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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 22 June 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The Office action mailed 23 April 2026 required election of a single invention from the following groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1:
Group I, claims 1-13, drawn to a container with a cup cap;
Group II, claims 14-16, drawn to a container with a neck;
Group III, claims 17-19 and 23, drawn to an irradiation station;
Group IV, claim 20, drawn to a radioisotope production system;
Group V, claims 21-22, drawn to a method.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 14-16) in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that 1) claims 1-10 as amended depend from claim 14 and therefore should be included in Group II; 2) claims 17 and 20 as amended depend from claim 14 and therefore there would not be an undue burden to search an examine Groups III and IV in addition to Group II; and 3) the claims define a single general inventive concept with linking features comprising the internal part of the container and the irradiation station for coupling with the internal part of the container. In light of applicant’s amendments, the restriction between Groups I and II is withdrawn. However, the restriction between Groups I-II and Groups III-V is maintained.
Groups I-II and Groups III-V do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-II and Groups III-V lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the same technical feature of a container for a solid target material and a radioisotope produced by proton beam irradiation, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lavie et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0297554 A1), hereinafter Lavie (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 below).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 14-16 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.
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 16 recite the limitation “the face” and/or “said face”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the/said face” to mean “the/said planar face”.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 1. Claims 15-16 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 14.
Regarding claim 2, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 2 as “The container according to claim 1, wherein said bottom (15) is a metal foil
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the support body (3) comprises at said second longitudinal end, a first shoulder (14)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the support body (3) comprises at said second longitudinal end, a first shoulder (14)” to mean “the support body (3) comprises at said second longitudinal end of the cylindrical portion, a first shoulder (14)”.
Claims 4-9 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the cylindrical body”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the cylindrical body” to mean “the metal cylindrical body”.
Regarding claim 10, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 10 as “The container according to claim 1…which is inert to acidic substances capable of dissolving the portion of solid target material (M)
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said/the cavity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “said/the cavity” to mean “said/the internal cavity”.
Regarding claim 15, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 15 as “The container according to claim 14…a second direction (2b) orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (2)
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 16, and 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lavie.
Regarding claim 14, Lavie discloses a container for a solid target material and a radioisotope produced (paragraph 0065, lines 1-5) by proton beam irradiation of the solid target material (paragraph 0063, lines 1-8), the container comprising a support body (FIG. 5: body comprising the walls of elements 148 and 155) extending along a longitudinal axis of the container (FIG. 5, longitudinal axis 150) and comprising: a cylindrical portion (paragraph 0065; FIG. 5, element 138), which has a first longitudinal end (FIG. 5, right side) defined by a planar face (paragraph 0065, lines 8-22; paragraph 0085, substrate), transverse to the longitudinal axis (paragraph 0065, lines 8-22) and suitable to receive, by electrodeposition, a portion of solid target material (paragraph 0085); a neck (FIG. 5: tapered portion at rightmost end of element 142), which extends from a second longitudinal end of the cylindrical portion coaxially to the latter (FIG. 5, left side of cylindrical portion 138); and an internal cavity, which comprises a first volume (FIG. 5, volume between elements 137 and 173) extending below the face predominantly along a first direction transverse to the longitudinal axis (FIG. 5, vertical direction), and a second volume communicating with the first volume and extending into the neck (FIG. 5, second volume 171) to define an access conduit for a cooling fluid (paragraph 0086 discloses a cooling fluid delivery line 142; paragraph 0090 discloses that element 171 is part of a nozzle arrangement of cooling fluid delivery line 142).
Regarding claim 16, Lavie as applied to claim 14 discloses the container according to claim 14.
In addition, Lavie discloses that said support body comprises a flat wall, which is transverse to the longitudinal axis, presents said face outside the support body and partially delimits said first volume inside the support body (FIG. 5: rightmost wall of element 155, transverse to longitudinal axis 150, supports frame 138 with the rightmost face of frame 138 presenting outside the support body; the rightmost wall of element 155 further delimits a rightmost boundary of the first volume).
Regarding claim 1, Lavie as applied to claim 14 discloses the container according to claim 14.
In addition, Lavie discloses a cup cap (FIG. 5, element 149), which is suitable to be coaxially fitted on the support body (paragraph 0090, lines 3-6), and in particular around the cylindrical portion (FIG. 5, element 138), to cover the support body (FIG. 5) and comprises a bottom traversable by the proton beam and transverse to the longitudinal axis (FIG. 5, rightmost open end of element 149) to define, together with the face, an interspace to contain the portion of solid target material and the radioisotope subsequently produced (FIG. 5, open space between the rightmost end of element 149 and target material 135).
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.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavie as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Stoner et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0040267 A1), hereinafter Stoner.
Regarding claim 15, Lavie as applied to claim 14 discloses the container according to claim 14.
In addition, Lavie discloses that said cavity comprises a third volume (FIG. 5, element 173), which puts the first volume (FIG. 5, volume between elements 137 and 173) in communication with the second volume (FIG. 5, element 171) and is tapered from the first volume to the second volume (FIG. 5: third volume 173 is tapered in the direction from the first volume to the second volume, i.e., right to left).
Lavie fails to disclose that the third volume is not tapered with respect to a second direction orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
However, this shape of the third volume is an obvious matter of design choice which has not been shown to be significant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie to include that the third volume is not tapered with respect to a second direction orthogonal to the longitudinal axis, because this modification amounts only to a change in shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) and MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Lavie fails to disclose the overall volume of the cavity being defined, with respect to the second direction, between two internal plane surfaces of the support body, which are parallel to each other and to the longitudinal axis and extend from the first volume to the second volume.
However, Stoner discloses the overall volume of the cavity being defined, with respect to the second direction (FIG. 5, horizontal direction), between two internal plane surfaces (paragraph 0078, lines 1-4) of the support body (FIG. 5, plane surfaces 84 and internal plane surfaces of element 60), which are parallel to each other and to the longitudinal axis (FIG. 5, vertical direction) and extend from the first volume (FIG. 5, volume below element 89) to the second volume (FIG. 5, second volume 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie to include the overall volume of the cavity being defined, with respect to the second direction, between two internal plane surfaces of the support body, which are parallel to each other and to the longitudinal axis and extend from the first volume to the second volume, based on the teachings of Stoner that the geometry of the cavity affects the geometry of the target itself, and the target geometry may be adjusted to maximize photon flux (Stoner, paragraphs 0047 and 0078-0079).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavie as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Pärnaste et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0322972 A1), hereinafter Pärnaste.
Regarding claim 2, Lavie as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
Lavie fails to disclose that said bottom is a metal foil.
However, Pärnaste discloses that said bottom (FIG. 6, element 228) is a metal foil (paragraph 0069, lines 7-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie to include that said bottom is a metal foil, based on the teachings of Pärnaste that the use of a metal foil advantageously allows cooling helium to pass through while maintaining a barrier to liquid (Pärnaste, paragraph 0073).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavie as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Schaffer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0301769 A1), hereinafter Schaffer.
Regarding claim 3, Lavie as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
Lavie fails to disclose that the support body comprises at said second longitudinal end, a first shoulder; the container comprising a hermetic sealing ring, which contacts said first shoulder and a lateral inner surface of the cup cap.
However, Schaffer discloses that the support body (annotated FIG. 18 (below), support body B) comprises at said second longitudinal end, a first shoulder (annotated FIG. 18, leftmost shoulder of support body B adjacent element 219 and element A); the container comprising a hermetic sealing ring, which contacts said first shoulder and a lateral inner surface of the cup cap (annotated FIG. 18, hermetic sealing ring 219 contacting leftmost shoulder of support body B and lateral inner surface of cup cap 205).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie to include that the support body comprises at said second longitudinal end, a first shoulder; the container comprising a hermetic sealing ring, which contacts said first shoulder and a lateral inner surface of the cup cap, based on the teachings of Schaffer that this provides secure engagement between components of the container (Schaffer, paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1: Annotated FIG. 18 (Schaffer)
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavie in view of Schaffer as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Amelia et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0023645 A1), hereinafter Amelia.
Regarding claim 4, Lavie in view of Schaffer as applied to claim 3 discloses the container according to claim 3.
