DETAILED ACTION Elections Claim 1-27 are pending. Applicant’s election s of Invention I (claims 1-17 and 19-25) and species ( A11, B1, C1, D1, E1, and F2 ) without traverse in the Reply filed 17 February 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention /species encompasses claims 1-2, 4-17, 19-20, and 22-25 . Claims 3, 18, 21, and 26-27 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s).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. Claim s 1-2, 4-17, 19-20, and 22-25 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 regards as the invention. Claim 1 It is unclear what constitutes a “low melting point” and a “low melting point material”. The term “low” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. A “low melting point” 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. At best, the published application at [0033] indicates that low melting point materials include elements that have a melting point around or below 250°C. However, what constitutes a temperature “around” 250°C is unknown and unclear. For example, it is unclear whether 275°C is around 250°C. The phrase “target for low melting point materials” is unclear. For example, the phrase appears to indicate that a target is to be hit by low melting point materials. The phrase “channels being adapted to cool the target support plate” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how channel structure alone can impart cooling. It is unclear whether the channel structure or whether a fluid cools the support plate. The phrase “the formed low melting point material” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 6 The phrase “ can be of equal or varied lengths” is unclear. For example, it is unclear what length relationship is being positively recited. A lso , since “equal or varied lengths” are not required, it is unclear how the phrase further limits the claim 1 structure . Claim 7 It is unclear what constitutes “ about 0.5 mm”, “about 6.0 mm”, “about 1.0 mm”, and “about 5.0 mm”. For example, it is unclear whether 0.7 mm is “about 0.5 mm”. An “about” distance 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 8 It is unclear what constitutes a “ thin wall”. A “thin wall” 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 9 It is unclear what constitutes “about 0.1 mm” and “about 0.3 mm”. For example, it is unclear whether 0.2 mm is “about 0.1 mm” or is “about 0.3 mm”. The phrase “an incident irradiation beam penetrates said thin wall” is unclear. The phrase is directed to an intended result 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 to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result. Claim 10 It is unclear what constitutes “about 5°” and “about 15°”. The phrase “the target support plate is held at an irradiation angle in a range of about 5° to about 15° with respect to an incident irradiation beam” is unclear. A feature of an “irradiation beam” is not positively recited. It is unclear how support plate structure can be based (i.e., “with respect to”) on a non-recited feature (i.e., “irradiation beam”) . The phrase is directed to an intended result 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 to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result. Claim 11 It is unclear what constitutes “about 120 mm”, “about 200 mm”, “about 40 mm”, “about 70 mm”, “about 2 mm” and “about 10 mm”. Claim 13 It is unclear whether “filled” means that each slot ’s total volume is 100% percent f ull of the material. Claim 15 It is unclear what constitutes “about 0.5 mm” and “about 2 mm”. Claim 17 It is unclear what constitutes “about 0.01 mm”. Claim 19 For reasons already discussed, it is unclear what constitutes a “ low melting point” and a “ low melting point material”. The phrase “process for the production of a target for low melting point materials” is unclear. For example, the phrase appears to indicate that a target is to be hit by low melting point materials. It is further unclear whether the claim is directed to a process for the production of a target, or to a process for the production of a radioisotope . The step ( i ) phrase “cooling channels formed on the back face” is unclear. The claim does not recite a prior step of “forming cooling channels on the back face”. The step ( i ) phrase “channels being adapted to cool the target support plate” is unclear. For reasons already discussed, it is unclear how channel structure can impart cooling. It is unclear whether the channels or a fluid cools the support plate. The step (v) phrase “the low melting point target material formed in the target support plate” lacks proper antecedent basis. The step (vii) phrase “precursor material formed by the irradiation” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the radioisotope/radionuclide or the precursor material is formed by irradiation of the material. Claim 23 It is unclear what constitutes “ about 1.0 to 10 Megaelectron-volts”. Claim 24 It is unclear what constitutes “ about 6 to 15 degrees”. Claim 21 (withdrawn) Upon cursory review, it may be unclear whether the “molten low melting point target material” is the same as the “target material in a liquid state”. It may also be unclear whether “the proton beam to be used for the irradiation” differs from the “ proton beam ” used in claim 19 at step (iv). 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 Interpretation Claim 1 contains intended use wording. The few positively recited structural features of broad claim 1 are interpreted to be: An apparatus comprising: a plate having a front face and a back face, wherein slots are on the front face, wherein channels are on the back face; the channels configured to allow fluid to flow therein. 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 , 4-6, 8, 10, and 12 , as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C . 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lapham (US 357,211). An extensive search was made for the complex structure positively recited in claim 1. Lapham teaches an apparatus comprising a (two-side d ) 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 to flow therein. Lapham has anticipated at least claim 1 since 1887. Applicant’s request for the Examiner to allow claim 1 is denied. 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. Claim s 1-2, 6 -12, and 15 , as best understood, 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 (cited via IDS) discloses a radioisotope production target (410, 11; 710, 11). Particularly note paragraphs [0066, 0068, 0074] . T he target is irradiated to produce radioisotopes for materials (e.g. Tin) with a melting point below 250 °C . The target compris es a support plate (e.g., 410) having a front face (e.g., 412) and a back face (e.g., 414). T he front face ha s slots ( e.g., 419 ; Figure 5 ) therein to contain target material (11) . 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) t o cool the target support plate during irradiation . Modification of Guerin to have included cooling channels to enhance cooling control , 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 6 Guerin discloses slots (419) of equal or varied lengths (e.g., Figure 5). Claim 8 Guerin discloses a wall in the target support plate which separates a slot from an adjacent slot (e.g., Figure 5). Claim 9 Guerin discloses that an incident irradiation beam penetrates a wall, thereby inducing a nuclear reaction in the material. Claims 7, 9, 11, and 15 Where the only difference between the prior art and claims i s 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, o ne 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. T he 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 reduc tion of thermal impact of the beam. Further m odification 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 s 4-5 , 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 Eggers (US 5,392,319). Claim 4 Eggers (cited via IDS) 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 13-14 and 16-17, 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 Zhuikov (cited via IDS) 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 R b -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. Claims 16-17 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. Objection to the Abstract The Abstract is objected to because it includes unclear long rambling sentence s . It is unclear where one feature ends and another feature begins. It is suggested that the se sentence s be broken into several shorter clear sentences. The Abstract is also objected to because it includes unclear word ing as noted in the above 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). Objection to the Title The Title is objected to because it is too generic for the elected invention , and it is directed to prior art . The following Title is suggested: “ Process F or P roducing A R adioisotope B y U sing A T arget S upport P late H aving A F irst S ide W ith S tepped S lots C ontain ing T arget M aterial A nd A S econd S ide W ith C ooling C hannels ”. Additional Comment Despite their indefiniteness (as noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections), claims 19-20, and 22-25 (as best understood) have not been rejected based on prior art. Nevertheless, it should be understood that clarification of the application (via claim amendment) may necessitate a future prior art rejection thereof. 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). 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