated to produce radioisotopes. The target comprises a support plate (e.g., 410) having a front face (e.g., 412) and a back face (e.g., 414). The front face has slots (e.g., 419; Figure 5) therein to contain target material (11). Geurin’s target can be used when angled, which causes the slots to be arranged in a stepped configuration.
Johnson (cited via IDS) shows that it is well known in the art to employ a plurality of cooling channels (8) on the back face of a target support plate (4) to cool the target support plate during irradiation. Modification of Guerin to have included cooling channels to enhance cooling, as suggested by Johnson, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2
Guerin’s target support plate is constructed of a material comprising copper, silver, or aluminum [0018].
Claim 8
Guerin discloses a wall in the target support plate which separates a slot from an adjacent slot (e.g., Figure 5).
Claims 7, 9, and 11
Where the only difference between the prior art and claims is a recitation of relative dimensions, but the device 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).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a radioisotope producing arrangement can be implemented with various dimensions, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use in light of the specific radionuclide producing arrangement design. The skilled artisan would understand that Guerin can be modified to have other dimensions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Guerin to have implemented the radionuclide producing arrangement with different dimensions for each of: slot width and depth; wall width; plate length, width, and thickness; and target material thickness, to meet a particular radionuclide producing arrangement design.
Claims 10 and 12
Johnson shows that it is well known in the art to hold a target support plate at an irradiation angle in a range of about 5° to about 15° with respect to an incident irradiation beam (e.g., Table 1). Johnson also shows (e.g., Figure 3) that it is well known in the art to have cooling channels arranged in a longitudinal direction or in a perpendicular direction on the back face of a target support plate. The arrangements allow for reduction of thermal impact of the beam. Further modification of Guerin to have included these features in order to reduce thermal impact of the beam, as suggested by Johnson, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 19
Guerin further discloses using a proton beam to induce a nuclear reaction in the target material to produce a radioisotope or a radionuclide. Collecting an irradiated target material from a target holder, then separating the desired radioisotope (or radionuclide) from the collected irradiated target, is conventional in the art (and necessary). Thus, further modification of Guerin to have included these well known collecting and separating steps to obtain the desired radioisotope would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 20
Guerin discloses loading a solid state target material into the plurality of slots.
Claim 23
The skilled artisan would understand that it is conventional in the art to employ a cyclotron to generate a proton beam with energy in a range of 1.0 to 10 MeV to produce a radioisotope. Thus, further modification of Guerin to have employed a conventional cyclotron would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 24
Geurin’s target can be used at many angles. Thus, modification of Guerin to have used an angle within the range of 6-15 degrees, to have met a particularly desired radiation angle, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin in combination with Johnson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eggers (US 5,392,319).
Claim 4
Eggers shows that it is well known in the art to have slots (186, 190; Figure 8) arranged in a horizontal position with respect to an incident irradiation beam for initiating a nuclear reaction of a material. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that Guerin’s target support plate can be implemented with various indentation geometries for holding the target material, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics (e.g., costs, available space, etc.) obviously more favorable to use of certain geometries in light of the specific target design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Guerin to have implemented the use of slots arranged in a horizontal position, to meet a particular target design.
Claim 5
Eggers shows that it is well known in the art to have slots (186, 190; Figure 8) arranged to align each slot top surface with a next consecutive slot's bottom surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that Guerin’s target support plate can be implemented with various indentation geometries for holding the target material, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics (e.g., costs, available space, etc.) obviously more favorable to use of a certain geometries in light of the specific target design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Guerin to have implemented slots arranged to align each slot top surface with a next consecutive slot's bottom surface, to meet a particular target design.
Claims 13-17, 22, and 25, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin in combination with Johnson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhuikov ("Target irradiation facility and targetry development at 160 MeV proton beam of Moscow linac" 1999).
Claims 13-14 and 22
Zhuikov shows that it is well known in the art to have a target holder with slots to accommodate shells filled with water-soluble metals, including the elements Gallium and Rubidium. Ga-69 and Rb-85 are the main isotopes of these elements. Particularly note Zhuikov at page 174, last paragraph. Modification of Guerin to have included a target material filled within each of the slots, and where the target material is selected from Gallium-69 and Rubidium- 85, and where the target material is in a solid state or in a liquid state, in order to provide desired irradiated target results, as suggested by Zhuikov, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15
Where the only difference between the prior art and claims is a recitation of relative dimensions, but the device 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).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a radioisotope producing arrangement can be implemented with various dimensions, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use in light of the specific radionuclide producing arrangement design. The skilled artisan would understand that Guerin can be modified to have other dimensions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Guerin to have implemented the radionuclide producing arrangement with different dimensions for target material thickness to meet a particular radionuclide producing arrangement design.
Claims 16-17 and 25
Zhuikov shows that it is well known in the art to have a target support plate electroplated with a barrier material layer selected from the group consisting of Gold (Au), Platinum (Pt), Iridium (Ir), Osmium (Os), Rhodium (Rh), or Nickel (Ni). Particularly note Zhuikov at page 174, last paragraph. Modification of Guerin to have included providing the target support plate with a protective barrier material layer to enhance protection thereof, as suggested by Zhuikov, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. For reasons previously discussed, employing a specific barrier material thickness would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification (along with claims 13 and 22) implies that the target material is Gallium-69, and the radioisotope produced therefrom is Germanium-68. That is, the reaction is 69Ga(p,2n)68Ge occurs. However, it appears that an energy of approximately 11.5 MeV is required for this reaction to occur. That is, protons with a lower energy are unable to eject two neutrons from the Gallium nucleus. Thus, as the disclosure is best understood, claim 23 is nonenabling because of the recited 1 to 10 MeV energy.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because it still contains unclear wording (e.g., “low melting point materials”) as noted in the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 16) that: (1) “There is nothing in Lapham to suggest a target support plate having a front face having formed therein a plurality of slots to contain a target material having a melting point at or below 250 °C”; (2) “there is nothing in Lapham to teach or suggest a plurality of slots arranged in a stepped configuration on a target support plate”; and (3) “Lapham discloses a wash board”.
The examiner asserts that Lapham’s wash board can be used at an angle. The Figure below shows Lapham’s wash board in a tilted position. As can be seen, the front (upper) face has a plurality of slots which can contain a material. Claim 1 does not positively recite a target material having a melting point at or below 250 °C. Rather, claim 1 merely indicates that the slots are configured “to contain a target material”. Regardless, wash material (e.g., soap) would have a melting point at or below 250 °C. Furthermore, as shown in the Figure, the slots are arranged in a stepped configuration. The channels are configured to allow fluid (e.g., air) to flow therein. Note In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues (Remarks pages 17-18) that: (1) “Geurin does not explicitly teach . . . slots being arranged in a stepped configuration"; and (2) “Johnson (US 2017/0231080) does not appear to remedy the deficiencies of Guerin”.
The examiner asserts that Geurin’s target can be used at an angle. The Figure below shows a portion of Geurin’s Figure 5 set in a tilted position. As shown in the Figure, the slots (419) are arranged in a stepped configuration.
PNG
media_image2.png
288
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additional Comment
Amended claim 19 removed the previously allowable combination of features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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 will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
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).
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
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
