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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3–4 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous prior art rejections of record; following an updated search, updated prior art rejections are provided below.
Applicant’s deletion of the limitation “communication passages” overcome that Drawing objection of record, which is withdrawn.
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s label of the Opening on page 11 of the Remarks dated 04/30/2026; however, if this “opening” is going to be explicitly claimed, then it must be labeled in the official Figure 5 of the application, not just as a sidenote in the Remarks. Examiner will withdraw this Drawing objection after a replacement Figure 5 is submitted with the label for the claimed Opening.
Applicant’s amendments overcome most of the 112(b) rejections, which are withdrawn, but they create a new 112(b) rejection related to the remaining Drawing objection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 04/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are moot because they are directed towards limitations newly introduced into the claims, which are addressed herein.
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 “opening of the calandria vault” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. If these structures are going to be explicitly claimed, then they must be shown and labeled in the Drawings. This objection is related to the below indefiniteness objection.
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.
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 and 3–4 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 that the “opening of the calandria vault is aligned with the front surface and the rear surface of the calandria to expose the front surface and the rear surface to an exterior of the calandria vault through the opening for replacement of nuclear fuel.” This limitation is indefinite because it defines a single “opening” that is “aligned with” a front and a rear surface to expose the front and the rear to the exterior of the vault for replacing fuel. In other words, the claim recites a single opening that exposes a front and a rear surface. However, it is implied from a “front” and a “rear” surface that these surfaces are on opposite sides of the calandria. Therefore, a single opening cannot be on both sides of the calandria simultaneously. It is unclear where the opening is arranged relative to the front and rear of the calandria. This rejection is related to the above Drawing objection. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as meaning that there is an opening on at least one side of the calandria/reactor conducive to fuel replacement.
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
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 a heavy water 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) installed on the shielding block, wherein the plurality of radiation measuring instruments are arranged at predetermined intervals to acquire information about radiation for each position along the front surface and the rear surface of the heavy water 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) 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 external to an opening of the calandria vault (10), and the opening of the calandria vault (10) is configured to be disposed to correspond to front and rear surfaces of the calandria (14) which are exposed to the outside for replacement of nuclear fuel (both the calandria and its vault necessarily comprise openings for fuel replacement).
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 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 body of the diving 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 to utilize 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 fuel nearby.
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 to utilize 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 §73.553 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 see 20-page foreign reference in the file 8/21/2025.
2 see attached 15-page foreign reference.
3 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part073/part073-0055.html
Prosecution Insights