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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending in the application and examined herein.
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. Therefore, the feature of the “control system” in claims 7 and 13 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to because it is unclear what feature reference character “102” (identified as a “drive cable” in the specification, see [0018]) is intending to refer to in Figure 2.
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.
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 7 and 13 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 13 are indefinite because it is unclear if the “control system” is intended to be a positively recited feature of the claimed “system[s]”. Perhaps the claims should be amended to recite: “further comprising a control system, wherein [[a]] the control system is configured to adjust an operation parameter of the reactor core...”
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 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 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2019/0108921 (“Heibel”) in view of CN Publication No. 106128539 (“Ceng”)1.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 8, Heibel (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1-3) discloses a system for measuring radiation activity of a target radioisotope (72) being produced in a reactor core (14) ([0007], [0021], [0023]), the system comprising:
a cable assembly, comprising:
a housing/enclosure (48), wherein the target radioisotope is positioned/positionable within the housing/enclosure ([0022]);
a target cable (78) configured to position the housing/enclosure ([0022]), wherein the target cable is movable between an inserted position corresponding to the target radioisotope/enclosure being positioned in the reactor core and a retracted position corresponding to the target radioisotope/enclosure being positioned outside of the reactor core ([0013], [0021]-[0022]); and
a drive cable (36) selectively couplable and decouplable with the target cable (e.g., via elements 58, 60), wherein the drive cable is configured to drive the target cable between the inserted position and the retracted position ([0021]-[0022]).
Heibel discloses irradiating the target radioisotope to completion of the desired irradiation levels ([0024]), but appears to be silent as to a mechanism for determining completion. Ceng (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1, 3) is also directed towards a method for producing a target radioisotope (116) by inserting and withdrawing the target radioisotope into/from an instrumentation tube (104) of a reactor core (102) (p. 2: “a core irradiation subsystem for moving at least one radiation object into an instrument tube of the nuclear reactor for irradiation treatment”; p. 6: “[the target radioisotope] can be sent to the core position ... and activated by the neutron to become a radioactive source. The irradiated ball is returned to the measuring platform”). Ceng teaches a radiation detector/sensor (115, 303) configured to periodically measure/sense the radiation activity of the target radioisotope being produced (p. 5: “when the irradiated small ball 116 passes back to the measuring platform 112 ... the activity detection is performed through the push rod 115 equipped with the semiconductor detector”). Ceng further teaches the radiation detector/sensor provides the advantages of automatic and quick real-time detection to confirm the target radioisotopes meet the required activity (p. 3: “The system provided by the invention has the advantages of satisfying the measurement requirement of the neutron fluence rate in the heap, meeting the requirements of the medical short-lived source activity, meeting the requirements of rapid transportation, and meeting the automation requirements”; see also pp. 4, 6, 8). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include a radiation detector/sensor as taught by Ceng in Heibel’s system for the monitoring benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Heibel in order to determine and ensure the target radioisotope being produced meets the required radiation activity, as suggested by Ceng, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Heibel in view of Ceng teaches the system of Claims 2 and 8. Heibel discloses the drive cable is configured to decouple from the target cable when the target cable is in the inserted position ([0011], [0013], [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Heibel in view of Ceng teaches the system of Claims 2 and 8. Ceng teaches the radiation detector/sensor is configured to measure/sense the radiation activity of the target radioisotope when the target radioisotope is positioned outside of the reactor core (i.e., when the “target cable” is in the claimed “retracted position”) (FIG. 1, p. 5: “when the irradiated small ball 116 passes back to the measuring platform 112 ... the activity detection is performed through the push rod 115 equipped with the semiconductor detector”). Thus, Heibel, modified to include the radiation detector/sensor as taught by Ceng, would have resulted in the features of claims 4 and 10.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Heibel in view of Ceng teaches the system of Claims 1 and 8. Ceng teaches the radiation detector/sensor is configured to measure/sense the radiation activity of the target radioisotope during a reactor operating cycle (p. 5: “when the irradiated small ball 116 passes back to the measuring platform 112 ... the activity detection is performed through the push rod 115 equipped with the semiconductor detector.... If the activity of the pellet 116 does not meet the medical short life requirement, it is controlled by nitrogen back to the core 102 to continue the irradiation treatment”). Thus, Heibel, modified to include the radiation detector/sensor as taught by Ceng, would have resulted in the features of claims 6 and 12.
Claims 7 and 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heibel in view of Ceng further in view of US Publication No. 2021/0358647 (“Reese”).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Heibel in view of Ceng teaches the system of Claims 1 and 8, but does not appear to teach a control system configured to adjust an operation parameter of the reactor core based on the measured/sensed radiation activity. Reese (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 5-6) is also directed towards a system for producing a target radioisotope in a reactor core (502) ([0019]-[0020]). Reese teaches the system further comprises a control system configured to adjust an operational parameter of the reactor core based on a measured/sensed radiation activity ([0060]-[0063]). Reese further teaches the control system provides the advantages of optimizing isotope production ([0069]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a control system as taught by Reese in the modified Heibel’s system for the optimized performance benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Heibel in order to maximize sample irradiation and optimize isotope production, as suggested by Reese, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heibel in view of Ceng further in view of US Patent No. 3,787,697 (“Shields”).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Heibel in view of Ceng teaches the system of Claims 1 and 8, but does not appear to teach the radiation detector/sensor comprises a platinum self-powered detector. Shields (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a radiation detector/sensor configured to measure/sense radiation activity and teaches a platinum self-powered radiation detector (Abstract). Shields further teaches the platinum self-powered radiation detector provides the advantages of simultaneously and promptly responding to both neutron and gamma flux intensities and produces a relatively high electrical current output in response to a flux intensity (2:35-48). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use a platinum self-powered radiation detector, as taught by Shields, in the modified Heibel’s system for the detection benefits thereof (e.g., to ensure quick and easily readable results). Thus, further modification of Heibel in order to provide a high total prompt electrical current output, as suggested by Shields, would have been obvious to a POSA.
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
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) 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 Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Citations to Ceng refer to the machine translation provided in parent application 16/878,293 with the PTO-892 dated 07/07/2022
Prosecution Insights