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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 05/14/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
2. Claims 1-25 are pending with claims 10-25 withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are examined herein.
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.
3. Claims 1-9 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.
4. Regarding claims 1 and 2, claim 1 recites “an electronic neutron generator to generate a thermal neutron flux” and “an irradiation target insert to generate gamma radiation in response to the thermal neutron flux.” Claim 2 further recites “an end neutron moderator comprising a neutron moderating material to moderate the exposure of the thermal neutron flux.” A moderator—in the nuclear art—is “a material, such as ordinary water, heavy water, or graphite, that is used in a reactor to slow down high-velocity neutrons, thus increasing the likelihood of fission.”1 The electronic neutron generator of claim 1 produces fast neutrons; the examiner is unaware of any neutron generators that by themselves produce thermal neutrons.2 It is a moderating material that transforms the fast neutron output of a neutron generator into a thermal neutron flux by reducing the energy of the fast neutrons. It is, therefore, the combination of the electronic neutron generator and the end neutron moderator that produces the claimed “thermal neutron flux.” Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite because it is unclear what structure is encompassed by “an electronic neutron generator to generate a thermal neutron flux.” And claim 3 is rejected because the recitation “to moderate the exposure of the irradiation target material to the thermal neutron flux” is unclear because the term “moderate” is used contrary to its ordinary meaning. That is, one cannot “moderate” a thermal neutron flux because a thermal neutron flux has already been moderated.
The examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite:
“an electronic neutron generator coupled with an end neutron moderator to generate a thermal neutron flux from an emission end of the electronic neutron generator”
5. Claim 6 is rejected as indefinite because the recitation is purely functional and places no meaningful metes and bounds on the structure claimed. What structure in particular results in the desired result of “deliver[ing] an optimized gamma dose rate and intensity?” What is meant by optimized? Would any irradiation target material produce this result or does one need a specific material with a specific size or structural relationship to the Ra-226? MPEP 2173.05(g) states: “the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite” and “without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.”
6. Any claim not explicitly mentioned above is rejected because it depends on rejected claim 1.
Specification
7. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: At paragraph [0031], the disclosure describes a “commercially available, tubular-shaped electronic neutron generator” “configured to generate thermal neutrons.” The examiner can find no such devices. The commercially-available electronic generators generate fast neutrons and need a neutron moderator to convert the fast neutron spectrum into a thermal spectrum. See explanation above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is missing the word “the” in front of Ra-226 in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There are several known ways to produce Ac-225 from Ra-226 (see Abbas, Satz, Apostolidis, VanGeel, and Magill cited on the attached PTO-892). As admitted by Applicant, it is known to produce Ac-225 from gamma radiation generated by electron beam irradiation of a converter (see Diamond cited at [0027] of the instant application). It is also known to produce Ac-225 with an electronic neutron generator irradiating a Ra-226 target (Bernstein cited on attached PTO-892). Matyskin et al., (NPL cited on attached PTO-892) describes converting a neutron flux from a nuclear reactor in a gadolinium target to gamma radiation and transmuting Ra-226 into Ac-225. However Matyskin is not available as prior art and additionally discloses a combined Gd/Ra target that receives neutrons in a fission reactor rather than an electronic neutron source. Thus, claim 1 cannot be reasonably rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Although many of the structural limitations of the independent claims may be found separately in the prior art, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the separately taught limitations to arrive at the claimed invention without the hindsight of utilizing the present disclosure as a blueprint.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 NRC Glossary at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary
2 Chichester, David L., James T. Johnson, and Edward H. Seabury. "Measurement of the neutron spectrum of a DD electronic neutron generator." AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 1336. No. 1. American Institute of Physics, 2011. Simpson, J. D., and D. L. Chichester. "Tailoring the Neutron Spectrum from a 14‐MeV Neutron Generator to Approximate a Spontaneous‐Fission Spectrum." AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 1412. No. 1. American Institute of Physics, 2011.
Prosecution Insights