In addition, Schaffer discloses a spacer ring (annotated FIG. 18, element A), hitting on the first shoulder (annotated FIG. 18, leftmost shoulder of element B) and has a second shoulder facing the first shoulder (annotated FIG. 18, rightmost shoulder of element A); said hermetic sealing ring being fitted on the spacer ring to contact said first shoulder, said second shoulder and the lateral inner surface of the cup cap (annotated FIG. 18, hermetic sealing ring 219 between the leftmost shoulder of element B, the rightmost shoulder of element A, and the lateral inner surface of cup cap 205).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer to include a spacer ring, hitting on the first shoulder and has a second shoulder facing the first shoulder; said hermetic sealing ring being fitted on the spacer ring to contact said first shoulder, said second shoulder and the lateral inner surface of the cup cap, based on the additional teachings of Schaffer that this provides secure engagement between components of the container (Schaffer, paragraph 0070).
Lavie in view of Schaffer fails to disclose that the spacer ring is fitted on the neck.
However, Amelia discloses that the spacer ring (FIG. 2, element 9) is fitted on the neck (FIG. 3, neck 17 of support body 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer to include that the spacer ring is fitted on the neck, based on the teachings of Amelia that this structure improves radioisotope yield and thermal exchange between components (Amelia, paragraph 0039, lines 15-32).
Regarding claim 5, Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia as applied to claim 4 discloses the container according to claim 4.
In addition, Amelia discloses that said spacer ring is fitted on the neck without interference (FIG. 2: spacer ring 9 does not interfere with the cylindrical portion of element 8 surrounding element 7, i.e., neck 17 as shown in FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia to include that said spacer ring is fitted on the neck without interference, based on the additional teachings of Amelia that this enables simpler construction of the spacer ring and the neck using optimal materials for each component (Amelia, paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 6, Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia as applied to claim 4 discloses the container according to claim 4.
In addition, Schaffer discloses a ferrule (FIG. 18, element 210), which is fitted on the spacer ring (annotated FIG. 18, element A) and couples with an end portion of the cup cap (FIG. 18, element 205) so as to close the container (paragraph 0070, lines 11-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia to include a ferrule, which is fitted on the spacer ring and couples with an end portion of the cup cap so as to close the container, based on the additional teachings of Schaffer that the ferrule provides secure sealing engagement between components of the container (Schaffer, paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 7, Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia as applied to claim 6 discloses the container according to claim 6.
In addition, Schaffer discloses that said spacer ring comprises an outer rib (annotated FIG. 18, outer rib of spacer ring A between the rightmost shoulder of spacer ring A and the leftmost shoulder C of spacer ring A; this outer rib is thicker in the vertical direction than the portion of spacer ring A below element 19) defining said second shoulder and a third shoulder opposite to said second shoulder (annotated FIG. 18, third shoulder C), said ferrule (FIG. 18, element 210) hits onto said third shoulder (annotated FIG. 18, third shoulder C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia to include that said spacer ring comprises an outer rib defining said second shoulder and a third shoulder opposite to said second shoulder, said ferrule hits onto said third shoulder, based on the additional teachings of Schaffer that this arrangement of the ferrule provides secure sealing engagement between components of the container (Schaffer, paragraph 0070).
Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia fails to disclose that said end portion is internally threaded and said ferrule has an outer threaded portion for screwing onto said end portion of the cup cap.
However, the disclosure of Schaffer demonstrates that the function of threaded screwing connections is known in the art of radioisotope production. Schaffer also shows that substituting a threaded screw for another connection mechanism in a radioisotope production container yields the predictable result of providing secure engagement between components (Schaffer, paragraph 0062). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia to include that said end portion is internally threaded and said ferrule has an outer threaded portion for screwing onto said end portion of the cup cap because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gelbart (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0242852 A1), hereinafter Gelbart.
Regarding claim 8, Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia as applied to claim 6 discloses the container according to claim 6.
In addition, Schaffer discloses that said cup cap comprises a cylindrical body (FIG. 16, element 205), said end portion of the cup cap being defined at the second longitudinal end of the cylindrical body (FIG. 18: the end portion of cup cap 205 coupled with ferrule 210 is at the second, i.e., leftmost, end of the cylindrical body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia to include that said cup cap comprises a cylindrical body, said end portion of the cup cap being defined at the second longitudinal end of the cylindrical body, based on the additional teachings of Schaffer that this provides secure engagement between components of the container (Schaffer, paragraph 0070).
Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia fails to disclose that said cup cap comprises a metal body.
However, the disclosure of Amelia demonstrates that the function of metal components is known in the art of radioisotope production. Amelia also shows that substituting metal for another material in a radioisotope production container yields the predictable result of enhancing the sealing effect between components (Amelia, paragraph 0037) while preventing contamination of the target material from contact with O-rings (Amelia, paragraph 0045). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia to include that said cup cap comprises a metal body because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia fails to disclose that said cup cap has a first longitudinal end closed by said bottom and a second longitudinal end open so as to be engaged by the support body.
However, Gelbart discloses that said cup cap (FIG. 30, element 301) has a first longitudinal end closed by said bottom (FIG. 30, lower end of element 301) and a second longitudinal end (FIG. 29, opening 303) open so as to be engaged by the support body (paragraph 0134, support body 250).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia to include that said cup cap has a first longitudinal end closed by said bottom and a second longitudinal end open so as to be engaged by the support body, based on the teachings of Gelbart that this configuration ensures sealed engagement between the cup cap and the support body (Gelbart, paragraph 0134).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Conard (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0213614 A1), hereinafter Conard.
Regarding claim 9, Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia as applied to claim 6 discloses the container according to claim 6.
Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia fails to disclose that said spacer ring comprises an annular tooth projecting from its outer surface for axially retaining the ferrule on the spacer ring once the ferrule is fitted on the spacer ring.
However, Conard discloses that said spacer ring (FIG. 2, element 120) comprises an annular tooth (FIG. 2, element 110) projecting from its outer surface for axially retaining the ferrule (FIG. 4, element 300) on the spacer ring once the ferrule is fitted on the spacer ring (the magnified view in FIG. 4 shows annular tooth 110 retaining portion 330 of ferrule 300).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie in view of Schaffer and Amelia to include that said spacer ring comprises an annular tooth projecting from its outer surface for axially retaining the ferrule on the spacer ring once the ferrule is fitted on the spacer ring, based on the teachings of Conard that this produces a desirable sealing connection (Conard, paragraph 0047).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavie as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Strangis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0254537 A1), hereinafter Strangis.
Regarding claim 10, Lavie as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
Lavie fails to disclose that said support body is made of aluminum and at least said face is coated with a coating material which is suitable for electrodeposition of the portion of solid target material and which is inert to acidic substances capable of dissolving the portion of solid target material.
However, Strangis discloses that said support body is made of aluminum (paragraph 0059) and at least said face is coated with a coating material which is suitable for electrodeposition of the portion of solid target material (paragraph 0031) and which is inert to acidic substances capable of dissolving the portion of solid target material (paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lavie to include that said support body is made of aluminum and at least said face is coated with a coating material which is suitable for electrodeposition of the portion of solid target material and which is inert to acidic substances capable of dissolving the portion of solid target material, based on the teachings of Strangis that this prevents undesirable contamination (Strangis, paragraph 0066).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bedeschi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0296872 A1), hereinafter Bedeschi, teaches a container for a solid target material and a radioisotope produced by proton beam irradiation of the solid target material, the container comprising a support body extending along a longitudinal axis of the container and comprising: a cylindrical portion, which has a first longitudinal end defined by a planar face, transverse to the longitudinal axis and suitable to receive, by electrodeposition, a portion of solid target material; a neck, which extends from a second longitudinal end of the cylindrical portion coaxially to the latter; and an internal cavity, which comprises a first volume extending below the face predominantly along a first direction transverse to the longitudinal axis, and a second volume communicating with the first volume and extending into the neck to define an access conduit for a cooling fluid.
Young et al. (KR Patent No. 20100040627 A), hereinafter Young (English machine translation provided), teaches a cup cap, which is suitable to be coaxially fitted on the support body, and in particular around the cylindrical portion, to cover the support body and comprises a bottom transverse to the longitudinal axis.
Bars (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0327600 A1), hereinafter Bars, teaches a hermetic sealing ring which contacts a first shoulder of the support body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights