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 03/27/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 15-21 are pending in the application with claims 16-21 withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 15 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)
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 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.
Claims 1 and 15 recite “a generating and trapping component which generates an iodide ion from [] organic iodine and traps the generated iodide ion[]”. The claims later recite “the generated iodide ion being trapped by the generating and trapping component”. It is unclear how the latter limitation differs from the previously recited limitation. For example, it is unclear if “the generated iodide ion” in each phrase is intending to refer to the same or different features. As best understood by Examiner in view of Applicant’s Remarks (see p. 8), each of the “generating and trapping component” and the “generating component” are intended to generate iodide ions from organic iodine, and the “generating and trapping component” is intended to also trap iodide ions. Perhaps the claims could be amended as follows:
Claim 1:
“a generating and trapping component which generates [[an]] iodide ions from the organic iodine
a generating component, which is a component different from the generating and trapping component, and which generates [[an]] iodide ions from the organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C, wherein the generating and trapping component traps the generated iodide ions
Claim 15:
“a generating and trapping component which generates [[an]] iodide ions from the organic iodine
a generating component, which is different from the generating and trapping component, and which generates [[an]] iodide ions from the organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C, wherein the generating and trapping component traps the generated iodide ions
Claim 1 recites “wherein the generating component is present in the first trapping agent in an amount of 0.07 mass% or more relative to the generating and trapping component”. It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins and the phrase “relative to” is unclear. For example, it is unclear if the claim is intending to recite that the concentration of the “generating component” in the first trapping agent is 0.07 mass% and/or more than the concentration of the “generating and trapping component” in the first trapping agent, the first trapping agent comprises 0.07 mass% or more of the “generating component”, or something else. Perhaps the claim should be amended to recite “wherein a concentration of the generating component is 0.07 mass% or more
Claim 2 recites “wherein the generating and trapping component is a nonvolatile liquid”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “wherein the generating and trapping component is an ionic liquid”. It is unclear the relationship between the “nonvolatile liquid” and the “ionic liquid”. For example, it is unclear if claim 2 is intending to further specify that the “ionic liquid” is nonvolatile, if the “generating and trapping component” comprises multiple liquids, or another interpretation. As best understood by Examiner in view of Applicant’s Remarks (p. 9), the claim is intending to further specify that the “ionic liquid” in claim 1 is nonvolatile. Perhaps the claim should be amended to recite “wherein the ionic liquid is [[a]] nonvolatile
Claim 10 recites “a radioactive substance removal filter configured to remove a radioactive substance in the gas”. It is unclear the relationship between the “radioactive substance” and the previously recited “organic iodine” (parent claim 1), “aerosol”, and “inorganic iodine”.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked. As explained in MPEP 2181(I), claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) The claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) The term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means”, but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a generating component, which is a component different from the generating and trapping component, and which generates an iodide ion from the organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C, the generated iodide ion being trapped by the generating and trapping component” in claim 1 and “a generating component, which is different from the generating and trapping component, and which generates an iodide ion from the organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C, the generated iodide ion being trapped by the generating and trapping component” in claim 15. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see [0032], [0036]).
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Publication No. 2017-223535 (“Fukui”) in view of US Publication No. 2009/0127202 (“Bruchertseifer”).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Fukui (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) discloses a nuclear power structure, comprising:
a nuclear power structure main body (4) ([0017]); and
an iodine trapping apparatus (30) configured to trap organic iodine in a gas ([0012]), wherein
the iodine trapping apparatus comprises
a first trapping agent, disposed in a first vessel (1), capable of trapping the organic iodine which is disposed in the first vessel ([0012], [0018]), wherein the first trapping agent contains
a generating and trapping component (3) (e.g., “ionic liquid”, “trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride”) which generates an iodide ion from the organic iodine and traps the generated iodide ion ([0022]; the instant specification at paragraphs [0029], [0037] discloses trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride as a suitable “generating and trapping component”), and
wherein the generating and trapping component is an ionic liquid (e.g., “trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride”) containing quaternary phosphonium as a cation ([0022]; see also Remarks dated 12/08/2025, pp. 12-13).
Fukui does not appear to disclose the first trapping agent also contains a “generating component” as recited in claims 1 and 15. Bruchertseifer (previously cited) is similarly directed towards an iodine trapping agent comprising a “generating and trapping component” (e.g., “phase transfer catalyst”, “soluble ion-exchanger agent”) which generates an iodide ion from the organic iodine ([0006], [0010], [0030]). Bruchertseifer teaches the iodine trapping agent further comprises a “generating component” (e.g., “nucleophilic agent”), which is a component different from the “generating and trapping component”, and which is capable of generating an iodide ion from the organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C, the generated iodide ion being trapped by the “generating and trapping component” ([0008]; Bruchertseifer teaches the “generating component” may be N2H5OH, N2HOH, or (NH4)2S, which the instant specification at paragraphs [0032]-[0036] as suitable “generating components” which generate iodide ions from organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C). Bruchertseifer further teaches including the “generating component” or a mixture of different “generating components” and “generating and trapping components” provides the advantages of reducing organic iodine to non-volatile iodide ions in a wide range of temperatures and pHs ([0006]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include the “generating component” as taught by Bruchertseifer in Fukui’s first trapping agent for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Fukui in order to enhance organic iodine trapping capabilities, as suggested by Bruchertseifer, would have been obvious to a POSA.
The modified Fukui appears to be silent as to the relative concentrations of the “generating and trapping component” and the “generating component”. However, it would have been obvious to a POSA to have a first trapping agent comprising 0.07 mass% or more of the “generating component” since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. A POSA would have been aware that the “generating and trapping component” and the “generating component” each react with the organic iodine differently. For example, Bruchertseifer teaches that the “generating component” operates by reducing organic iodides (e.g., CH3I) and iodate to non-volatile iodide ions in a wide range of temperatures and pH ([0006], [0025]) and further suggests varying the amount of the “generating component” relative to the “generating and trapping component” in order to obtain optimum organic iodide decomposition and retention of iodide ions ([0028], [0034]). Therefore, the skilled artisan would have therefore been capable of adjusting the amount of the “generating component” relative to the “generating and trapping component” based on the desired reactions. Additionally, as discussed in the prior Office actions, there is no evidence that the claimed “generating component” content is critical. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Fukui in view of Bruchertseifer teaches the iodine trapping apparatus according to claim 1. Fukui discloses the “generating and trapping component” is a nonvolatile liquid ([0022]). Bruchertseifer teaches the “generating component” is a first reducing agent ([0006]; see also the instant specification at paragraph [0036] which discloses N2H5OH, N2HOH, or (NH4)2S as suitable “first reducing agents”). Thus, Fukui’s iodine trapping apparatus, modified to include a “generating component” as taught by Bruchertseifer, would have resulted in the features of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Fukui in view of Bruchertseifer teaches the iodine trapping apparatus according to claim 1. Bruchertseifer teaches the “generating component” may be N2H5OH, N2HOH, or (NH4)2S, which the instant specification at paragraph [0036] discloses as suitable “generating components”. Thus, as Bruchertseifer’s taught “generating components” are disclosed in the instant specification as suitable “generating components”, it follows that the modified Fukui’s “generating component” (e.g., Bruchertseifer’s N2H5OH, N2HOH, or (NH4)2S) has an oxidation-reduction potential of lower than 0.54 V, which is a standard oxidation-reduction potential determined using a standard hydrogen electrode. Thus, Fukui’s iodine trapping apparatus, modified to include a “generating component” as taught by Bruchertseifer, would have resulted in the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Fukui in view of Bruchertseifer teaches the iodine trapping apparatus according to claim 1. Fukui discloses the “generating and trapping component” is hydrophobic ([0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Fukui in view of Bruchertseifer teaches the iodine trapping apparatus according to claim 1. Fukui discloses a second trapping agent (2) capable of trapping at least one component of aerosol further contained in the gas and inorganic iodine, which is an aqueous solution containing a second reducing agent ([0007], [0018], [0028]; the instant specification at paragraph [0046] discloses scrubber water as a suitable “second trapping agent”).
Regarding claim 10, Fukui in view of Bruchertseifer teaches the iodine trapping apparatus according to claim 1. Fukui discloses the iodine trapping apparatus is a filtered containment venting apparatus including (see FIG. 1):
the first vessel which is configured to trap at least one component of aerosol further contained in the gas and an inorganic iodine ([0018]), accommodate a second trapping agent (2) which is an aqueous solution containing a second reducing agent ([0007], [0018], [0028]; the instant specification at paragraph [0046] discloses scrubber water as a suitable “second trapping agent”), and communicate with the nuclear power structure main body through a venting pipe (9) open to an inside of the second trapping agent ([0018], [0028]), and
a radioactive substance removal filter (10) configured to remove a radioactive substance in the gas ([0030]), and
wherein the first trapping agent is disposed above the second trapping agent ([0034]).
Claim 7, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui in view of Bruchertseifer further in view of JP Publication No. 2016-186427 (“Wada”).
Regarding claim 7, Fukui in view of Bruchertseifer teaches the iodine trapping apparatus according to claim 6. Fukui discloses the second trapping agent is scrubbing water ([0007], [0018], [0028]), but appears to be silent as to the pH of the scrubbing water. Wada (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 4) is similarly directed towards an iodine trapping apparatus (10) comprising scrubbing water (12) for trapping aerosols contained in a gas from a nuclear power structure main body (2) ([0015], [0054]). Wada teaches the second trapping agent has an alkaline pH ([0020], [0043]). Wada further teaches the alkaline scrubbing water provides the advantages of stably trapping iodine ([0018]-[0021]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use alkaline scrubbing water, as taught by Wada, in the modified Fukui’s iodine trapping apparatus for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Fukui in order to enhance iodine trapping in the scrubbing water, as suggested by Wada, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of record and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant argues “Bruchertseifer indicates that the temperature range in which effects can be obtained is 25 to 90°C [] and that the higher the temperature, the more CH3I accumulates in the gas phase, slowing down its decomposition in solution” (Remarks, p. 11) (citing Bruchertseifer, Table 1, [0026], [0034]) and “there is no description of specific methods of utilization, particularly regarding temperature” (Remarks, pp. 11-12) (citing Bruchertseifer, [0036]). Applicant further argues “the presently claimed invention is intended for severe accidents such as containment vessel failure” and “considering the disclosure of Fukui and attempting to improve the organic iodine collection performance at 100°C to 130°C, one might also look at Bruchertseifer’s disclosure, but the applicable temperature range is different, and it is stated that decomposition in solution is slowed at high temperatures” (Remarks, p. 12).
However, Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does or a method for using a device. Statements of intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s) as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115. Nevertheless, Examiner notes that Bruchertseifer is also “intended for severe accidents”: “The method according to the present invention is used to execute strategies and procedures to manage iodine sources under severe accident conditions” (emphasis added) ([0012]; see also [0036]).
Additionally, Table 1 of Bruchertseifer shows that the decomposition rate of organic iodide in a “first trapping agent” decreases from 22°C to 90°C. However, as noted by Applicant, this merely suggests that the decomposition is “slowed” at the higher temperatures (Remarks, pp. 11, 12), not that there is no decomposition at higher temperatures. Similarly, Bruchertseifer at paragraph [0034] teaches varying the amount of the “generating component” relative to the “generating and trapping component” in order to obtain optimum organic iodide decomposition and retention of iodide ions at temperatures from 25°C to 90°C. This also does not mean that there is no decomposition outside of this temperature range. Nowhere does Bruchertseifer appear to teach or suggest that the “generating component” cannot generate iodide ions from organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C.
Further, the fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As stated by Applicant (see Remarks dated 12/08/2025, p. 10), the chemical structure or chemical composition of the material of the “generating component” is what allows the “generating component” to “generate[] an iodide ion from the organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C”. Bruchertseifer teaches the “generating component” (e.g., “nucleophilic agent”) may be N2H5OH, N2HOH, or (NH4)2S ([0008]). The instant specification discloses N2H5OH, N2HOH, or (NH4)2S as suitable materials for the “generating component” which are capable of generating iodide ions from organic iodine at least at 100°C to 130°C ([0032]-[0036]).
Applicant further argues “with the configuration set forth in claim 1, the iodine removal performance at 100°C to 130°C is improved by approximately 1000 times compared to Bruchertseifer’s experimental results” (Remarks, p. 12).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Fukui discloses a first trapping agent containing a “generating and trapping component” that is an ionic liquid containing quaternary phosphonium as a cation (e.g., “trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride”) ([0022]; see also Remarks dated 12/08/2025, pp. 12-13); Bruchertseifer establishes that including a “generating component” (e.g., Bruchertseifer’s “nucleophilic agent”) to a first trapping agent that contains a “generating and trapping component” (e.g., Bruchertseifer’s “phase transfer catalyst”, “soluble ion-exchanger agent”) provides the advantages of reducing organic iodine to non-volatile iodide ions in a wide range of temperatures and pHs ([0006]). Accordingly, the combination of Fukui with Bruchertseifer results in the features of the claimed invention, i.e., a first trapping agent comprising a “generating and trapping component” (e.g., Fukui’s “trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride”) that is an ionic liquid containing quaternary phosphonium as a cation and a “generating component” (e.g., Bruchertseifer’s “nucleophilic agent”).
Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the claimed invention yields unexpectedly improved properties or properties not present in the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights