FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends because these two claims set forth aluminum (Al) dopant concentration amount/ranges that are outside the aluminum (Al) dopant concentration of dependent claim 10 from which they both directly depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harp et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2016/0372221 A1.
Applicant’s said claims are deemed to be anticipated over Harp et al.’s overall process of making U3Si2 pellets/structures. Said U3Si2 pellets/structures are deemed to inherently have oxidation and corrosion resistant because Harp’s et al.’s process of making said U3Si2 pellets/structures is the same as Applicant’s claimed process of making his U3Si2 pellets/structures. It is well established that a compound and its properties are in separatable. Specifically Harp et al.’s claimed process is set forth in the following claims.
Harp et al.’s independent claim 1 reads as followed: “A method of forming an U3Si2 structure, comprising: forming a mixture comprising uranium particles and silicon particles; pressing the mixture to form a compact comprising the uranium particles and the silicon particles; subjecting the compact to an arc melting process to form a preliminary U3Si2 structure; subjecting the preliminary U3Si2 structure to a comminution process to form a fine U3Si2 powder, pressing the fine U3Si2 powder to form a green U3Si2 structure; and sintering the green U3Si2 structure.”. Please note that said U3Si2 powder reads directly on Applicant’s U3Si2 nuclear fuel of dependent claim 8.
Harp et al.’s dependent claim 7 reads as followed: “The method of claim 1, wherein subjecting the preliminary U3Si2 structure to a comminution process comprises: subjecting the preliminary U3Si2 structure to an initial milling process to form an initial U3Si2 powder comprising U3Si2 particles each independently exhibiting a particle size less than or equal to about 5 mm; and subjecting the initial U3Si2 particles to an additional milling process to form the fine U3Si2 powder, the fine U3Si2 powder comprising fine U3Si2 particles exhibiting an average particle size within a range of from about 0.5 μm to about 10 μm.”. Please note that said particle size range falls within Applicant’s claimed particle size ranges of dependent claim 5.
Harp et al.’s dependent claim 9 reads as followed: “The method of claim 7, wherein subjecting the initial U3Si2 particles to an additional milling process comprises: subjecting the initial U3Si2 particles to a first planetary milling process to form smaller U3Si2 particles each independently exhibiting a particle size less than or equal to about 50 μm; and subjecting the smaller U3Si2 particles to at least one second planetary milling process to form the fine U3Si2 particles.”. Please note that said planetary milling process is a ball milling process that reads on Applicant’s high energy ball milling process of independent claim 1. Furthermore, since the ball milling process is a multi-step process, it meets the limitations of Applicant’s dependent claim 4.
Claim(s) 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harp et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2016/0372221 A1 in view of either of CN 107180654 A or Subhash et al. U.S Patent Application Publication No.: 2015/0221398 A1 for claim 7 only.
Harp et al. has been described above and differs from applicant’s claimed invention in the following ways: 1) there does not seem to be a direct teaching (i.e. by way of a specific example) to where the U3Si2 nuclear fuel pellet/structure is further subjected to an annealing process of Applicant’s dependent claim 3, 2) there does not seem to be a direct teaching (i.e. by way of a specific example) to where the method of sintering can be vacuum sintering as set forth within Applicant’s dependent claim 6, and 3) there does not seem to be a verbatim disclosure to where the sintering process is a spark plasma sintering (SPS) process of Applicant’s dependent claim 7.
Harp et al.’s paragraph [0048] expressively discloses that the U3Si2 nuclear fuel pellet/structure can further be subjected to an annealing process. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Harp et al.’s disclosure of paragraph [0048], as strong motivation to actually subject the U3Si2 nuclear fuel pellet/structure to a further annealing process thus meeting the limitations of Applicant’s dependent claim 3. It is not inventive to merely follow the direct suggestion of a prior-art reference.
Harp et al.’s paragraphs [0052]-[0057] disclose extensive information about various sintering process parameters used in the invention, such as vacuum sintering which is directly disclosed in paragraph [0054]. Furthermore, Applicant’s spark plasma sintering (SPS) process is also deemed to fall within said broad disclosure, even though it is not verbatimly mentioned. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use Harp et al.’s disclosure of paragraph [0054], as strong motivation to actually subject the U3Si2 nuclear fuel pellet/structure to a vacuum sintering process thus meeting the limitations of Applicant’s dependent claim 6. It is not inventive to merely follow the direct suggestion of a prior-art reference.
