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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Amended claim 1 – Okano in view of Costello
Claim 1 is amended to add “wherein the housing and the body of radiation shielding material define boundaries of an irradiation aperture” (previously presented in claim 6), “an expansion volume circumferentially surrounding the radiation aperture” (previously presented in claim 7) and “the air gaps including an expansion volume”.
Applicant argues that Costello does not disclose an air gap or annular void surrounding its projection aperture. This is not persuasive since it addresses Costello individually rather than the combined teaching of Okano and Costello. Okano teaches the empty-space region (marked as “air gap” in annotated Fig. 1) between shielding member 101 and exterior container 10, while Costello teaches an irradiation aperture through shielding material and the housing. Thus, the rejection does not propose placing an “air space shown by Costello” into Okano; rather, it proposes forming Costello’s irradiation aperture through a portion of Okano’s shielding member that is already circumferentially bordered by Okano’s empty-space region.
Applicant further argues that there is no reason to position the aperture through the lower shielding region of Okano and that the only position consistent with Okano would be near the upper eluant-feed structure. This argument is not persuasive. Okano’s feed means 8 and discharge means 9 are fluid conduits used to transport eluant to and from alumina column 1; they do not establish or limit a direction in which radiation must be emitted. Indeed, Okano’s upper region is occupied by the feed and discharge structures, whereas the lower shielding region provides an available exterior-facing shielding region through which a directional aperture may be formed without interfering with those fluid conduits. Okano expressly shows shielding member 101 accommodated within exterior container 10 and the lower empty space region surrounding the lower portion of shielding member 101. Costello expressly teaches arranging shielding so that a radioactive source is substantially unshielded in a selected direction of projection while remaining effectively shielded in other directions. Costello further teaches conical projection aperture A formed in lead shielding 33 and a shielding plug 47 that closes the aperture when the projector is not in use. Thus, Costello provides both a reason to form a directional aperture irradiation aperture and a means for retaining shielding when directional emission is not desired.
Applicant’s reliance on In re Gordan and In re Ratti is also not persuasive. The proposed modification would not prevent Okano from feeding eluant to alumina column 1 or discharging the resulting radioactive solution. Nor would it reverse or fundamentally change the operating of Okano’s generator. The modified apparatus would continue to contain alumina column 1 within shielding member 101 and perform the same radioactive solution producing operation, while additionally permitting radiation to be projected in a selected direction through the Costello-type aperture. Costello’s shielding plug also allows the aperture to be closed when not in use, thereby preserving the shielding function. Therefore, the proposed modification neither render Okano unsatisfactory for its intended purpose nor changes its basic principle of operation.
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 1, 3-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5831271A [hereinafter Okano] in view of US 2997592A [hereinafter Costello].
Regarding Claim 1:
Okano teaches a radiation source holder (Fig.1 – container 10 holding radiative substance) comprising:
a housing (Fig .1– the outer wall 10b and inner wall of container 10);
a body of radiation shielding material (Fig.1– radioactive substance-shielding member 101, at least including the container part 5 of the shielding bodies of radiation shielding material) substantially filling an inner cavity of the housing (11:57-63: the shielding member 101, after formed by injecting lead into a mold, accommodated in the container 10),
PNG
media_image1.png
765
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the housing and the body of radiation shielding material define boundaries of one or more air gaps (see annotated fig. 1-1 above: “air gaps” correspond to the empty spaces between the shielding member 101 and the container 10) that permit the body of radiation shielding material to expand within the inner cavity of the housing (the empty spaces provide extra rooms that allow the shielding member 101 to expand within the inner space of the container 10);
the air gaps including an expansion volume circumferentially surrounds the shielding material (Fig.1 shows the inner wall of container 10 and the shielding member 101 defines boundaries of the empty spaces to where the shielding member could expand (“expansion volume”), and the empty space between the inner wall of the container 10 and the shielding member 101 fully surround the shielding member 101); and
a radiation source capsule (Fig. 1 – alumina column 1) loaded within the body of radiation shielding material, the radiation source capsule capable of transmitting radiation from a radioactive source (Fig.1 and 5:61-65: the alumina column 1 is supported and accommodated in the second recessed part 7, which is formed of a cylindrical tungsten shielding body 5, and radioactive solution (e.g., molybdenum-99) is retained in the alumina column 1).
However, Okano does not expressly teach that wherein the housing and the body of radiation shielding material define boundaries of an irradiation aperture through which radiation may pass to an exterior of the housing, and further defining, and the air gaps including an expansion volume circumferentially surrounding the irradiation aperture.
Costello teaches wherein the housing and the body of radiation shielding material define boundaries of an irradiation aperture (Figs. 2 and 6; 4:33-35 and 41-44: a “conical projection aperture A formed in the lead shielding 33,” and the conical projection aperture A can project a narrower cone of gamma ray; the boundaries of conical projecting aperture A are defined by the lead shielding 33 and closure 46 which is part of the casing 12 (see annotated fig. 2 below)).
PNG
media_image2.png
657
1035
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, Okano in view of Costello teaches the air gaps including an expansion volume circumferentially surrounding the irradiation aperture. Then modified apparatus provides Costello’s irradiation aperture through the lower shieling region of Okano and thus would place the aperture within the region circumferentially surrounded by Okano’s existing lower empty space.
Okano teaches a shielded radioactive-substance holder that is compact and light-weight while maintaining shielding ability (see Okano Abstract). Costello teaches forming a projection aperture through lead shielding so radiation can be projected in a selected direction while remaining shielded in other directions. Costello also teaches that because radioactive isotopes emit gamma rays continuously, shielding should be arranged so the source is substantially unshielded in the desired direction of projection and effectively shielded in all other directions, thereby making maximum use of the shielding material while keeping the device compact (see Costello 1: 53-70 and 2:1-8).Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the shielded holder of Okano to include the projection aperture of Costello so that in the modified shielded holder radiation from the radioactive substance could be emitted in a selected direction when desired, while the surrounding shielding structure continues to shield in other directions. One of ordinary skilled person would be motivated to make such a modification in order to make more effective use of the shielding material by allowing radiation to be projected in a selected direction while maintaining shielding in other directions, consistent with both references’ interest in compact, efficient radiation shielding structures.
PNG
media_image3.png
850
1096
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3:
Okano in view of Costello teach the radiation source holder of claim 1. Okano further teaches wherein the body of shielding material has a dome-shaped end that defines a first boundary of the inner expansion volume (see annotated fig. 1-2 above), and wherein the housing is a chamfered interior defining one or more other boundaries of the inner expansion volume (see annotated fig. 1-2 above).
Regarding Claim 4:
The term “bottom plate” is reasonably interpreted to include a bottom wall or bottom housing portion, and is not limited to a separate removable member. The specification of the instant application states that “the radiation source holder 30 comprises the cylindrical support wall 32 and a bottom plate (e.g., comprising the outer bottom plate 34 and the inner bottom plate 44)” (see para. [0025]), and further explains that “the support wall 32 and the bottom plate combine to form the housing of the radiation source holder 30” (see para. [0027]). As shown in Fig. 3, at least the outer bottom plate 34 and the cylindrical support wall 32 meet at the lower corner as a continuous integral housing structure, rather than as clearly separate components. Thus, “bottom plate” reasonably encompasses an integral bottom wall or lower housing portion. Likewise, “side plate” is reasonably interpreted to include the side wall/support wall of the housing because the specification uses the same numeral 32 for both the “cylindrical support wall 32” and the “side plate 32” defining the boundary of the inner expansion volume.
Okano in view of Costello teach the radiation source holder of claim 1. Okano further teaches wherein the body of shielding material has a dome-shaped end that defines a first boundary of the inner expansion volume (see annotated fig. 1-3 below), wherein a bottom plate of the housing defines a second boundary of the inner expansion volume (see annotated fig. 1-3 below), and wherein a side plate of the housing defines a third boundary of the inner expansion volume (see annotated fig. 1-3 below).
Thus, under the interpretation above, the bottom wall and the side wall of the housing in the Okano correspond to the claimed bottom plate and side plate.
PNG
media_image4.png
788
905
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9:
Okano in view of Costello teaches the radiation source holder of claim 1. The combined references further teach wherein the body of shielding material has a funnel-shaped middle section that defines a boundary of the irradiation aperture (Figs. 2 and 6; 4:33-35 and 41-44: a “conical projection aperture A formed in the lead shielding 33,” and the conical projection aperture A can project a narrower cone of gamma ray).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okano in view of Costello, further in view of US 20190196243 A1 [hereinafter Shioaku].
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 does not require the irradiation aperture itself to be spherical along its full length. Rather, consist with the specification and figures of the instant application, the claim requires that the body of shielding material include a sphere-shaped middle section, and that this rounded section define at least part of a boundary of the irradiation aperture (see Figs. 3 and 5; para. [0031] of the instant application). Thus, “sphere-shaped” in claim 8 is reasonably interpreted to requiring contour of the shielding material at the aperture-defining middle section to be spherical/round shaped, not the full longitudinal shape of the aperture passage itself.
Okano in view of Costello teaches the radiation source holder of claim 1. However, the combined references do specifically note wherein the body of shielding material has a sphere-shaped middle section that defines a boundary of the irradiation aperture.
Shioaku teaches wherein the body of shielding material has a sphere-shaped middle section that defines a boundary of the irradiation aperture (Fig.1; para. [0043]: “the inner light-shielding portion 13 are made from a light-shielding material… the inner light-shielding portion 13 is annular and surrounds the opening 11H”).
Costello teaches the basic irradiation-aperture structure through shielding, while Shioaku teaches a rounded shielding-material section that defines the boundary of an opening. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify the conical projection aperture of Costello to use another suitable aperture-boundary geometry, including a more rounded or sphere-like section, in order to tailor the radiation beam profile for a desired application, as such aperture geometry was a recognized design variable rather than being fixed to a cone.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights