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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 10/24/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-10, 12, and 15 are pending in the application and examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“when the stationary gripper is in the reduced state” should be amended to recite “when the stationary gripper coil is in the reduced state”
“the test points” (p. 6) should be amended to recite “the one or more test points”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3, as currently presented, requires “the graphical output control unit is configured to compare the present impedance to the predetermined impedance to generate a graphical output indicating degradation of the component when the present impedance deviates from the predetermined reference impedance by the predetermined amount”. There is insufficient support for this feature in the original disclosure. The original specification discloses “a control unit 420 to compare the measured impedance value to an associated reference impedance value” ([0032]) and “a graphical output 430 may be provided to display values such as component identification, graphical signal responses, etc.” ([0032]). Original Figure 4 similarly shows a “Graphical Output” (430) separate and distinct from the “Control Unit” (420). Thus, it would appear from the original disclosure that the feature/unit “generating ... a graphical output” is distinct from the feature/unit “comparing the present impedance to a predetermined reference impedance”. However, claim 3, as currently presented, would appear to require that the same feature/unit “generat[es] ... a graphical output” and “compar[es] the present impedance to a predetermined reference impedance”. Additionally, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim language is supported in the disclosure. This feature is therefore new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-10, 12, and 15 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 recites “obtaining signal values from test points of the component during energizing and discharging operations”.
It is unclear the relationship between the “energizing and discharging operations” in the limitation and the previously recited steps of “a first step of energizing the stationary gripper coil to a fully energized state”, “a second step of energizing the stationary gripper coil to a reduced state”, “a third step of energizing the moveable gripper coil to a fully energized state”, “a fourth step of discharging the stationary gripper coil to the inactive state”, and “a fifth step of energizing the lift coil to a fully energized state”.
Additionally, the claim later recites “the signal values obtained from the test points during operation of the nuclear power plant”. It is unclear if “during operation of the nuclear power plant” is intending to refer to the “energizing and discharging operations” or if additional signal values are obtained. This further renders unclear which signal values the “identifying the component including signal values obtained from the test points of the component” is intending to refer to in the claim.
For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the “energizing and discharging operations” as intending to refer to the previously recited energizing and discharging steps. Examiner is further interpreting the “signal values obtained ... during operation” as referring to the “obtain[ed] signal values ... during energizing and discharging operations”. Examiner is further interpreting the claim as intending to recite “identifying the component including the signal values”.
Claim 15, which recites “obtaining signal values from the one or more test points of the component during energizing and discharging operations” and “the signal values obtained from the one or more test points during operation of the nuclear power plant”, is similarly indefinite for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 3 recites “the graphical output control unit is configured to compare the present impedance to the predetermined reference impedance to generate a graphical output indicating degradation of the component when the present impedance deviates from the predetermined reference impedance by the predetermined amount”.
Parent claim 1 previously recites “comparing the present impedance to a predetermined reference impedance”. It is unclear if the “compar[ing]” in claim 3 is referring to the same “comparing” previously recited in parent claim 1 or another step of “comparing”. This is further unclear in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above.
Additionally, parent claim 1 previously recites “generating, using a graphical output control unit, a graphical output..., wherein the graphical output is configured to indicate degradation of the component when the present impedance deviates from the predetermined reference impedance by a predetermined amount”. It is unclear the relationship between the “graphical output” and “indicat[ion of] degradation” recited in claim 3 and the “graphical output” and “indicat[ion of] degradation” recited in claim 1.
For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the “generate a graphical output indicating degradation of the component when the present impedance deviates from the predetermined reference impedance by the predetermined amount” as referring to the previously recited “generating, using a graphical output control unit, a graphical output..., wherein the graphical output is configured to indicate degradation of the component when the present impedance deviates from the predetermined reference impedance by a predetermined amount”.
Claim 6 recites “wherein establishing the predetermined reference impedance includes recording one or more determined impedances corresponding to the component”.
The antecedent basis for this phrase is unclear. While parent claim 1 previously recites a step of “comparing the present impedance to a predetermined reference impedance”, there is no prior recitation of a step of “establishing the predetermined reference impedance”.
Additionally, the relationships between the various recited impedances are unclear. Specifically, parent claim 1 recites “determin[ing] a present impedance of the component”. It is unclear if the “one or more determined impedances” is referring to or includes the previously recited “determine[d] present impedance of the component” or different impedance values.
Claim 8 recites “displaying the signal values obtained from the test points associated with the component on a graphical display”.
Parent claim 1 previously recites “generating, using a graphical output control unit, a graphical output identifying the component including signal values obtained from the test points of the component”. It is unclear the relationship between the “graphical display” and “displaying ... on a graphical display” recited in claim 8 and the “graphical output” and “generating ... a graphical output” recited in parent claim 1.
Additionally, it is unclear the relationship between the “signal values obtained from the test points associated with the component” (as in claim 8) and the “signal values obtained from the test points of the component” (as in parent claim 1). Are these signal values referring to the same signal values? In other words, is claim 8 intended to recite “the test points of the component”? Alternatively, are there different signal values obtained from the test points? If so, which of the signal values and/or the test points are “associated with the component”? Further, what does it mean for something to be “associated with” the component? Does this require a direct link with the component?
For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the “graphical display” as referring to the “graphical output” previously recited in parent claim 1. Examiner is further interpreting the “signal values” as referring to the “signal values” previously recited in parent claim 1. Examiner notes, under this interpretation, it is unclear how claim 8 is intended to further limit parent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the graphical output includes plotting the signal values over a period of time”. This phrase is unclear. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite a step of “plotting the signal values”, that the graphical output includes a plot of the signal values, or something else.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “at least one energy state and transition between energy states of the component, wherein the at least one energy state includes at least one of the fully energized state, the reduced state, and the inactive state”. However, parent claim 1 recites multiple fully energized state, reduced states, and inactive states. For example, the fully energized state of the stationary gripper coil, the fully energized state of the movable gripper coil, and the fully energized state of the lift coil. It is therefore unclear which of the previously recited states the features in claims 9 and 10 are intending to refer to and the relationship between the “at least one energy state” and the “transition between energy states” and the various previously recited states.
Claims 9-10 and 12 recite “wherein the component is selected from the group consisting of the lift coil, the moveable gripper coil, and the stationary gripper coil”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “wherein the component is selected from a group consisting of the lift coil, the moveable gripper coil, and the stationary gripper coil”. It is unclear if claims 9-10 and 12 are merely restating the previously recited phrase from parent claim 1 (the “component” in claims 9-10 and 12 thus being the same as the “component” in claim 1), if the claims are intending to recite another selection of another component, or something else. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claims as merely restating the previously recited phrase from parent claim 1 and not requiring another selection of another component.
Claim 12 recites “wherein generate of the graphical output displayed indicating degradation operations are performed on the component”.
This phrase is unclear. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite a step of “generating”, if the claim is intending to refer to the step of “generating” previously recited in parent claim 1, if the claim is intending to specify a feature which “generates”, or something else.
Additionally, the antecedent basis for the phrase “graphical output displayed” is unclear as parent claim 1 does not appear to explicitly recite “displaying” the graphical output.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the component is selected from the group consisting of the lift coil, the moveable gripper coil, and the stationary gripper coil during six stages of a rod withdrawal sequence”. It is unclear what occurs “during six stages of a rod withdrawal sequence”. For example, it is unclear if selection of the component occurs “during six stages of a rod withdrawal sequence” or something else. This further renders unclear the relationship between the recited stages (i.e., the “first stage”, “second stage”, “third stage”, “fourth stage”, “fifth stage”, and “sixth stage”) and the previously recited steps in parent claim 1 (i.e., the “first step”, “second step”, “third step”, “fourth step”, and “fifth step”).
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-10, 12, and 15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,619,635 (“Thompson”) in view of “Detection and Mitigating Rod Drive Control System Degradation in Westinghouse PWRs” (“Gunther”) further in view of “Advanced Cable-Testing Techniques for Nuclear Power Plants” (“Hashemian”).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, and 8, Thompson (previously cited) discloses a method of operating a control rod movement mechanism of a nuclear power plant (1:66-73, 5:52-54), wherein the control rod movement mechanism includes at least a stationary gripper (“stationary gripper”), a moveable gripper (“movable gripper”), a stationary gripper coil (“stationary coil”), a moveable gripper coil (“movable coil”), and a lift coil (“lift coil”) (1:66-2:12, 5:52-70), the method comprising:
a first step of energizing the stationary gripper coil to a fully energized state to mechanically latch the stationary gripper to a control rod (“control rod”) (5:66-70),
a second step of energizing the stationary gripper coil to a reduced state when the stationary gripper is mechanically latched to the control rod, wherein the reduced state is not an inactive state (5:54-56, 5:66-70),
a third step of energizing the moveable gripper coil to a fully energized state to mechanically latch the moveable gripper to the control rod when the stationary gripper coil is in the reduced state and the stationary gripper is mechanically latched to the control rod (5:57-62),
a fourth step of discharging the stationary gripper coil to the inactive state to unlatch the stationary gripper from the control rod when the moveable gripper is mechanically latched to the control rod (5:58-62, 5:65-66), and
a fifth step of energizing the lift coil to a fully energized state to mechanically lift the control rod a predetermined distance relative to the stationary gripper (5:62-65).
Thompson does not appear to disclose performing testing on one of the coils. However, Gunther (previously cited) (see FIG. 5 (p. 11)) is also directed towards a control rod movement mechanism and teaches continuously monitoring the control rod movement mechanism during reactor operations (p. 11: “The system ... permits continuous monitoring of the rods during normal power operation”). Specifically, Gunther teaches:
performing electrical testing on each of a lift coil, a movable gripper coil, and a stationary gripper coil during operation of the control rod movement mechanism (p. 9: “This technique can be performed at any time during operation as well to detect changes in coil characteristics”; p. 11: “a system which detects degradation in the CRDM through on-line analysis of current signals and noise that is generated during rod motion”, “the system analyzes five parameters for each CRDM: current data from three coils (lift coil, movable gripper coil, and stationary gripper coil)”); and
generating and displaying, using a graphical output control unit (“Mini-computer”), a graphical output (“coil plot”) for each of the coils using values obtained from the electrical testing for each of the coils, wherein the graphical output is configured to indicate degradation of the respective coil (p. 11: “The movement ... induces a current which appears as a dip on the coil current plot. By analyzing the degree of dip on each current curve ... information on ... coil ... is obtained”; p. 12: “It may be possible to detect degrading circuits by examining several common electrical parameters such as coil resistance”; p. 14: “a current signature analysis technique [in which] each coil current is traced during rod motion. Analysis of the recorded data determines ... the coil integrity”).
Gunther further teaches such monitoring of the coils prevents failure of the control rod movement mechanism (p. 6: “Of the data reviewed which described failures of the coil assembly, a large majority were the result of a failure of the stationary gripper coil”; p. 9: “inspection, surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance activities which could be used to detect and mitigate degradation of electrical and electronic components within the control rod drive system”). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to have employed Gunther’s coil monitoring method in Thompson’s control rod movement mechanism operation method for the maintenance and safety benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Thompson’s method in order to monitor and mitigate degradation of the control rod movement mechanism, as suggested by Gunther, would have been obvious to a POSA.
As discussed above, Gunther teaches performing the electrical testing on each of the coils during the operation of the control rod movement mechanism (p. 9: “This technique can be performed at any time during operation as well to detect changes in coil characteristics”; p. 11: “a system which detects degradation in the CRDM through on-line analysis of current signals and noise that is generated during rod motion”). Since Thompson discloses the operation of the control rod movement mechanism includes the energizing and the discharging of the coils ([0028]-[0031]), the modified Thompson teaches performing the electrical testing during the energizing and discharging operations.
Gunther teaches the electrical testing measures the currents of the coils (p. 11: “current data from three coils”), but does not appear to specifically teach determining an impedance of the coils. However, Hashemian (previously cited) is also directed towards electrical testing of nuclear reactor components and teaches an integrated testing system to monitor degradation of a specific component (p. 425: “development of a complete turnkey program for cable testing, aging assessment, cable life management, equipment selection ... that can be used on ... cables, and other wiring in NPPs”). Specifically, Hashemian teaches the integrated testing system utilizes both current measurements (“leakage current measurement”) and impedance measurements (“ac impedance measurement module”) to monitor degradation of a component (“Device Under Test”), such as a component of a control rod movement mechanism (p. 418: “Used together, electrical methods like insulation resistance ... and LCR tests provide an overall picture of the cable’s health”; p. 421: “In NPPs, the TDR method is useful for testing ... control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) cables, and a variety of other NPP components”). Hashemian teaches (see FIGS. 10 (p. 426), 11 (p. 427)):
providing a user interface (“user interface”) configured to enable a user to identify a component to be tested (“Device Under Test”, “equipment under test”), and obtaining signal values from test points of the component (p. 425: “selection of appropriate tests for the equipment under test”; pp. 427-428: “staff must ... select the appropriate tests; identify equipment to perform the tests, determine what to test, where to test, and when to test”; p. 427: “A truly holistic cable-testing system will ... enable users to decide which testing tool to use in which situation, ... which are appropriate for specific elements of the cable system”);
using an impedance measuring unit (“LCR instrument”, “LCR meter”) configured to obtain the signal values obtained from the test points to determine a present impedance of the component based on the signal values obtained from the test points (p. 418: “Impedance measurement methods ... are also used to provide information about the insulation quality”; p. 419: “The LCR test uses an LCR instrument [] of LCR meter to make impedance measurements”; p. 421: “any significant change in impedance along the cable will cause a reflection that will appear on the TDR signature as a peak or valley whose amplitude depends on the characteristics of the cable impedance”);
comparing the present impedance to a predetermined reference impedance (p. 419: “Imbalances, mismatches, or unexpectedly high or low impedances between the cable leads indicate problems caused by cable degradation and aging”; p. 425: “compare the current results for a given system with past results”; p. 426: “historical data trending: to provide trending of the current data versus previous tests to identify slight changes that could indicate a problem”); and
generating and displaying, using a graphical output control unit (“Cable Testing Database”), a graphical output identifying the component including the signal values obtained from the test points of the component (p. 425: “user interface: ... display of data for acquisition and analysis, interface to central database”; p. 426: “data review: for visual ‘sanity check’ inspection of data and to provide quick summary of test parameters.... [R]eport generation: to provide printouts of analysis techniques and acquired data”; see also FIGS. 4-7), wherein the graphical output is configured to indicate degradation of the component when the present impedance deviates from the predetermined reference impedance by a predetermined amount (p. 421: “any significant change in impedance ... will cause a reflection that will appear on the TDR signature as a peak or valley”; p. 426: “historical data trending: to provide trending of the current data versus previous tests to identify slight changes that could indicate a problem”).
Hashemian further teaches this integrated testing system, including current testing and impedance testing, provides for a monitoring system that employs all relevant and effective testing methods to indicate clear correlations between test results and the degradation of the component which individual testing methods by themselves cannot provide (p. 428). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to utilize Hashemian’s electrical testing method to monitor the modified Thompson’s coils for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Thompson’s method to have employed a more holistic and complete evaluation of the coils, as suggested by Hashemian, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 3, Thompson in view of Gunther and Hashemian teaches the method of claim 1. Hashemian further teaches the signal values are voltage and current values (FIG. 3 (p. 420)) and the graphical output control unit is configured to perform the comparing and the generating the graphical output operations (FIG. 11 (p. 427); see also FIGS. 4-7). Thus, the modified Thompson, employed with Gunther’s coil monitoring and Hashemian’s electrical testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Thompson in view of Gunther and Hashemian teaches the method of claim 1. Hashemian further teaches the predetermined reference impedance corresponds to a historical impedance measurement of the component (p. 425: “compare the current results for a given system with past results”; p. 426: “historical data trending: to provide trending of the current data versus previous tests to identify slight changes that could indicate a problem”). Thus, the modified Thompson, employed with Gunther’s coil monitoring and Hashemian’s electrical testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Thompson in view of Gunther and Hashemian teaches the method of claim 1. Hashemian further teaches the predetermined reference impedance includes one or more determined impedances corresponding to the component (FIG. 11 (p. 427); p. 426: “data review: for visual ‘sanity check’ inspection of data and to provide quick summary of test parameters”, “historical data trending: to provide trending of the current data versus previous tests to identify slight changes that could indicate a problem”, “report generation: to provide printouts of analysis techniques and acquired data”; see FIGS. 4-7). Thus, the modified Thompson, employed with Gunther’s coil monitoring and Hashemian’s electrical testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Thompson in view of Gunther and Hashemian teaches the method of claim 1. Gunther further teaches it is common maintenance practice to measure a resistance of the coils to determine a temperature of the at least one component and detect degrading circuits (Table 2; p. 12: “It may be possible to detect degrading circuits by examining several common electrical parameters such as coil resistance”; p. 14: “A common practice of measuring the resistances of cables, connectors, and coil resistances”). Hashemian also teaches the electrical testing includes measuring a resistance of the component (p. 425: “resistance/voltage measurement module”). Thus, the modified Thompson, employed with Gunther’s coil monitoring and Hashemian’s electrical testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 7.
Regarding claims 9, Thompson in view of Gunther and Hashemian teaches the method of claim 8. As discussed above, Thompson discloses the coils of the control rod movement mechanism undergo at least one energy state and transition between energy states, including the fully energized states, the reduced states, and the inactive states (5:52-70). Gunther further teaches the graphical output includes a plot of the signal values over a time period while the control rod movement mechanism cable circuits are in operation (FIG. 5 (p. 11), p. 11: “The movement ... induces a current which appears as a dip on the coil current plot”). Hashemian also teaches the graphical output includes a plot of the signal values over a time period (FIG. 11 (p. 427)). Thus, the modified Thompson, employed with Gunther’s coil monitoring and Hashemian’s electrical testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Thompson in view of Gunther and Hashemian teaches the method of claim 1. As discussed above, Thompson discloses the coils of the control rod movement mechanism undergo at least one energy state and transitions between energy states including the fully energized states, the reduced states, and the inactive states (5:52-70). Gunther further teaches that the obtained signal values are recorded over a length of time while the control rod movement mechanism cable circuits are in operation (p. 11: “The system ... permits continuous monitoring of the rods during normal power operation”). Hashemian further teaches recording the present impedance over a length of time (FIG. 11 (p. 427); p. 426: “data review: for visual ‘sanity check’ inspection of data and to provide quick summary of test parameters.... [R]eport generation: to provide printouts of analysis techniques and acquired data”; see FIGS. 4-7). Thus, the modified Thompson, employed with Gunther’s coil monitoring and Hashemian’s electrical testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Thompson in view of Gunther and Hashemian teaches the method of claim 1. Gunther further teaches the coil monitoring is performed on the component during a rod withdrawal sequence (p. 11: “a system which detects degradation in the CRDM through on-line analysis of current signals ... generated during rod motion”). Thompson discloses the rod withdrawal sequence includes:
a first stage in which the stationary gripper coil is energized at the reduced state and the stationary gripper is solely latched to the rod (5:54-56, 5:66-70);
a second stage in which the stationary gripper coil is energized to the fully energized state and the moveable gripper coil is energized to the fully energized state to latch the moveable gripper to the rod (5:57-62, 5:66-70);
a third stage in which the stationary gripper coil is discharged to the inactive state such that the moveable gripper is solely latched to the rod (5:58-62);
a fourth stage in which the lift coil is energized to the fully energized state until the rod is lifted the predetermined distance (5:62-65);
a fifth stage in which the lift coil is discharged to the reduced state until the stationary grip coil is energized to the fully energized state to latch the stationary grip to the rod (5:66-70); and
a sixth stage in which the lift coil is discharged to a lift coil inactive state and the moveable gripper coil is discharged to a movable gripper inactive state, and the stationary grip coil is discharged to the reduced state (5:66-70).
Thus, the modified Thompson, employed with Gunther’s coil monitoring and Hashemian’s electrical testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, Thompson discloses a method of operating a control rod movement mechanism of a nuclear power plant (1:66-73, 5:52-54), wherein the control rod movement mechanism includes at least a stationary gripper (“stationary gripper”), a moveable gripper (“movable gripper”), a stationary gripper coil (“stationary coil”), a moveable gripper coil (“movable coil”), and a lift coil (“lift coil”) (1:66-2:12, 5:52-70), the method comprising:
a first step (i.e., the claimed “second step”) of energizing the stationary gripper coil to a fully energized state to latch the stationary gripper to a control rod (“control rod”) (5:66-70),
a second step (i.e., the claimed “third step”) of energizing the stationary gripper coil to a reduced state when the stationary gripper is latched to the control rod, wherein the reduced state is not an inactive state (5:54-56, 5:66-70),
a third step (i.e., the claimed “fourth step”) of energizing the moveable gripper coil to a fully energized state to latch the moveable gripper to the control rod when the stationary gripper coil is in the reduced state (5:57-62),
a fourth step (i.e., the claimed “fifth step”) of discharging the stationary gripper coil to the inactive state to unlatch the stationary gripper from the control rod when the moveable gripper is latched to the control rod (5:58-62, 5:65-66), and
a fifth step (i.e., the claimed “sixth step”) of energizing the lift coil to a fully energized state to lift the control rod a predetermined distance relative to the stationary gripper (5:62-65).
Thompson does not appear to disclose performing testing on one of the coils. However, Gunther (see FIG. 5 (p. 11)) is also directed towards a control rod movement mechanism and teaches continuously monitoring the control rod movement mechanism during reactor operations (p. 11: “The system ... permits continuous monitoring of the rods during normal power operation”). Specifically, Gunther teaches:
providing an electrical connector configured to connect to one or more test points of the control rod movement mechanism (p. 2: “The coil stack assembly includes a coil housing, an electrical conduit and connector, and three electro-magnetic operating coils”);
performing electrical testing on each of a lift coil, a movable gripper coil, and a stationary gripper coil during operation of the control rod movement mechanism (p. 9: “This technique can be performed at any time during operation as well to detect changes in coil characteristics”; p. 11: “a system which detects degradation in the CRDM through on-line analysis of current signals and noise that is generated during rod motion”, “the system analyzes five parameters for each CRDM: current data from three coils (lift coil, movable gripper coil, and stationary gripper coil)”); and
providing a graphical output control unit (“Mini-computer”) configured to generate and display a graphical output (“coil plot”) of the signal values obtained from the electrical testing for each of the coils, wherein the graphical output displayed is configured to indicate degradation of the respective coil (p. 11: “The movement ... induces a current which appears as a dip on the coil current plot. By analyzing the degree of dip on each current curve ... information on ... coil ... is obtained”; p. 12: “It may be possible to detect degrading circuits by examining several common electrical parameters such as coil resistance”; p. 14: “a current signature analysis technique [in which] each coil current is traced during rod motion. Analysis of the recorded data determines ... the coil integrity”).
Gunther further teaches such monitoring of the coils prevents failure of the control rod movement mechanism (p. 6: “Of the data reviewed which described failures of the coil assembly, a large majority were the result of a failure of the stationary gripper coil”; p. 9: “inspection, surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance activities which could be used to detect and mitigate degradation of electrical and electronic components within the control rod drive system”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have employed Gunther’s coil monitoring method in Thompson’s control rod movement mechanism operation method for the maintenance and safety benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Thompson’s method in order to monitor and mitigate degradation of the control rod movement mechanism, as suggested by Gunther, would have been obvious to a POSA.
As discussed above, Gunther teaches performing the electrical testing on each of the coils during the operation of the control rod movement mechanism (p. 9: “This technique can be performed at any time during operation as well to detect changes in coil characteristics”; p. 11: “a system which detects degradation in the CRDM through on-line analysis of current signals and noise that is generated during rod motion”). Since Thompson discloses the operation of the control rod movement mechanism includes the energizing and the discharging of the coils ([0028]-[0031]), the modified Thompson teaches performing the electrical testing during the energizing and discharging operations.
Gunther teaches the electrical testing measures the currents of the coils (p. 11: “current data from three coils”), but does not appear to specifically teach determining an impedance of the coils. However, Hashemian is also directed towards electrical testing of nuclear reactor components and teaches an integrated testing system to monitor degradation of a specific component (p. 425: “development of a complete turnkey program for cable testing, aging assessment, cable life management, equipment selection ... that can be used on ... cables, and other wiring in NPPs”). Specifically, Hashemian teaches the integrated testing system utilizes both current measurements (“leakage current measurement”) and impedance measurements (“ac impedance measurement module”) to monitor degradation of a component (“Device Under Test”), such as a component of a control rod movement mechanism (p. 418: “Used together, electrical methods like insulation resistance ... and LCR tests provide an overall picture of the cable’s health”; p. 421: “In NPPs, the TDR method is useful for testing ... control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) cables, and a variety of other NPP components”). Hashemian teaches (see FIGS. 10 (p. 426), 11 (p. 427)):
providing a user interface (“user interface”) configured to enable a user to identify a component to be tested (“Device Under Test”, “equipment under test”), and obtaining signal values from one or more test points of the component (p. 425: “selection of appropriate tests for the equipment under test”; pp. 427-428: “staff must ... select the appropriate tests; identify equipment to perform the tests, determine what to test, where to test, and when to test”; p. 427: “A truly holistic cable-testing system will ... enable users to decide which testing tool to use in which situation, ... which are appropriate for specific elements of the cable system”);
using an impedance measuring unit (“LCR instrument”, “LCR meter”) configured to obtain the signal values obtained from the one or more test points to determine a present impedance of the component based on the signal values obtained from the one or more test points (p. 418: “Impedance measurement methods ... are also used to provide information about the insulation quality”; p. 419: “The LCR test uses an LCR instrument [] of LCR meter to make impedance measurements”; p. 421: “any significant change in impedance along the cable will cause a reflection that will appear on the TDR signature as a peak or valley whose amplitude depends on the characteristics of the cable impedance”);
comparing the present impedance to a predetermined reference impedance (p. 419: “Imbalances, mismatches, or unexpectedly high or low impedances between the cable leads indicate problems caused by cable degradation and aging”; p. 425: “compare the current results for a given system with past results”; p. 426: “historical data trending: to provide trending of the current data versus previous tests to identify slight changes that could indicate a problem”); and
providing a graphical output control unit (“Cable Testing Database”) configured to generate and display identification of the component and to generate and display a graphical output of the signal values obtained from the one or more test points of the component (p. 425: “user interface: ... display of data for acquisition and analysis, interface to central database”; p. 426: “data review: for visual ‘sanity check’ inspection of data and to provide quick summary of test parameters.... [R]eport generation: to provide printouts of analysis techniques and acquired data”; see also FIGS. 4-7), wherein the graphical output displayed is configured to indicate degradation of the component when the present impedance deviates from the predetermined reference impedance by a predetermined amount (p. 421: “any significant change in impedance ... will cause a reflection that will appear on the TDR signature as a peak or valley”; p. 426: “historical data trending: to provide trending of the current data versus previous tests to identify slight changes that could indicate a problem”).
Hashemian further teaches this integrated testing system, including current testing and impedance testing, provides for a monitoring system that employs all relevant and effective testing methods to indicate clear correlations between test results and the degradation of the component which individual testing methods by themselves cannot provide (p. 428). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to utilize Hashemian’s electrical testing method to monitor the modified Thompson’s coils for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Thompson’s method to have employed a more holistic and complete evaluation of the coils, as suggested by Hashemian, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objections, but have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the prior art rejections (Remarks, p. 8) have been fully considered. However, the arguments do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which Applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited. The arguments appear to amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As discussed above, Thompson in view of Gunther and Hashemian teaches all of the features of the pending claims.
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).
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) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM-5:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646