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 .
Restriction/Election
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to an apparatus, classified in G21B 1/19.
II. Claims 20-21, drawn to a method, classified in B33Y 80/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed may be used to produce medical radioisotopes.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
b. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
c. The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
d. The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
e. The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
During a telephone conversation with Mark Elchuk on 6/18/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I corresponding to claims 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if 112(b) issues are resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the specific mechanism for mechanical detachment as recited in claims 9 and 19 for the claimed nuclear fusion target capsule.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “forming volume” should be “forming a volume.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1–19 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the outer shell and the “inner surface” of the outer shell. Claim 1 is written such that there is an outer shell with an inner surface and a interior fuel volume. Claim 2 further specifies that the outer shell is solid; however, claim 4 recites that the inner surface of the outer shell is foam. It is initially unclear if “foam” is considered a “solid.” It is further unclear, however, if the “inner surface” of the outer shell is actually a distinct structure from the outer shell. For example, the Specification at ¶ 34 describes an outer shell, an interior foam, and an inner layer: “the inner layer 14 of the outer shell 16 … foam, gyroid, beam-like lattice.” Thus, the Specification describes the foam (claim 4), gyroid-like structure (claim 5), membrane-like structure (claim 6), and lattice beam-like structure (claim 7) as a distinct layer, which conflicts with these claims instead reciting that these structures are simply the inner surface of the outer shell. Accordingly, it is unclear if the outer shell inner surface comprises the claimed structures of the dependent claims (and the varying density of claim 1)—in other words, the outer shell and its inner layer of different shapes is a single, continuous structure—or if these features are instead a distinct layer added/coated onto the inside of the outer shell. Additionally, it is unclear how the “inner surface” can have a “varying density.” Would not this just mean that the outer shell itself has a varying density? In what manner is the inner surface of varying density, but the outer shell is not? At what portion of the outer shell does the density begin to vary?
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the tubular conical portion." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 114155980 A) in view of Perkins (US 2018/0211732).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a target capsule (e.g., fig. 1d) apparatus for holding a fusion fuel, the apparatus comprising: an additively manufactured outer shell (“The spherical shell of the invention is prepared based on the 3D printing,” abstract) having an inner surface and an interior area of the outer shell forming [a] volume adapted to contain the fuel (implicit); and the inner surface of the outer shell having a density.
Liu does not explicitly state that the inner surface/layer of the outer shell has a varying density which decreases in a radially inward direction towards an axial center of the outer shell.
Perkins does teach this. Perkins is in the same art area of targets for nuclear fusion reactors and teaches a target (e.g., fig. 1A) with an outer shell (108 or 104) that has an inner surface having a varying density which decreases in a radially inward direction towards an axial center of the outer shell (¶ 33: shell 108 has an inner portion 120 that has a lower density than the outer portion).
The combination of the lower density inner layer of Perkins with the target capsule of Liu would have produced a target capsule for a fusion reactor that had a coating or layer interior the shell that was of a lower density than the shell itself, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Liu, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Perkins’ interior layer with Liu's target capsule would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a fusion target capsule with a lower density interior coating . The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Perkins (¶ 4), to provide a fusion target that can deliver an ”intense energy pulse” due to the compression of the fuel.
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Liu further discloses wherein the outer shell forms a solid outer shell (see fig. 1d: the shell is solid).
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Perkins further teaches a tubular neck portion (e.g., 106, fig. 1A). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the neck portion as taught by Perkins in order to provide a guide cone, e.g., ¶ 17, ¶ 26, and ¶ 33.
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Perkins further teaches wherein the inner surface of the outer shell comprises a foam structure (“foam,” ¶ 64). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the foam as taught by Perkins in order to provide a lightweight material to assist with the fusion reaction, as noted by Liu in the background section and as further noted by Perkins in ¶ 31 and ¶ 64.
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Perkins further teaches (e.g., fig. 1A) a neck portion extending from the outer shell, and further including an enlarged base connected to the neck portion (106 and enlarged base thereof). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the neck portion as taught by Perkins in order to provide a guide cone, e.g., ¶ 17, ¶ 26, and ¶ 33.
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Liu further discloses wherein the outer shell forms a solid outer shell and is spherically shaped (fig. 1d).
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Perkins further teaches (e.g., fig. 1A) wherein an outer shell (102) and the neck (106) portion are formed from the same materials (¶ 33, ¶ 51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the same materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Perkins further teaches (e.g., fig. 1A) a neck portion (including 106) extending from an outer shell (122 or 104), and wherein at least one of: the outer shell and the neck portion are formed from different materials; and the outer shell and the inner surface are formed from different materials (e.g., aluminum and gold, ¶ 46, ¶ 51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the different materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses a target capsule (e.g., fig. 1d) apparatus for holding a fuel, the apparatus comprising: an additively manufactured outer shell (“The spherical shell of the invention is prepared based on the 3D printing,” abstract) having an inner surface and an interior area of the outer shell forming interior volume adapted to contain the fuel (implicit).
Liu does not explicitly disclose that the outer shell further includes an opening formed therein; a tubular portion projecting outwardly from the outer shell and communicating with the interior volume of the outer shell, and being integrally formed with the outer shell.
Perkins does teach this. Perkins is in the same art area of targets for nuclear fusion reactors and teaches an outer shell (122 and/or 104 and/or 102) that includes an opening formed therein (fig. 1A); a tubular portion (106) projecting outwardly from the outer shell and communicating with the interior volume of the outer shell, and being integrally formed with the outer shell.
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the tubular portion as taught by Perkins in order to provide a guide cone, e.g., ¶ 17, ¶ 26, and ¶ 33.
The combination of the lower density inner layer of Perkins with the target capsule of Liu would have produced a target capsule for a fusion reactor that had a coating or layer interior the shell that was of a lower density than the shell itself, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Liu, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Perkins’ interior layer with Liu's target capsule would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a fusion target capsule with a lower density interior coating . The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Perkins (¶ 4), to provide a fusion target that can deliver an ”intense energy pulse” due to the compression of the fuel.
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Perkins further teaches (e.g., fig. 1A) wherein the tubular portion forms a tubular cone portion (106 gold support cone, ¶ 51) having a tip portion, and the tip portion projects into an interior area of the outer shell (as shown in fig. 1A). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the neck portion as taught by Perkins in order to provide a guide cone, e.g., ¶ 17, ¶ 26, and ¶ 33.
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Perkins further teaches (e.g., fig. 1A) wherein the tubular conical portion and the outer shell are integrally formed as a single, unitary structure from the same material (¶ 33, ¶ 51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the same materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the conical portion and the outer shell a single, unitary structure, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Perkins teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Perkins additionally teaches wherein the inner surface layer comprises one of: a foam layer; a gyroid-like layer; a lattice beam-like layer; a membrane-based structure; a shell-based structure; or a plate-based structure (“foam,’” ¶ 64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized a foam material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 5–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Perkins, as modified above, further in view of Suo (CN 113929488 A).
Regarding claims 5–7, modified Liu teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly teach that the inner surface of the outer shell comprises a gyroid-like structure/shell-based structure, with a periodic/stochastic construction.
Suo does. Suo is also in the art area of nuclear fusion reactors and teaches a “gyroid curved surface,” page 3 with a periodic/stochastic construction (e.g., figs. 1–3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized a gyroid shape/periodic construction, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 11–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Perkins, as modified above, further in view of Peterson (US 11,430,577).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Liu teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Liu additionally discloses that the outer shell forms a solid outer shell (see fig. 1d: the shell is solid) but does not explicitly teach wherein the shell is asymmetrically shaped or oblong. Peterson does. Peterson is also in the art area of fusion targets and teaches (fig. 4A) an asymmetric/oblong fusion target (410). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized an asymmetric/oblong shape, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights