DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 1-6 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “the inner tube” (last line) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 is directed to a target delivery assembly for use in an irradiation of a radioisotope target via a vessel penetration of a fission reactor. However, the broad claim only positively recites the structure of a tube and a piston. The limited structure which is actually positively recited does not allow for irradiating a radioisotope target in a vessel penetration of a fission reactor. Furthermore, it is unclear how a tube and a piston alone constitutes a target delivery assembly.
It is unclear whether a radioisotope target, a target delivery assembly, a fission reactor, and a vessel penetration of the fission reactor are being positively recited.
Claim 2
It is unclear how the central tube relates to the other claimed structure. It is unclear how the central tube relates to delivering a target. Since no purpose is recited for the central tube, it appears to be a cosmetic feature.
Claim 3
It is unclear how the flow aperture relates to the other claimed structure. It is unclear how the flow aperture relates to delivering a target. Since no purpose is recited for the flow aperture, it appears to be a cosmetic feature.
The phrase “adjacent the constriction” is unclear. The distance that constitutes “adjacent the constriction” is unclear. The dividing boundary distance between “adjacent the constriction” and “not adjacent the constriction” is unknown and unclear.
Claim 4
The phrase “the at least one flow aperture” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5
It is unclear what constitutes a “force-limiting device”. It would appear that any physical structure (device) would have some limiting (slowing) effect on a force.
It is unclear how the force-limiting device relates to the other claimed structure. It is unclear how the force-limiting device relates to delivering a target. Since no purpose is recited for the force-limiting device, it appears to be a cosmetic feature.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As noted above, broad claim 1 only positively recites the structure of a tube and a piston. It is unclear how this limited positively recited structure allows for irradiating a radioisotope target via a vessel penetration of a fission reactor. The purpose and operation of the piston relative to the target is also unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bevilacqua (US 3,843,471).
Claim 1
Bevilacqua teaches structure of a piston (86, 85) slidably disposed in a tube (76) which has a constriction (88). Particularly note Figure 3B.
Bevilacqua’s system structure is inherently capable of being used to irradiate a radioisotope target. For example, note Rupp (Radioisotope production in power reactors, No. ORNL-3792, Oak Ridge National Lab., Tenn., 1965) and/or Ransohoff (US 3,103,479), which show it is conventional to use control system structure to irradiate a radioisotope target.
Claim 2
Bevilacqua teaches a central tube (inner radial wall portion of tube 22’) disposed within the upper portion of the tube (76) so that an annulus (outer radial wall portion of tube 22’) is defined therebetween
Claim 3
Bevilacqua teaches that the central tube has an open bottom, which thus constitutes a flow aperture defined in a bottom end of the central tube.
Claim 4
Bevilacqua teaches using fluid to elevate the piston. Said fluid would inherently be “in fluid communication with” the annulus, especially since all components appear to be in fluid communication (e.g., via air, liquid, etc.) with each other. A sole specific fluid material is not recited.
Claim 5
Bevilacqua teaches a force-limiting device (308, 84).
Claim 6
Bevilacqua teaches using fluid to elevate the piston (e.g., col. 8, lines 1-7).
Claims 1-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietrich (US 4,173,511).
Claim 1
Dietrich teaches structure of a piston (140, 138) slidably disposed in a tube (68) which has a constriction (88). Particularly note Figure 6 and col. 10, lines 10-27.
Bevilacqua’s system structure is inherently capable of being used to irradiate a radioisotope target. For example, note Rupp and/or Ransohoff, which show it is conventional to use control system structure to irradiate a radioisotope target.
Claim 2
Dietrich teaches a central tube (50, 136).
Claim 3
Dietrich teaches that the central tube has a flow aperture (136).
Claim 4
The flow aperture is associated with a hydraulic supply.
Claim 5
Dietrich teaches a force-limiting device (e.g., col. 8, lines 12-24).
Claim 6
The piston is associated with a hydraulic supply.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
a central tube disposed within the upper portion of the inner tube so that an annulus is defined therebetween (claim 2). Figure 6B implies that numerals 23 and 24 point to different parts of the same tube. Thus, a central tube is absent.
a hydraulic supply in fluid communication with the annulus (claim 4).
a hydraulic supply operative to cause upward movement of the elevation piston (claim 6).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not appear to be directed to the currently recited invention. For example, the recited relationship between a piston and a tube constriction is absent. Perhaps said relationship should be added thereto. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Additional Comment
The below amended claim 1 (clean version) is presented for Applicant’s consideration with regard to the above 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Claim 1. (For Consideration) A target well of a target delivery assembly,
for use in an irradiation system which is operative to irradiate a radioisotope target via a vessel penetration of a nuclear reactor,
the target well comprising:
an outer tube;
an inner tube,
wherein the inner tube is disposed in the outer tube,
wherein a first flow annulus is defined between the inner tube and the outer tube,
wherein the inner tube is configured to have the target positioned therein during irradiation,
wherein the inner tube has
an upper portion,
a lower portion having an inner diameter,
a constriction portion having an inner diameter,
wherein the constriction portion is disposed between the upper portion and the lower portion,
wherein the inner diameter of the constriction portion is less than the inner diameter of the lower portion;
an elevation piston slidably disposed within the lower portion,
wherein the elevation piston is hydraulically movable in the lower portion to selectively elevate the target,
wherein the inner diameter of the constriction portion is less than an outer diameter of the elevation piston
thereby preventing passage of the elevation piston from the lower portion into the upper portion,
wherein the elevation piston is configured to abut the constriction portion to form a seal thereat; and
a central tube disposed within the upper portion,
wherein a second flow annulus is defined between the central tube and the upper portion,
wherein the central tube comprises at least one flow aperture defined in a bottom end portion thereof.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Application Status Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights