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 Status
1. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1-10 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. Claim 1 is directed to “an irradiation station” and recites (with added emphasis) “a cyclotron for emitting a proton beam against a portion of solid target material contained in a container” and a “cooling system for cooling the container.” The claim goes on to recite “the container extending….and comprising…” Thus, is it unclear whether the container is a positively-recited required feature of the irradiation station or merely an object with which the claimed station is intended to cooperate. It is noted that some of the features of the cooling system, as recited, cooperate with recited features of the container, making it seem as though the container is a required element of the claimed station. That is, as recited, the irradiation station must comprise the container as recited and would not function properly with any generic container.
5. Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “the outside” is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what element this external space is relative to. Claim 5 is indefinite for the same reason.
6. Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “and the latter comprises” is indefinite because it is unclear what previously recited claim element the phrase further limits. Many more than two element have been previously introduced in the claim before this phrase.
7. Finally regarding claim 1, the phrase “designed to couple” is unclear because it does not clearly denote what structure is required to achieve this limitation. Is the connection head merely intended for coupling? If so, what structure must be present for such coupling to be achieved?
8. Regarding claim 5, the phrase “which is moveable within the housing” is indefinite because it is unclear what is movable: the tip, the spring, the first end of the spring? Further, the recitation “an electrical socket of the jack type” is indefinite because it is an approximation extending the scope of the term jack such that a skilled artisan would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the expression(MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)( E)).
9. Claim 9 is indefinite for the same reason claim 1 is indefinite. Here, it seems that the container is a positively-recited, required element of the claimed system, but all of the features of the container recited in claim 9 have already been introduced in claim 1. Thus, the structural relationship between the system of claim 9 and the station of claim 1 is unclear.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 1 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.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art (see attached PTO-892) fails to teach the recited flow diverter, tip, spring, and electrical connector arrangement as recited in claim 1.
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.
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, 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
Prosecution Insights