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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03/04/2026 have been entered. Claims 2-5 and 8-15 have been canceled herein. Claims 1, 6-7, and 16-17 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and clarifying remarks have overcome/obviated each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/09/2025, hereinafter NFOA1209.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection properly previously set forth in NFOA1209, and Applicant’s clarifying remarks have obviated the objection to the word ‘centred’, which is withdrawn herein. Applicant’s remarks have clarified that the wrong page and line citation was given in NFOA1209 for the objection to the specification regarding Figs. 13-14. See below for the correct page and line citation.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in NFOA1209.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in NFOA1209, however, while bona fide, Applicant’s amendments and remarks have not addressed/overcome all of the previously presented issues. See below for further discussion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended claim limitations not present at the time of NFOA1209..
Nevertheless, for clarity of the record, relevant arguments are addressed below.
Applicant argues that “Nishizaki is not described as being capable of meeting the usual standards for the transport and/or storage of radioactive materials”, apparently arguing that Nishizaki does not meet the limitation “a package for transporting and/or storing radioactive materials”, by making reference to ‘usual standards’, however, no such standards are claimed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), ‘for transporting and/or storing radioactive materials’ does not limit what distance the transport must occur, nor what kind of transport, nor how long the storage must occur, nor what kind of storage, it only requires that the package be suitable for transporting and/or storing radioactive materials. Accordingly, this argument is not convincing.
Nishizaki’s lack of explicit disclosure of a lid/cover is addressed in the office action.
Applicant’s argument regarding the placement of the structure holding items 7 is not convincing, because they are not centered, and Examiner’s interpretation has not been refuted by Applicant’s argument.
Applicant additionally argues that the structure of Nishizaki is not ‘removable’, however, under the BRI, this element is not required to be removeable. The assembly is required to include a removable handling structure, which is now required to be ‘adapted to be removably coupled on the first axial end of the lateral package body’. However, under the BRI this does not preclude elements that are fixedly connected to the container (which Applicant has not established in the prior art, as Applicant has pointed to no portion of the disclosure indicating this structure is fixedly connected), but can be removably coupled to the removeable handling structure, which Nishizaki clearly discloses (See Figs. 1, 8-9).
While Examiner agrees that Nishizaki fails to teach each and every limitation of the amended limitations of claim 1, Examiner notes that it is Examiner’s opinion that the disclosure of [0005], [0009], and Figs. 1 and 8-9 would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as reading on a bayonet coupling mechanism. A bayonet mechanism typically operates by inserting a cylindrical member (or annular, polygonal, etc.) having radial protrusions into another matching member having cutouts to allow the protrusions to pass in a certain distance, and the cylindrical members are rotated relative to one another such that the two cylindrical members are coupled together via the radial protrusions and cannot be pulled apart, at least not without additional rotation (typically in the reverse direction, although theoretically in either). This is exactly the embodiment disclosed by Nishizaki. After rotation into the coupled positioning, members 7 are unable to move in the longitudinal direction of the central axis due to items 23 and 25.
Nishizaki does not explicitly teach the bayonet mechanism including a circumferential stop, however, this limitation is disclosed by the prior art. See below.
Nevertheless, this is an amended limitation, and as such, the argument is moot.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed toward the benefits of bayonet coupling mechanisms, and in particular, bayonet coupling mechanisms as applied to the particular application of the instant application. As such, these arguments are moot.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
p. 15, lines 16-20, which are indicated as referring to Figs. 13-14, describe a different arrangement than that which is shown in Figs. 13 and 14. It appears that 34 and 42 are previously shown are being connected such that no relative movement is possible, and it does not appear 86 is in the Figs.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “…wherein the coupled configuration, each axial coupling member is in contact…”, which does not make sense upon plain reading; However, Examiner believes this is a mere typographical/clerical error, and that in context, the limitation is definite, and should read ‘…wherein in the coupled configuration, each axial coupling member is in contact…’;
Claim 1 recites “the handling structure” in the 6th clause, while each other iteration has been amended to ‘the removable handling structure’; Consistent terminology should be used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are “a device for locking the removable handling structure” in claim 17.
