DETAILED ACTION
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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 08/28/2026 has been entered.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3–4 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome the Drawing objections and 112(b) rejections of record, which are all withdrawn..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 08/28/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Noel does not disclose that his detectors measure radiation dose. This argument is unpersuasive because JP876, not Noel, was used to teach this feature.
Applicant argues that Noel does not teach simultaneous use of different types of detectors. However, Noel states in ¶ 25 that he uses “combinations” of different types of detectors: “intrusion detection devices 36 … such as thermal imaging cameras, vibration sensors, microwave detectors, motion detection cameras, various combinations thereof.” Using a combination of the listed cameras, sensors, and detectors means that they are used together. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s modification of Noel with JP876 requires improper hindsight. Noel discloses using a combination of different types of cameras, sensors, and detectors (“intrusion detection devices 36 … such as thermal imaging cameras, vibration sensors, microwave detectors, motion detection cameras, various combinations thereof,” ¶ 25). Among this list are microwave detectors. Microwaves are radiation. Therefore, Noel teaches using a combination of different types of intrusion detection devices 36 including radiation detectors. The only modification being made by JP876 is that JP876 shows that it was known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention that some radiation detectors detect radiation and radiation dose. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to measure dose in addition to just the radiation because equipment and personnel subject to frequent radiation exposure should be monitored for damage, as explained by JP876 (¶ 10 on page 5): “the calculation means is provided to predict the remaining life dose of the parts related to the … equipment … When working, it is possible to know exactly in time how much work can be done at the place … It is possible to provide a safe working [environment].” Because the radiation detectors/personnel of Noel, like those of JP876, are subject to frequent radiation exposure, the skilled artisan is motivated to protect the equipment and the workers, as is well-known in the art. Monitoring the dose exposure enables this protection. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to monitor dose outside the reactor of Noel unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noel (US 2012/0207261 A1) in view of “JP876” (JP 3522876 B21), further in view of “CN483” (CN103850483A2).
Regarding claim 1, Noel teaches (Fig. 1) an exposure prevention device for dismantling a heavy water reactor facility (invention may be used in a “heavy water” reactor facility, ¶ 22), comprising: a shielding block (exterior walls surrounding isolation zone 34 on which detectors 36 are placed) configured to be disposed at a front surface and a rear surface of the heavy water reactor facility including a calandria (14) and a calandria vault (10) that is a wall structure accommodating the calandria; a plurality of radiation measuring instruments (36; the intrusion detection devices 36 may include microwave detectors, ¶ 25; Examiner notes that microwave detectors are radiation measuring instruments [they emit and measure electromagnetic radiation]) installed on the shielding block, wherein the plurality of radiation measuring instruments are arranged at predetermined intervals to acquire information about radiation3 for each position along the front surface and the rear surface of the heavy water reactor facility (instruments 36 are arranged on all four sides of the calandria vault 10 and the calandria 14 within, as shown in Fig. 1); and a motion detector (“motion detection cameras” in the intrusion detection devices 36, ¶ 25, which may be used in “combinations” with the radiation detectors cited above, ¶ 25) installed on the shielding block and configured to detect an approach of a worker within a predetermined distance from the shielding block (a “motion detection camera” is designed to detect an approach of a person or other moving object—that is the purpose of its “motion detection”; Noel further explains it is “…configured to detect unauthorized approach toward the protected area,” ¶ 25), wherein the shielding block (exterior walls surrounding isolation zone 34 on which detectors 36 are placed) is configured to be disposed by an opening of the calandria vault (10) (because the shielding block surrounds the entirety of the vault, it is disposed by the vault openings, which are not labeled in Figure 1 but are necessarily present for workers and equipment to access the reactor), and the opening of the calandria vault (10) is aligned with the front or the rear surface (the vault 10 is a square, and any of its walls could be considered its front or rear) of the calandria (14) to expose the front surface or the rear surface to an exterior of the calandria vault through the opening for replacement of nuclear fuel (both the calandria and its vault necessarily comprise openings for required maintenance such as fuel replacement, as noted above).
Examiner notes that the claimed terms “calandria” and “calandria vault” correspond to the terms used by Noel “reactor” and “containment building,” respectively. The term “calandria” is often used specific to heavy water facilities, for which Noel states in ¶ 22 their invention may be used.
Noel discloses that the instruments acquire information about radiation but not explicitly radiation dose.
JP876 is in the same art area of monitoring of nuclear reactors (abstract) and teaches a radiation measuring instrument that is arranged at predetermined intervals to acquire information about radiation dose distribution for each position (“Further, the depth information obtained from the depth gauge and the dose rate distribution in the reactor are sequentially loaded into the computer memory in the computer, and the expected radiation dose value received until the submersible body is recovered is calculated,” ¶ 10 on page 5).
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the dose distribution calculations taught by JP876 since, as explained by JP876 (¶ 10 on page 5), “the calculation means is provided to predict the remaining life dose of the parts related to the … equipment during the work in the reactor by adding the expected dose value, for example, the worker uses the diving equipment under the water in the reactor. When working, it is possible to know exactly in time how much work can be done at the place at the diving equipment position, and thus to be able to measure the exact remaining life dose and remaining life time in working in the reactor. It is possible to provide a safe working robot device in the reactor of this type.”
This combination does not explicitly teach the claimed relative location of the fuel replacement room. Specifically, Noel discloses (Fig. 1) the shielding block detectors (36) disposed between an opening of the calandria vault (10) and many other surrounding buildings (e.g., 20, 21, and numerous other, unlabeled buildings) but does not specify if any of these outside buildings includes a fuel replacement room.
CN483 does. CN483 is in the same art area of nuclear reactor plant layouts (abstract) and teaches (Fig. 1) a reactor vault (1) adjacent a fuel replacement room (2), having an opening of the calandria vault (not pictured but necessarily present between the reactor room 1 and the fuel room 2 at a location along their pictured border), wherein the opening is aligned with the front surface and the rear surface (see the above indefiniteness rejection) to an exterior of the vault (1) through the opening for replacement of nuclear fuel (as room 1 is the reactor room, and room 2 is the fuel room, it is implicit that a door/opening between them is “for replacement of nuclear fuel”; there is no other mechanism for replacing the fuel within the reactor than having an opening between their adjacent rooms). Examiner notes that any location along the border between reactor room 1 and fuel room 2 may be considered a “front” surface of reactor room 1, with another border/an opposite border being considered a “rear” surface that is “aligned” with the front surface.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have utilized the fuel room 2 as suggested by CN483 because having the radioactive fuel adjacent the reactor room 1 would have had the apparent benefit of not having to transport radioactive material across multiple rooms or even outside from a first building to a second building. The skilled artisan would have readily appreciated the logistical simplification of having the reactor fuel nearby the reactor.
Regarding claim 3, modified Noel teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP876 additionally teaches a dose display unit (“TV monitor 35,” page 6) that is provided in a shielding block (fig. 2) and displays the dose determined by the radiation measuring instruments (e.g., “remaining life dose…displayed on the TV monitor 35,” page 9) for each of the predetermined positions.
The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have utilized the dose display unit of JP876 within the apparatus of modified Noel in order to provide a “warning” to the operator so they are “informed of the limit of the used parts and the instruction of recovery,” page 8, final line – page 9, fourth line.
Regarding claim 4, modified Noel teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Noel additionally discloses a warning unit (“alarms,” ¶ 25) that is connected to the motion detector (“monitored with automated [and recording] intrusion detection sensors and alarms,” ¶ 16; “alarms in the protected area…as set forth in 10 C.F.R. §73.55,” ¶ 25 and Examiner notes that §73.554 requires a warning/alarm connected to the motion detector, e.g., “(B) Monitored with intrusion detection equipment…and be capable of detecting both attempted and actual penetration of the protected area perimeter barrier before completed penetration of the protected area perimeter barrier; and (C) Monitored with assessment equipment…and provide real-time and play-back/recorded video images of the detected activities before and after each alarm annunciation”), and emits a warning when a motion is detected by the motion detector, wherein the warning unit comprises at least one of a warning light and a warning speaker (“alarms,” ¶ 16), and is configured to issue a visual or audible warning to a worker when the motion detector detects an approach within the predetermined distance (as cited above in §73.55, which describes “alarm annunciation” per intruder detection).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 C GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 see 20-page foreign reference in the file 08/21/2025.
2 see 15-page foreign reference in the file 07/07/2026.
3 Microwave radiation detectors emit electromagnetic waves and then receive their echo when they bounce off or interact with a nearby object or person; these interactions are information the detector uses to trigger an action or response. Common actions include turning on a light when someone enters a room or sounding a security alarm. www.mountlighting.co.uk/microwave-detection-explained/
www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-microwave-sensor-how-does-work-octiot-69cxc
4 www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part073/part073-0055.html
Prosecution Insights