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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/06/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 06/06/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1, 3-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are pending in the application with claims 5-6, 8-12, and 18-20 withdrawn1. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 14, 16, and 21 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 § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 14, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Experimental Study of New Generation WWER-1000 Fuel Assemblies at JSC NCCP” (“Enin”) in view of “Study on the Spacer Grid Dynamic Crush Strength According to Cell Sizes” (“Ryu”) and “Development and Demonstration of a New Testing Capability for Simulating Multiple Fuel Assembly Impact During a Seismic Event” (“Zhao”).
Regarding claim 1, Enin (previously cited) (see FIG. 6; see also figure in Table 3) discloses a method of testing nuclear fuel assembly test spacer grids, the test method comprising:
providing a test assembly (“dummy model”) modeling a section of a nuclear fuel assembly, the test assembly comprising a bundle of test rods (“fuel rod”, “FR”) and three test spacer grids (“spacer grid”, “SG”) distributed along the test rods (p. 221: “Dummy models of skeletons and FR bundles containing three spacer grids each were fabricated ... and tested”),
wherein the test assembly comprises exactly three test spacer grids (p. 221: “Dummy models of skeletons and FR bundles containing three spacer grids each were fabricated ... and tested”), and
wherein the test assembly excludes a bottom nozzle and a top nozzle.
Enin discloses testing the test spacer grids by applying a force to a centrally located test spacer grid (“middle SG”) of the three test spacer grids to determine mechanical characteristics and performance of the test assembly structures (p. 217: “Substantiation of design element strength and rigidity”, “This made if possible to conduct the comparison experiments and determine the required mechanical characteristics of different design modifications with small expenses”; p. 221: “The cage design makes it possible to apply a transverse force to the middle SG of dummy model”, “Skeleton and FR bundle rigidity was determined by means of bend test”), but does not appear to explicitly disclose performing an impact test on the centrally located test spacer grid as recited in claim 1.
Ryu (newly cited) (see FIG. 4) is similarly directed towards a method of testing a nuclear fuel assembly test spacer grid (“test grid”, “specimen”) comprising a bundle of test rods (“fuel rod cladding”, “guide tubes”) (Abstract, p. 2: “Short fuel rod cladding and guide tubes are inserted in each cell of the test grid”). Ryu teaches the method comprises:
generating an impact on the test spacer grid (p. 2: “During the test, the spacer grid is impacted by the pendulum hammer”);
measuring and recording at least one impact parameter and/or at least one displacement of the test spacer grid (FIG. 5, p. 2: “The dynamic crush strength in each group was determined at the maximum impact load before buckling”),
wherein the test assembly includes a stationary support (“load cell”, “back plate”), the test spacer grid being pressed against the stationary support during the generating of the impact on the test spacer grid; and
prior to generating the impact, bringing the spacer grid into abutment with the stationary support.
Ryu further teaches the pendulum impact test provides the advantage of verifying seismic performance and mechanical integrity of the spacer grid by investigating the dynamic crush behavior of the spacer grid (Abstract, p. 1: “it is necessary to study the crush strength variations according to the cell sizes in order to verify the seismic performance and mechanical integrity of the fuel. And it can be improved to enhance grid buckling and maintain higher strength throughout the operating life time through structural design of the mid grid”). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include Ryu’s impact testing in Enin’s method for the predictable advantage of investigating the dynamic characteristics of the spacer grid, as suggested by Ryu.
The modified Enin does not appear to teach the test assembly includes three of the stationary supports (e.g., Ryu’s “load cell”, “back plate”) as recited in claim 1.