Examiner notes that ‘a device’ for [functional language] uses a generic placeholder without sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure in the specification for the limitation of claim 17 is found in [0032] and [0065]. Paragraph [0032] does not provide additional structural details, while paragraph [0065], understood best with the aid of Figs. 2-3 and 5-6, recites “The radial opening 56 thus finds itself released by the gripping device 42, but one or more of them can be equipped with a locking device (not shown) of the handling structure 30 in the coupled configuration. It can for example consist of a device mounted in this radial opening 56, and forming a circumferential stop for the axial coupling member 46.”. Accordingly, a device for locking is interpreted as any device forming a circumferential stop for the axial coupling member 46, as no specific structure is recited, and the radial opening is not required by the claims, so requiring the device for locking to be mounted in this opening would not make sense with the current claim scope.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 6-7, and 16-17 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 1 recites “…wherein the assembly is adapted for relative movement while keeping the support device and the first axial end of the lateral package body both in a same virtual relative movement plane arranged orthogonally to the central longitudinal axis of the package…”. It is unclear what is required of the assembly by these limitations. First, it is not clear what ‘relative movement’ requires, as relative movement would appear to need to be between two items, not one. Elements of the assembly could reasonably be understood as adapted for relative movement to one another as parts of the assembly, but it is not clear how the assembly itself is ‘adapted for relative movement’. Examiner believes, based on their understanding of Applicant’s disclosure that this may be intended to refer to movement of the whole of the assembly because of the subsequent limitations. In particular, the limitations “…while keeping the support device and the first axial end of the lateral package body both in a same virtual relative movement plane arranged orthogonally to the central longitudinal axis of the package…” are understood to require the support device and first axial end being kept in a common virtual relative movement plane (understood as a common virtual movement plane between the support device and the first axial end, with relative being understood as between the two), and that said virtual plane be orthogonal to the central longitudinal axis. These limitations are definite; however, it is not clear what is required of the assembly by the assembly being ‘adapted for relative movement while [such limitations]’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the assembly is adapted for collective movement while keeping the support device and the first axial end of the lateral package body both in a same virtual relative movement plane arranged orthogonally to the central longitudinal axis of the package…’.
Claim 6 recites “the gripping devices”, however, the claims previously require only ‘at least one gripping device’, which includes only a single gripping device, in which case ‘the gripping devices’ would lack antecedent basis. Furthermore, in the case of only a single gripping device, it is unclear what would be required by being ‘spaced apart’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the handling structure includes a plurality of gripping devices, and wherein the support device includes a ring along which the gripping devices are spaced apart’.
Claim 7 similarly recites “the gripping devices”, however, the claims previously require only ‘at least one gripping device’, which includes only a single gripping device, in which case ‘the gripping devices’ would lack antecedent basis. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the handling structure includes a plurality of gripping devices, and wherein the gripping devices each include a radial stop member cooperating with the first axial end of the lateral package body’.
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 1, 6-7, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizaki (JPO Doc. No. JPH10273199A), as modified, in view of Ecopol (FR Doc. No. FR2455203A1).
Examiner notes that Nishizaki is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 10/27/2023, and the Ecopol is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 04/02/2026.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishizaki teaches an assembly (See Figs. 1-4, 8-9, items 1, 10) comprising a package for transporting and/or storing radioactive materials (See Figs. 1-4, 8-9, item 1; [0002]-[0003]), the package including a lateral package body, a bottom (See Figs. 8-9, item 1; [0002]-[0003]) (See Figs. 8-9, item 1, cylindrical shape inherently has central longitudinal axis passing through its center), the lateral package body comprising a first axial end on a side toward the cover, as well as a second axial end opposite the first, on a side toward the package bottom (See Figs. 8-9, item 1, cylindrical shape inherently has first and second opposing axial ends; Examiner additionally notes that ‘on a side toward the cover’ does not require the first axial end to be at the furthest extremity of the lateral package body where the cover sits/would sit; Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this limitation requires that the lateral package body include a first axial end, understood to mean an arbitrary surface in a plane perpendicular to the lateral package body, and that this surface be on the cover side, i.e., closer to the cover side than the bottom side),
the assembly also comprising a removable handling structure (See Figs. 1-4, 8, item 10; [0005]; [0009]) adapted to be removably coupled on the first axial end of the lateral package body (See Figs. 1-4, 8-9; [0005]; [0009]), the removable handling structure comprising a support device (See Fig. 1, item 20, or alternatively See Fig. 8, items a and c), as well as at least two separate package handling members rigidly connected to the support device (See Fig. 1, item 13), the package handling members extending about the first axial end of the lateral package body in a coupled configuration of the removable handling structure with the package (See Fig. 1, item 13; [0005]; [0009]),
wherein the first axial end of the lateral package body includes one or more axial holding elements (See Fig. 9, items 7) extending radially outwards relative to the central longitudinal axis (See Fig. 9, items 7), each axial holding element including an axial stop surface oriented towards the second axial end of the lateral package body (See Figs. 1-4, 8-9, positioning of 7, which inherently has ‘axial stop surface’ under BRI, ‘oriented towards’ second axial end of body of 1; [0005]; [0009]),
wherein the removable handling structure includes at least one gripping device borne by the support device (See Fig. 1, items 21 and 23; [0005]; [0009]), each gripping device comprising an axial coupling member coupled to the first axial end of the lateral package body (See Fig. 1, items 25; [0005]; [0009]),
wherein [in] the coupled configuration, each axial coupling member is in contact or axially facing the axial stop surface of one of said one or more axial holding elements (See Figs. 1-4, items 7; [0005]; [0009])
wherein the assembly is adapted to switch from a non-coupled configuration of the removable handling structure to the coupled configuration by moving the support device of the [removable] handling structure relative to the first axial end of the lateral package body (See Figs. 1-4, 9; [0005]; [0009]),
wherein the assembly is adapted for relative movement while keeping the support device and the first axial end of the lateral package body both in a same virtual relative movement plane arranged orthogonally to the central longitudinal axis of the package (See Figs. 1-4, 9; [0005]; [0009]),
wherein the assembly is adapted for relative movement by rotating the support device relative to the first axial end of the lateral package body along an axis of relative rotation corresponding to the central longitudinal axis of the package (See Figs. 1-4, 9; [0005]; [0009]),
wherein each of the axial coupling members forms a bayonet coupling mechanism with the associated axial holding element thereof provided on the first axial end of the lateral package body (See Figs. 1-4, 9; [0005]; [0009]), and
Nishizaki does not explicitly teach the package having a removable cover through which a central longitudinal axis would pass.
However, the latter limitation would be inherent were the ‘bowl’ of Nishizaki to have such a cover, and the use of removable covers on radioactive material containers is well represented in the prior art in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised thereof.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishizaki to explicitly include the container having a removable cover.
Doing so represents standard practice in the art, and would allow one to ensure safety from the radioactive materials when not in active manipulation.
Nishizaki does not teach wherein the bayonet coupling mechanism includes a circumferential stop.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of conventional bayonet coupling mechanism technology, which often have such stop surfaces/members/etc.
Nevertheless, Ecopol teaches wherein the bayonet coupling mechanism includes a circumferential stop (See Figs. 1-2, items 3 and 5-8, with item 7 in particular having the stop as a part of a bayonet mechanism).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishizaki to include wherein the bayonet coupling mechanism includes a circumferential stop, as taught by Ecopol.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results. Bayonet coupling mechanisms are generally known, and are disclosed by both Nishizaki and Ecopol. Ecopol discloses the use of a circumferential stop in order to trap the inserted protrusion, which improves stability/fixedness and would be reasonably applicable to Nishizaki in order to achieve similar predictable improvements in the stability/fixedness.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishizaki, as modified, in view of Ecopol teaches the assembly according to claim 1.
Nishizaki further teaches wherein the support device includes a ring along which the gripping devices are spaced apart (See Fig. 1, items 20, 21, and 23; [0005]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishizaki, as modified, in view of Ecopol teaches the assembly according to claim 1.
Nishizaki further teaches wherein the gripping devices also each include a radial stop member cooperating with the first axial end of the lateral package body (See Figs. 1-4, 9, items 7; [0005]; [0009]).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishizaki, as modified, in view of Ecopol teaches the assembly according to claim 1.
Nishizaki further wherein the package handling members are provided in a number of two to four, and wherein the package handling members each take the form of a trunnion, a fork, or a lug (See Figs. 1 and 8, items 13; [0005]; [0009]; Examiner notes two are shown, each in the form of a trunnion).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, and including the 112(f) claim interpretation discussed above, Nishizaki, as modified, in view of Ecopol teaches the assembly according to claim 1.
Nishizaki further teaches further comprising a device for locking the removable handling structure, in the coupled configuration with the first axial end of the lateral package body (See Figs. 1-4, item 60; [0005]-[0006]; [0009]).
Examiner additionally notes for completeness that the prior art of record Junichi (JPS60188899A) and Chiocca (FR2902571A1), each provided by Applicant via the IDS dated 10/27/2023, and Ecopol (FR2455203A1), provided by Applicant via the IDS dated 04/02/2026, are each sufficient to teach many of the limitations of claim 1 and its dependents, either alone or in combination with one another and/or Nishizaki. Nevertheless, it is Examiner’s opinion that Nishizaki is the closest prior art for the presently understood scope of the claims.
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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights