DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request for continued examination (RCE) filed 18 September 2025 has been entered. No amendments were filed therewith.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 7-12, 14, and 17-18 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-6, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 are further considered 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument #1 (Remarks at page 6):
“as a result of the complex relationship between the container, or containers, and the endothermic chemistry, substituting the single, large tank as disclosed by Memmott to instead use an "assembly comprising elongate tubes," as recited in Claim 1, would not be an appealing solution. For example, as disclosed by the Subject Application at Paragraph [0049]:
... The coupled relationship between the tube and endothermic chemistry must be understood to perform performance estimations. Tube diameter, number, wall thickness, and assumed free volume percentage will ultimately dictate the volume of chemical housed. However, chemical volume, tube diameter, amount reacted, and temperature will influence the chemical kinematics and thus, the energy removed per tube area. These parameters vary along the length of tube and with time during a transient event. These complex interactions can be modeled, along with two-phase flow calculations in a nodal methodology, to estimate the condenser performance achieved by a given configuration....”
Applicant’s argument #2 (Remarks at page 6):
“substituting the single, large tank as disclosed by Memmott with a plurality of smaller cylindrical elongate tubes as disclosed by Taft would require considerable design changes to both Memmott and Taft to ensure that the plurality of smaller cylindrical elongate tubes meet desired performance estimations. Stated differently, the plurality of smaller cylindrical elongate tubes as disclosed by Taft (and specifically the number of tubes, the tubes' diameters, the tubes' wall thicknesses, and the like) would have to be significantly modified to meet desired performed estimations of the system disclosed by Memmott. These considerable design changes would make the combination of Memmott in view of Taft unappealing.”
Applicant’s argument #3 (Remarks at page 6):
“it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Memmott in view of Taft as alleged by the Office Action. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been more inclined to simply enlarge the single, large tank as disclosed by Memmott to enhance heat exchange and heat absorbance. . . . Specifically, the Office Action fails to provide why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to entirely depart from the single, large tank as disclosed by Memmott to instead use the plurality of smaller cylindrical elongate tubes as disclosed by Taft, despite the complex design changes which would be required, rather than simply enlarging the single, large tank as disclosed by Memmott.”
In summary, Applicant argues that:
(1) Substituting the single, large tank of Memmott for elongate tubes
would not be an appealing solution because the change would be too complex;
(2) Substituting the single, large tank of Memmott for elongate tubes
would require considerable design changes to Memmott; and
(3) One would have enlarged the single, large tank of Memmott instead
of using smaller elongate tubes. The Office fails to provide why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the change.
Examiner’s Reply
(1) One of ordinary skill in the art (engineers associated with a nuclear plant) would be able to perform the substitution in spite of Applicant’s alleged complexity. Applicant gives the skilled artisan less credit than they deserve. Taft shows that it is well known in the art to employ elongate tubes (containing endothermic material) in a nuclear reactor containment. Furthermore, Applicant has not defined what constitutes a complex design change.
(2) The substitution would not require considerable design changes. Again, the skilled artisan would be able to perform the substitution, as evidenced by Taft. Furthermore, Applicant has not defined what constitutes a considerable design change.
(3) Enlarging Memmott’s tank is one option to increase cooling capacity. However, the option of employing smaller elongate tubes results in more efficient and faster cooling. One of ordinary skill in the art would choose the latter option to maximize cooling. If the nuclear plant does not need faster cooling then a larger tank may suffice. Regardless of which option is chosen, both options are well known (and obvious) to the skilled artisan.
Again, substitution of Memmott’s tank for elongate tubes (as suggested by Taft) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. An example of such substitution is shown below. The top Figure represents Memmott’s tank. The bottom Figure represents the use of elongate tubes instead of the tank. Both Figures (side views shown) occupy the same space.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
412
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The skilled artisan would understand that the elongate tubes provide a larger heat transfer area when compared to the single tank. The skilled artisan would also understand that a larger heat transfer area produces faster cooling. Thus, a nuclear plant that needs faster cooling would employ plural elongate tubes. The Office has thus provided a valid reason why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a plurality of smaller elongate tubes instead of a single large tank.
It should be understood that the rejection is not based on modification of only Memmott, which Applicant apparently argues. Rather, the rejection is applicable to the nuclear plant prior art in general. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that different nuclear plants can be implemented with containers (which house endothermic material) of different geometries for diameter and shape, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of certain geometries in light of the specific nuclear plant design or upgrade. For example, a nuclear plant that can use a single large container to meet cooling needs can use a single container. However, a nuclear plant that requires faster cooling needs would use plural smaller containers, which provide greater heat transfer area (for the same space). Providing even more smaller containers outside of the same space (in combination with the smaller containers in the same space) would provide even more cooling. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed plural smaller containers (instead of the single tank) to meet a particular nuclear plant design (or upgrade) that requires faster cooling needs. The result of the desirable modification would have been not only predictable to the skilled artisan but also common sense.
A present question is: Should a U.S. patent be granted just because Memmott shows a single tank instead of elongate tubes? The examiner maintains the answer is “no”. Memmott’s endothermic material invention is not limited to a container of a single dimension. Nor are nuclear plants limited to using only a single large tank. The skilled artisan would understand that plural elongate tubes would provide a cooling advantage. Use of plural elongate tubes is known in the nuclear plant prior art, as evidenced by Taft. Also, smaller elongate tubes are easier to handle (e.g., Taft at col. 5, lines 59-61).
The examiner below presents case law in support of the rejections:
Although a reference may not disclose a plurality of items, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original idea involving only a change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original idea, is not an invention that will sustain a patent. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Such is the current situation.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions, but the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
The configuration (shape) of a claimed item is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed item was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Applicant also argues (Remarks at page 7) against the rejection based on Taft in view of Memmott. This rejection has been withdrawn. Thus, the arguments thereto are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 13, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memmott (WO 2017/184718) in combination with Taft (US 3,726,759).
The claims have not been amended. Thus, the reasons for rejection set forth in the prior Office Action (dated 18 June 2025) are herein incorporated by reference.
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.
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 and/or the specification.
Additional Comment
The below claim 21 is provided for Applicant’s consideration. The claim is not necessarily an indication: of allowable subject matter; that it has specification support; or that it has election support.
Claim 21. (For consideration) A nuclear reactor containment energy absorbing apparatus, comprising:
at least one assembly comprising a plurality of elongate tubes,
wherein each assembly of the at least one assembly is movable as a single unit,
wherein the at least one assembly comprises a first assembly and a second assembly,
wherein the first assembly is stacked on the second assembly in an axial direction,
wherein each of the elongate tubes is sealed,
wherein each of the elongate tubes comprises a pressure release valve operable to vent the respective elongate tube; and
wherein each of the elongate tubes houses an endothermic material occupying a majority volume of each of the elongate tubes,
wherein the endothermic material is configured to undergo a chemical endothermic reaction in the elongate tubes,
wherein the endothermic material comprises ammonium carbamate.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646