DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 03/10/2026.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-15 and 21-23 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 in lines 13-15 recites “wherein the shielding layer is embedded within the non-high-z material in a curved shape conforming to the curved surface of the cavity to at least partially surround the radioactive seed” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to [a] whether “curved shape conforming to the curved surface of the cavity to at least partially surround the radioactive seed” qualifies/details the manner shielding layer is embedded i.e. wherein the shielding layer is embedded in a curved shape conforming to the curved surface of the cavity to at least partially surround the radioactive seed or [b] whether “curved shape conforming to the curved surface of the cavity to at least partially surround the radioactive seed” qualifies/details non-high-z material itself i.e. wherein the non-high-z material in a curved shape is conforming to the curved surface of the cavity to at least partially surround the radioactive seed.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 21-23 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2-15 and 21-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based in their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification para. [0070-0090].
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Examined claims 1-15, 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12053644 B2 (U.S. Patent Application No. 17/936149, hereinafter referred to as “Brachman”).
As per independent Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species requiring collagen carrier and connectors to secure wrapped seed and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 2, claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 2 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 2 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 3, claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 3 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 3 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 4, claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 4 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 4 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 5, claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 5 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 5 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 6, claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 6 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 6 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 7, claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 7 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 7 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 8, claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 8 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 8 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 9, claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 9 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 9 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 10, claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 10 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 10 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 11, claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 11 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 11 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 12, claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 1 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 12 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 13, claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 13 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 13 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 12 now pending.
As per Claim 14, claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 14 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 14 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 15, claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 1 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 15 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 21, claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 6 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 21 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 21, claim 21 is also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 7 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 21 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 22, claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 2 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 22 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
As per Claim 23, claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claim 11 to Brachman. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim is drawn to narrower species and thus anticipates the more generic or broader claim 11 now pending and for similar reasons provided for claim 1 now pending.
Response to Amendment
According to the Amendment, filed 03/10/2026, the status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1, 9-11 are currently amended;
Claims 2-8, 12-15 are as originally filed;
Claims 21-23 are new; and
Claims 26-20 are cancelled.
By the current amendment, as a result, claims 1-15 and 21-23 are now pending in this application and are being examined on the merits as being drawn to elected invention/species.
Response to Arguments
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Rejections/Objections Not Based On Prior Art presented on Page 5 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 03/10/2026
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant, and in light of the amendments/arguments, withdraws the following non prior art related objections/rejections raised in Office Action dated 12/12/2025: [1] Claim objection is withdrawn in light of amendments.
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Double Patenting Rejections presented on Page 7 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 03/10/2026 where Applicant’s’ remarks inter alia that:
Double Patenting
[i] Claims 1-15 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being allegedly unpatentable over one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,053,644. Without conceding that the rejection is appropriate, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the double patenting rejection in view of at least the amendments presented herein.
Applicant’s arguments [i] above were carefully and comprehensively considered but were not persuasive at this time as pending claims 1-15, 21-23 under examination were still found unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12053644 B2 (U.S. Patent Application No. 17/936149, hereinafter referred to as “Brachman”). Please see detailed nonstatutory double patenting rejection detailed above.
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Rejections Based On Prior Art presented on Pages 5-7 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 03/10/2026 where Applicant’s’ remarks inter alia that:
Discussion of Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Amended Independent Claim 1
[A]Claim 1 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. US 20170215824 to Brachman et al. ("Brachman").
[B] Amended independent claim 1 recites the following (emphasis added for discussion purposes only): a wrapper having a length at least as long as the radioactive seed and having a cavity comprising a curved surface, wherein the radioactive seed is positioned within the cavity against the curved surface, wherein the wrapper includes a shielding layer extending along the length of the wrapper, the shielding layer comprising a high-z material, wherein the wrapper includes a non-high-z material, wherein the shielding layer is embedded within the non-high-z material in a curved shape conforming to the curved surface of the cavity to at least partially surround the radioactive seed.
[C] Thus, Applicant submits that the Office Action fails to point to teachings in Brachman that teach or suggest the recitations of amended independent claim 1, including at least those discussed above. The remaining cited references also fail to remedy the deficiencies of Brachman.
Applicant’s arguments [A-C] with respect to the above claim limitation in Claim 1 have been carefully and comprehensively considered and are persuasive. Consequently, the rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 is withdrawn.
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Rejections Based On Prior Art presented on Pages 15 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 03/10/2026 where Applicant’s’ remarks inter alia that:
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Dependent Claims 2-15.
[a]Claims 2, 5-13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. US 20170215824 to Brachman et al. ("Brachman").
[b] Claims 3-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over Brachman in view of U.S. Publication No. US 20030109769 to Lowery et al. ("Lowery").
[c] Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over Brachman in view of U.S. Publication No. US 20120108882 to Hoedl ("Hoedl").
[d] Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 is not obvious in light of any combination of the cited references. The dependent claims are also allowable at least for the reasons discussed with reference to their respective base claims, as well as their unique patentable features. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant’s arguments [a-d] with respect to dependent claims 2-15 been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the dependent claims 2-15 define a patentable invention based on their dependency on base claims without specifically pointing out how the language of the dependent claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (571)272-4730. 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.
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights