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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (rectangular target carrier), Species b. (silver), and Species i (zinc) and claims 1-13, 15, and 16 in the reply filed on 3/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "The loader arm" in claim one is only referred to previously as 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.
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 3-8, 12 and 13 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 3 recites the limitation "a plurality of target carriers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear whether this plurality of targets is different from the “at least one target” introduced in claim 1. Claim indicates there can be 1 or more targets in the group of targets, while the group of targets introduced in claim 3 must have 2 or more. It should be clarified in the claim language whether this is the same group of targets or a different group of targets.
The term “thin” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” 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. The "wall selectively expandable by coolant" of the target plug has been rendered indefinite by the use of the word "thin".
The term “front” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “front” 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. "The target material being disposed on the curved front face" has been rendered indefinite because it is unclear which side of the rectangular block body is considered the front.
Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected under 112b due to the claim’s dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bars (US 20210329772 A1) in view of Hirschfield et al. (US 3287592 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bars discloses (Fig. 4, 7B, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 24) a solid target irradiator system for producing radioisotopes, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
558
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a base (see frame in image below);
PNG
media_image2.png
761
984
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a target carrier feeding assembly (see fig. 24 above magazine subsystem in black boxes 300, 303, 302, and 315) coupled to the base ([0004] and [0078]), the target carrier feeding assembly having a target magazine (shelves and cartridges circled in grey in fig. 24 above) configured to hold at least one target carrier (cartridge 100 and pointed to by dashed black arrows) therein and feed (servo motor 315) the at least one target carrier (cartridge 100) for dissolution processing ([0053] and [0078]), each at least one target carrier (cartridge 100) having target material thereon (see solid black arrow on fig. 24 above) for subsequent irradiation;
a target loader assembly (servo motor 316 and positioning tray 202 see fig. 24 above) coupled to the base and spaced from the target carrier feeding assembly ([0005] and [0078]), the target loader assembly (servo motor 316 and positioning tray 202 see fig. 24 above) having a reciprocating loader arm (positioning tray 202) for selectively engaging and holding the at least one target carrier (cartridge 100) being fed by the target magazine (magazine subsystem 300), the loader arm (positioning tray 202) configured to move a held target carrier (cartridge 100) through the irradiator system to facilitate irradiation of the target material and dissolution of an irradiated target material (fig. 9 and 7B), the loader arm (positioning tray 202) having a cooling means (fig. 9 and 7B cooling channels 112a and 112b`) for internal cooling of the target material being irradiated;
and a target exit port adapted to be coupled to a cyclotron chamber in vacuum (Fig. 11 item 25),
and a dissolution assembly ([0071] foil, guide clamp, actuator, and guide clamp gasket Fig. 14 items 214 and 206) coupled to the base between the target carrier feeding assembly and the airlock assembly, the dissolution assembly ([0071] foil, guide clamp, actuator, and guide clamp gasket Fig. 14 items 214 and 206) having a selectively moveable dissolution housing (cartridge housing 102 Fig. 3) for engaging an irradiated target carrier with irradiated target material thereon, the dissolution housing having a cavity (chamber [0104], [0053], and [0006] and apertures 108 Fig. 4) in selective communication with the irradiated target carrier, the cavity configured to be filled with dissolution solvent to dissolute the irradiated target material and collect radionuclides for subsequent separation and production of radioisotopes (chamber pp. [0104], [0053], and [0006] and apertures 108 Fig. 4).
Bars does not disclose an airlock assembly coupled to the base and spaced from the target carrier feeding assembly, the airlock assembly having a gate valve, an airlock chamber within the gate valve for receiving the held target carrier therein, the airlock assembly configured to selectively establish a vacuum seal prior to introducing the held target carrier to the cyclotron chamber for irradiation; but Hirschfield teaches these.
Hirschfield is in the same solid target irradiation device art area and teaches an airlock assembly coupled to the base and spaced from the target carrier feeding assembly (fig. 1 a base 25, airlock assembly gasket 38, seal 34, and iridium seal 30, target 27), the airlock assembly having a gate valve (Fig. 1 seal 30), an airlock chamber within the gate valve (see fig. 1 space in target frame 25 for holding target members) for receiving the held target carrier therein, the airlock assembly configured to selectively establish a vacuum seal prior to introducing the held target carrier to the cyclotron chamber for irradiation (col 3 lines 25-47);
The combination of Hirschfield’s airlock assembly with Bars’ apparatus would have produced a solid target irradiation device with an airlock assembly and each element of the invention merely performs the same function as it did separately. The claim would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions. The motivation for modifying Bar’s apparatus to include Hirschfield’s airlock assembly would have been to provide a plurality of discrete target members positioned in an intercepting relationship with the accelerator beam without disturbance to the vacuum system thereof resulting in greater utility and economy of time and money (Col 2 lines 22 - 27 and col 1 lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 13, Bars in view of Hirschfield teaches all of the elements of the parent claim. Bars further discloses wherein the target carrier comprises: a substantially rectangular block body (Fig. 3 cartridge 100) having a curved front face (chamber 104 and [0066]), the target material being disposed on the curved front face ([0053] chamber 104); and a socket (see fig. 5 112a` and 112b` and Fig. 9) formed on a rear end of the substantially rectangular block body, the socket (see fig. 5 112a` and 112b` and Fig. 9) adapted to selectively engage and receive a distal end of the loader arm.
Regarding claim 15, Bars in view of Hirschfield teaches all of the elements of the parent claim. Bars further discloses wherein the target carrier comprises a target body, and a material of the target body is silver ([0055]).
Regarding claim 16, Bars in view of Hirschfield teaches all of the elements of the parent claim. Bars further discloses wherein the target material is zinc ([0053]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bars (US 20210329772 A1) in view of Hirschfield (US 3287592 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bricault (US 2005/0069076 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bars in view of Hirschfield teaches all the elements of the parent claim. However, Bars in view of Hirschfield do not teach the airlock assembly as recited.
Bricault does. Bricault is in the same solid target irradiation device art area and teaches wherein the airlock assembly comprises an atmosphere control port in communication with the airlock chamber (fig. 3 item 10) and adapted to be coupled to an air pump (see air pumps in figure 3), the atmosphere control port facilitating selective vacuum within the airlock chamber (fig. 3 item 10) prior to introducing the held target carrier to the cyclotron chamber for irradiation and establishing ambient atmosphere within the airlock chamber after irradiation and retraction of the held target carrier back into the airlock chamber ([0106] and [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hirschfield’s airlock assembly and Bar’s apparatus with Bricault’s atmosphere control port and vacuum pumps to create an apparatus with an airlock assembly having a vacuum pump attachment, since each element was known in the art and each merely performs the same function they did individually. The motivation to combine would have been that a set of vacuum pumps makes it possible to reach in stages the high level of vacuum required in the accelerator and thus irradiation can be performed on-line in the irradiation chamber ([0106] and [0074]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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 and to fix the 112b issues as noted in the 112b rejection section above.+
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY MARIE COOPERRIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-0532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/K.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights