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 .
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 02/06/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1, 4-22, and 25-26 are pending in the application with claims 5-20 withdrawn. Claims 1, 4, 21-22, and 25-26 are 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 25 is 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 25 recites “the nuclear fuel is positioned within holes penetrating the supporter, in contact with both the supporter and the heat conductors”. It is unclear the relationship between the “holes” and the “plurality of holes” previously recited in parent claim 1 and what feature is “in contact with both the supporter and the heat conductors”. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the “holes” as referring to the previously recited “plurality of holes” and the “nuclear fuel” as being “in contact with both the supporter and the heat conductors”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 21-22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2022/0399135 (“Morris”) in view of KR Patent No. 10-1183237 (“Lee”).
Citations to Lee refer to the machine translation provided with the PTO-892 dated 11/06/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Morris (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-3) discloses a nuclear reactor (100) comprising:
a plurality of fuel units (210), wherein each of the fuel units is formed in a form of a disk having a larger diameter than a thickness ([0050], [0055]; see also FIG. 3);
a plurality of shield units (212), wherein each of the shield units is formed in a form of a ring that is coaxial with a corresponding one of the plurality of fuel units and that covers and surrounds an entire outer circumference of the corresponding fuel unit to shield the corresponding fuel unit from radioactive rays ([0057]; see also FIG. 3); and
a plurality of heat conductors (106, 206, 208), wherein the plurality of heat conductors are arranged such that each of the heat conductors extends between one of the plurality of fuel units and another of the plurality of fuel units, and each of the heat conductors transfers heat of the respective fuel unit to the outside of a corresponding shield unit by solid heat conduction ([0052], [0054]-[0055], [0058]);
wherein
each of the fuel units and each of the heat conductors are coaxially arranged in an alternately superimposed manner and an outer radius of each of the heat conductors is larger than an outer radius of each of the shield units, wherein the thickness of each of the fuel units and a thickness of each of the shield units is the same in an axial direction (elements 210 (e.g., hatched elements) and elements 212 (e.g., non-hatched elements to the left and right of elements 210) in FIG. 2 have the same height).
Morris discloses each of the heat conductors has a thin flat shape (FIG. 2), but does not appear to disclose each of the heat conductors has a round shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Morris’s conductor plates to have a circular (e.g., “disk”) shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Morris does not appear to disclose a supporter having a plurality of holes in which nuclear fuel is arranged. However, it was known in the art to arrange nuclear fuel in a plurality of holes of a supporter plate. For example, Lee (previously cited) (see FIG. 4; see also FIG. 2) is similarly directed towards a nuclear reactor comprising a fuel unit in a form of a disk ([0001]). Lee teaches the fuel unit includes a supporter in the form of a plate (230) with a plurality of holes (232, 234), wherein a nuclear fuel (220, 222) is arranged in each of the plurality of holes ([0030], [0032]). Lee further teaches having the nuclear fuel arranged in a plurality of holes provides the advantage of allowing for different fuel enrichments within the fuel unit in order to reduce power peaking ([0032]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include a supporter having a plurality of holes for nuclear fuel in the modified Morris’s reactor, as taught by Lee, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Morris in order to enhance power distribution, as suggested by Lee, would have been obvious to a POSA.
The Figure 4 embodiment of Lee does not appear to teach the supporter contains graphene or graphite. However, Lee teaches another embodiment (FIG. 7) which is similarly directed towards a fuel unit including a supporter in the form of a plate (530) with a plurality of holes (532) for receiving nuclear fuel (520), the supporter containing graphite (522, 524). Lee further teaches the graphite serves as a buffer member, absorbing impact energy while providing good lubricity, shock absorption, thermal conductivity, high-temperature stability, and nuclear properties ([0037]-[0038]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the modified Morris’s supporter contain graphite, as taught by Lee, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Morris in order to enhance impact resistance, as suggested by Lee, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 21, Morris in view of Lee teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses each of the heat conductors contains graphene ([0053]-[0054], [0056]).
Regarding claim 22, Morris in view of Lee teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses each of the fuel units, shield units, and heat conductors are arranged sequentially along the axial direction (FIGS. 2-3).
Regarding claim 25, Morris in view of Lee teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Lee teaches the nuclear fuel is positioned within the plurality holes, the plurality of holes penetrating (e.g., passing into)1 the supporter, and the nuclear fuel in contact with both the supporter and a heat conductor (210, 510) (e.g., via Lee’s element 522) (FIGS. 4, 7, [0027], [0030]-[0032]; see also FIG. 3). Thus, Morris, modified to include the supporter as taught by the Figure 4 embodiment of Lee and to have the supporter contain graphite as taught by the Figure 7 embodiment of Lee, would have resulted in the features of claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Morris in view of Lee teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 25. Lee teaches the nuclear fuel is formed into a cylindrical shape so that it can be stored in each of the plurality of holes (FIG. 4). Thus, Morris, modified to include the supporter as taught by the Figure 4 embodiment of Lee and to have the supporter contain graphite as taught by the Figure 7 embodiment of Lee, would have resulted in the features of claim 26.
Claims 1, 21-22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Lee and US Patent No. 3,024,181 (“Howard”).
The following rejections are made in the event claim 1 is intending to recite the supporter is formed of graphene or graphite (see Response to Arguments below).
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, Morris in view of the Figure 4 embodiment of Lee teaches all of the features of claim 1 except for the supporter containing graphene or graphite as discussed above. Specifically, Lee teaches the supporter is formed of a zirconium or aluminum alloy ([0026]-[0027]), rather than graphene or graphite.
Howard (newly cited) (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a fuel unit (15) including a supporter in the form of a plate (23) with a plurality of holes for receiving nuclear fuel (27) (3:5-14, 3:48-68). Howard teaches the supporter is formed of graphite (3:15-21). Howard further teaches graphite is a suitable alternative to zirconium alloy (see Lee, [0026]-[0027]) and provides the advantages of easy fabrication (3:15-21). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to form the modified Morris’s supporter of graphite, as taught by Howard, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Morris in order to enhance manufacturing, as suggested by Howard, would have been obvious to a POSA. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use graphite or graphene since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 21, Morris in view of Lee and Howard teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses each of the heat conductors contains graphene ([0053]-[0054], [0056]).
Regarding claim 22, Morris in view of Lee and Howard teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses each of the fuel units, shield units, and heat conductors are arranged sequentially along the axial direction (FIGS. 2-3).
Regarding claim 25, Morris in view of Lee and Howard teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Lee teaches the nuclear fuel is positioned within the plurality holes, the plurality of holes penetrating (e.g., passing into)2 the supporter, and the nuclear fuel in contact with both the supporter and a heat conductor (210) (FIG. 4, [0027], [0030]-[0032]; see also FIG. 3). Thus, Morris, modified to include the supporter as taught by Lee and the graphite material taught by Howard, would have resulted in the features of claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Morris in view of Lee and Howard teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 25. Lee teaches the nuclear fuel is formed into a cylindrical shape so that it can be stored in each of the plurality of holes (FIG. 4; see also FIG. 3). Thus, Morris, modified to include the supporter as taught by Lee and the graphite material taught by Howard, would have resulted in the features of claim 26.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of (1) Morris in view of Lee or (2) Morris in view of Lee and Howard, further in view of US Publication No. 2020/0126680 (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 4, Morris in view of Lee and Morris in view of Lee and Howard do not appear to teach a plurality of cutouts as recited in claim 4. Kim (previously cited) (see FIGS. 5C, 8) is also directed towards a nuclear reactor (510) and similarly teaches a heat conductor (520c’) ([0243]). Kim teaches a low-temperature part (8032) (i.e., the part of the heat conductor to which heat is transferred) of the heat conductor may have cutouts (e.g., heat transfer members, fins) ([0243], [0262]). Kim further teaches the cutouts increase a surface area of the heat conductor, therefore increasing heat transfer ([0243], [0262]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to modify a low-temperature part of each of the modified Morris’s heat conductors (e.g., portion of element 206, 208 extending outside of element 212) as taught by Kim for the heat transfer benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Morris in order to improve heat transfer efficiency, as suggested by Kim, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “it is not obvious to include graphene or graphite—materials functioning as moderators—in the support structure itself, merely by installing shock-absorbing members (containing graphite) as separate components either sandwiching the nuclear fuel or on its surface” (emphasis in original) (Remarks, pp. 8-9). However, the claims do not require that the support structure itself is, for example, formed of graphene or graphite. Rather, claim 1 recites “the supporter contains graphene or graphite”. A structure my “contain[]” something by having, holding, or accommodating it3. Lee teaches the supporter (530) has, holds, or accommodates graphite (522, 524) (FIG. 7, [0037]-[0039]). Thus, the Figure 7 embodiment of Lee teaches a supporter “contain[ing]” graphene or graphite as required by claim 1.
Applicant further argues “[the Figure 6 embodiment of Lee] involves separately machining a first plate 432 with a through hole 434 formed therein and a second plate 440, then attaching the second plate to the surface of the first plate 432 to block one of the through holes 434. Nuclear fuel is not placed in holes penetrating the support body” (Remarks, p. 9). As acknowledged by Applicant, Lee teaches machining a through hole (434) through a supporter (432) (FIG. 6, [0035]-[0036]). Thus, the Figure 6 embodiment of Lee teaches holes (434) penetrating a supporter (432). Lee further teaches nuclear fuel (420) is placed in these holes (434) (FIG. 6, [0035]-[0036], [0043]). It is unclear why Applicant believes nuclear fuel is not placed in these holes.
Applicant further argues “[t]his amended claim is inconsistent with Lee’s concept of absorbing impact in the vertical direction and therefore cannot be considered” (emphasis in original) (Remarks, p. 9). However, it is unclear what aspect of amended claim 25 is “inconsistent with” Lee’s graphite features.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
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 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penetrate
2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penetrate
3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contain