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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a method, classified in H05H 3/06.
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to an apparatus, classified in H05H 6/00.
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).
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
(5) the species of neutron generating tube shown in Figure 5
(6) the species of neutron generating tube shown in Figure 6
Additionally, this application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
(7A) the species of target shown in Figure 7A
(7B) the species of target shown in Figure 7B
The species are independent or distinct because they are mutually exclusive. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different word search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with John Ross Flynt on 8/11/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, apparatus claims 16–20. Applicant did not elect a species between Figures 5 and 6; however, because it appears all system claims 16-20 are generic to Figures 5 and 6, this election requirement is withdrawn. Applicant did not elect a species between Figures 7A and 7B; however, Examiner stated during the phone call that she will presume a provisional election of Figure 7B, since this is explicitly recited in elected claim 17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-15 (Group I) and 18-19 (Fig. 7A, recited in the claims as mutually exclusive from Fig. 7B [claim 17]) are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The election was made without traverse. Examiner reserves the right to issue a future restriction/election requirement if Applicant adds/amends claims at a later date that are distinct and/or mutually exclusive from this original presentation or from each other. Additionally, Examiner reserves the future right under election by original presentation to withdraw claims amended/added to embodiments not originally examined—see MPEP § 821.03.
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).
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 buffer layer (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. If the buffer layer is distinct from the “barrier material” (claim 16), then it must be shown and labeled with its own numeral in the Drawings.
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.
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 a first end of the target rod is in at least partial contact with the insulating tube (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The Drawings, e.g., Figures 5 and 6, do not show the target rod 516 in contact with the tube 504. Instead, the rod 516 contacts suppressor 522 and the HVS line 520 with resistor 518.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claims alternately recite “a barrier material” and “a buffer layer.” The Specification alternately recites “buffer layer material,” “buffer materials,” “buffer layer,” “diffusion barrier,” “diffusion barrier material,” “diffusion reduction layers,” “diffusion material,” et cetera. It is entirely unclear if these are all the same feature, or if they are distinct from each other. Please standardize these terms in both the claims and in the Specification.
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 16–17 and 20 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 16 and 181 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the relationship between the barrier layer and buffer layer. The claims alternately recite “a barrier material” and “a buffer layer.” The Specification alternately recites “buffer layer material,” “buffer materials,” “buffer layer,” “diffusion barrier,” “diffusion barrier material,” “diffusion reduction layers,” “diffusion material,” et cetera. It is entirely unclear if these are all the same feature, or if they are distinct from each other. Please standardize these terms in both the claims and in the Specification to clarify their relationships to each other.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the relationship between the target rod 516 and the insulating tube 504. Claim 16 recites that “a first end of the target rod is in at least partial contact wit the insulating tube.” The Drawings, e.g., Figures 5-6, do not show the target rod 516 in contact with insulating tube 504. Instead, the rod 516 contacts suppressor 522 + the HVS line 520 with resistor 518. For the purposes of examination, Examiner assumes Applicant did not mean actual contact between tube 504 and rod 516.
Claim 16 recites “a target material geometry.” Claim 16 is directed towards a system. A system may be described as having a component with a particular geometry, e.g., a reactor has a cylindrical vessel. The vessel is the claimed component, and it is described as having a cylindrical shape. It does not make sense to recite, as a structure of a system, a “geometry,” as is done in claim 16. The claim(s) should be amended to recite a structure, and then that structure may be further delimited by its shape or geometry. The term “geometry” itself is not a component of a system.
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 § 102
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 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 16–17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (US 2023/0350094).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou discloses a system (e.g., fig. 2) comprising: a target rod (238) disposed in an insulating tube (232), wherein a first end of the target rod is in at least partial contact with the insulating tube (see above indefiniteness rejection: similarly to Figs. 5-6 of the invention, Zhou shows in Fig. 2 the target rod 238 contacting suppressor 246, and suppressor 246 contacting housing 232); and a target material (240) geometry disposed on a second end (left end in fig. 2) of the target rod (238), wherein the second end of the target rod is opposite the first end, and wherein the target material geometry comprises a plurality of successive layers (242, 244), wherein each layer alternates between a target film and a barrier material (fig. 2 shows two alternate layers, 242 and 244).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein a first layer of the target material geometry is the target film (244) and the target film is in contact with the target rod (238).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the target film comprises Scandium, Titanium, or Zirconium (244 is titanium, ¶ 30).
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
1 Although claim 18 is withdrawn, Examiner would like any indefiniteness per claim 18 to be resolved prior to a future Notice of Allowance.
Prosecution Insights