However, as discussed above, Enin discloses the test assembly comprises three spacer grids (FIG. 6, Table 3). It was known in the art to provide a stationary support for each spacer grid of a test assembly for a pendulum impact test. For example, Zhao (previously cited) (see FIGS. 2-3, 6) is also directed towards a method of conducting a pendulum impact test on a test assembly (“fuel assembly”, “FA”) comprising a bundle of test rods (“fuel rod”) and test spacer grids (“spacer grid”, “grid”) distributed along the test rods, the impact test comprising generating an impact on a centrally located test spacer grid (“Grid 5”) of the test spacer grids (Abstract, p. 2: “a series of impact tests of spacer grids were performed”; p. 3: “a prototype fuel assembly was tested using selected pendulum parameters”). Zhao teaches the test assembly includes stationary supports, each of the test spacer grids being pressed against a respective one of the stationary supports during the generating of the impact on the centrally located test spacer grid such that the impact on the centrally located test spacer grid is taken up in part by the centrally located test spacer grid and in part by the other test spacer grids (FIGS. 8-10, p. 3: “It can be seen that the impact loads on the two sides of the grid were close to each other”). Zhao further teaches providing each of the test spacer grids with a respective stationary support provides the advantages of measuring and recording impact parameters of multiple test spacer grids of the test assembly, allowing for the investigation of the mechanical characteristics of multiple test spacer grids (FIGS. 8-10, p. 4: “a comparison of the impact forces at various spacer grid locations for pendulum at Grid 5 elevation”, “It shows impact loads at various grid locations and Grid 5 deformation as a function of time. It can be seen that impacts at different spacer grids occur at different time instances”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a stationary support for each of the modified Enin’s three test spacer grids for the predictable purpose of examining the characteristics and performance of each of the test spacer grids, as suggested by Zhao.
Regarding claim 3, Enin in view of Ryu and Zhao teaches the testing method according to claim 1. Ryu teaches the generating of the impact is generating a two-side impact that includes impacting the centrally located test spacer grid with an impact member (“hammer”) on a side of the centrally located test spacer grid opposite the stationary support against which the centrally located test spacer grid is applied (FIG. 4, p. 2: “the spacer grid is impacted by the pendulum hammer”). Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing and additional stationary supports as taught by Zhao, would have resulted in the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Enin in view of Ryu and Zhao teaches the testing method according to claim 3. Ryu teaches the impact member is movably mounted by a pendulum to project the impact member against the centrally located test spacer grid (FIG. 4, p. 2: “pendulum impact test equipment”). Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing and additional stationary supports as taught by Zhao, would have resulted in the features of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Enin in view of Ryu and Zhao teaches the testing method according to claim 1. Ryu teaches heating the test assembly prior to and/or during the generating the impact on the centrally located test spacer grid (p. 2: “The temperature for this test is chosen as operating temperature”, “Three groups of specimens were tested at 600°F temperature”). Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing and additional stationary supports as taught by Zhao, would have resulted in the features of claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, Enin in view of Ryu and Zhao teaches the testing method according to claim 1. Enin discloses the test spacer grids each define a plurality of rod cells, each of the rod cells receiving one of the test rods such that each of the test rods passes through one of the rod cells of each test spacer grid (FIG. 6; see also figure in Table 3).
Regarding claim 16, Enin in view of Ryu and Zhao teaches the testing method according to claim 1. Ryu teaches the generating of the impact on the centrally located test spacer grid includes compressing the centrally located test spacer grid between the impact member and the one of the three stationary supports against which the centrally located test spacer grid is pressed against (FIG. 4). Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing and additional stationary supports as taught by Zhao, would have resulted in the features of claim 16.
Regarding claim 21, Enin in view of Ryu and Zhao teaches the testing method according to claim 1. Ryu teaches heating the test assembly with a heating device (“furnace”) during the generating of the impact on the centrally located test spacer grid (FIG. 4, p. 2: “The temperature for this test is chosen as operating temperature”, “Three groups of specimens were tested at 600°F temperature”),
the heating device including a heating enclosure (FIG. 4),
the test assembly being disposed within the heating enclosure during the generating of the impact on the centrally located test spacer grid of the three test spacer grids (FIG. 4),
the heating enclosure including a passageway opening (“door”) through which an impact member generating the impact passes to generate the impact on the centrally located test spacer grid (FIG. 4).
Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing and additional stationary supports as taught by Zhao, as discussed above with regards to claim 1, would have resulted in the features of claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the rejections above.
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 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Examiner notes, claims 6 and 20 were previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species A3), there being no allowable generic or linking claim (see Final Rejection dated 01/30/2024). Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/16/2023.