The secondary reference to CN 107180654 A discloses a protective coating layer which comprises porous carbon layer, pyrolytic carbon layer and silicon carbide layer. The fuel is uranium dioxide, uranium carbide, uranium nitride, uranium silicide, and/or uranium alloy. Preferred Method: Mold pressing is done at 20-60 MPa. Sintering is done at 1200- 1700 degrees C for 1-5 hours under argon atmosphere. Discharge plasma sintering is done at 1100-1600 degrees C for 2-30 minutes.
The secondary reference to Subhash et al. discloses a method for production of a nuclear fuel pellet by spark plasma sintering (SPS), wherein a fuel pellet with more than 80% TD or more than 90% TD is formed. The SPS can be performed with the imposition of a controlled uniaxial pressure applied at the maximum temperature of the processing to achieve a very high density, in excess of 95% TD, at temperatures of 850 to 1600.degree. C. The formation of a fuel pellet can be carried out in one hour or less. In an embodiment of the invention, a nuclear fuel pellet comprises UO2 and a highly thermally conductive material, such as SiC or diamond, see abstract. In other embodiments the nuclear fuel pellets can comprise uranium silicide, see paragraph [0055].
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use either disclosure of CN 107180654 A or Subhash et al., as strong motivation to actually use a spark plasma sintering (SPS) process for Harp et al.’s U3Si2 nuclear fuel pellet/structure process thus meeting the limitations of Applicant’s dependent claim 7. It is not inventive to merely follow the direct suggestion of a prior-art reference.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article entitled: “Scoping Studies of Dopants for Stabilization of Uranium Nitride Fuel”, by Bjork et al. further in view of Harp et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2016/0372221 A1
Bjork et al. discloses, a method of making an oxidation and corrosion resistant uranium nitride (UN) nuclear fuel (Pg.1256 Co1 Para 4). Said method comprises protecting easily oxidized materials by adding a dopant (chromium, aluminum and/or nickel). Said dopant then undergoes oxidation to form an oxide on the exposed surface of the uranium nitride (UN) nuclear fuel pellets protecting them from further oxidation; Pg.1256 Col1 Para 5. A uniform protective layer or multiple layers of chromium, aluminum, and/or nickel would prevent the uranium nitride (UN) fuel pellets from corrosion under operating conditions in the core.
The method comprises: adding a dopant (chromium, aluminum and/or nickel) to the uranium nitride (UN) nuclear fuel then refining, by milling (Pg.1260 Col1 Para 3), the uranium nitride (UN) spheres either by directly pressing to form a green pellet or first milling uranium nitride (UN) spheres into fine powder and then pressing. (Pg.1260 Col 2 Para 4) disclose manufacture trials which resulted in sintered pellets of uranium nitride (UN) doped with chromium, aluminum, and/or nickel. Bjork et al.’s uranium nitride (UN) is proposed for use as light water reactor fuel. The highest density was achieved when the uranium nitride (UN) spheres were first grounded to a fine powder and then sintering the refined powder to form a nuclear fuel pellet (Pg.1260 Col 1 Para 3). The uranium nitride (UN) green pellets were sintered on a tungsten plate in argon. Fig.6b...SEM/EDS, images show the elemental distributions on the surfaces of the sintered uranium nitride (UN) doped pellets with aluminum.
The concentration of the aluminum (Al) dopant used in Bjork et al.’s process (Pg. 1259 Table 3), falls within Applicant’s claimed Aluminum (Al) dopant concentration amounts as set forth in dependent claim 10.
Bjork et al.’s said method “differ” from Applicant’s claimed method in that Bjork et al. does not expressively state that their milling of the doped uranium nitride (UN) fuel pellets use a high energy ball milling (HEBM) process.
Harp et al. has been described above in great detail and does disclose a high energy ball milling (HEBM) process to make nuclear fuel pellets.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of the secondary reference of Harp et al. as strong motivation to actually employe a high energy ball milling (HEBM) process to mill Bjork et al.’s doped uranium nitride (UN) fuel pellets for the benefits that such milling would impart (e.g. generating very small/fine particle sizes).
Finally, applicant’s process steps of dependent claims 3-6 are fully met in light of the disclosure of the secondary reference to Harp et al. which as been fully described above.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article entitled: “Scoping Studies of Dopants for Stabilization of Uranium Nitride Fuel”, by Bjork et al. further in view of Ahlfeld et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2012/0257707 A1.
Bjork et al. has been described above and their said method “differ” from Applicant’s claimed method in that Bjork et al. does not expressively state that their milling of the doped uranium nitride (UN) fuel pellets use a high energy ball milling (HEBM) process.
The secondary reference to Ahlfeld et al. discloses a nuclear fuel includes a volume of a nuclear fuel material defined by a surface, the nuclear fuel material including a plurality of grains, some of the plurality of grains having a characteristic length along at least one dimension that is smaller than or equal to a selected distance, wherein the selected distance is suitable for maintaining adequate diffusion of a fission product from a grain interior to a grain boundary in some of the grains, the nuclear fuel material including a boundary network configured to transport the fission product from at least one grain boundary of some of the grains to the surface of the volume of the nuclear fuel material, see abstract.
Ahlfeld et al.’s paragraphs [0051] and [0107] directly disclose that the nuclear fuel source undergoing processing can be selected to be uranium nitride (UN).
Ahlfeld et al.’s paragraph [0108] directly discloses that the process of making the nuclear fuel pellets comprises a milling step(s) wherein the milling can be conducted on the nuclear fuel, by a high energy ball milling (HEBM) process (thus meeting Applicant’s dependent claim 4 limitation), to form very fine particles that can fall within Applicant’s particle size ranges of dependent claim 5.
Ahlfeld et al.’s paragraphs [0057] and [0071] directly disclose that the nuclear fuel source undergoing processing, undergoes sintering and also annealing process steps, the meeting the limitation of applicant’s dependent claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the disclosure of the secondary reference of Ahlfeld et al. as strong motivation to actually employe a high energy ball milling (HEBM) process to mill Bjork et al.’s doped uranium nitride (UN) fuel pellets for the benefits that such milling would impart (e.g. generating very small/fine particle sizes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/25 with the amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above. Additional examiner comments are set forth next.
In the REMARKS section Applicant argues the following: “Claim 1 recites a method of making oxidation- and corrosion- resistant nuclear fuel by refining, via high-energy ball milling (HEBM), a nuclear-fuel powder, and sintering the refined powder to form a pellet. Harp discloses planetary milling, not HTEBM. Harp's dependent claim 9 and paragraph [0043-0047] describe planetary milling steps, which involves a lower energy, and is not analogous to HTEBM.
Because Harp fails to disclose at least H-EBM refinement it does not anticipate Applicant's claim 1.”.
Examiner’s Response: Harp et al.’s paragraphs [0043]-[0047] directly teach the use of a planetary mill, such as a planetary ball mill, see line 1 in column 2 on page 6. It is notoriously well known in the art that high-energy ball milling (HEBH) is a very common type of planetary ball milling. The two are not inherently distinct, and one having ordinary skill in the art would know this fact. As way of further evidence, the examiner performed an AI search in Google about this issue and got the following results back.
“Yes, planetary ball milling is a primary type of high-energy ball milling (HEBM) used to create fine powders, alloys, and nanomaterials through high-impact collisions. It is considered a representative high-energy technique because the jars revolve around a sun wheel and rotate on their own axis, creating extremely high centrifugal force.
PNG
media_image1.png
32
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ScienceDirect.com +4
Key Aspects of Planetary Ball Milling as High-Energy Milling:
Mechanism: The combination of rotating jars and a rotating platform creates high-energy, high-impact forces, differentiating it from low-energy conventional ball mills.
Applications: It is used for intensive processes like mechanical alloying, mechanical activation, and creating nanoparticles.
Performance: It enables rapid, efficient size reduction, often reaching submicron or nanometer particle sizes.
Types of Mills: While other high-energy mills exist (e.g., attritors, vibratory mills), the planetary mill is the most common.
PNG
media_image1.png
32
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ScienceDirect.com +5
While planetary mills are a type of high-energy mill, not all high-energy mills are planetary mills (e.g., shaker mills or attritors).”.
The examiner wants to further point out that applicant’s independent claim 1 has set forth no specific parameters in regards to the physical/mechanical properties/attributes of the “high-energy ball milling (HEBH)” process used to refine the nuclear fuel powder. In fact, the examiner cannot find any disclosure within applicant’s original filed specification, that discusses and established what said specific physical/mechanical parameters of the “high-energy ball milling (HEBH)” process were employed in applicant’s invention. As such, applicant’s independent claim 1 limitation of: “refining, by high energy ball milling (HEBM)” is clearly not a patentable distinction over Harp et al.’s planetary ball milling process.
In the REMARKS section Applicant further argues the following: “Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over the article entitled: "Scoping Studies of Dopants for Stabilization of Uranium Nitride Fuel", by Bjork et al., in view of Harp et al. Examiner asserts that a POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Harp's HEBM into Bjork's dopant-based-oxidation resistance system to arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant respectfully traverses.
As discussed in detail above, neither Bjork nor Harp disclose the type of high-energy mechanical refinement recited by Applicant's claims. Bjork teaches only gently grinding or pressing to form pellets (Bjork et al., p. 1260). HEBM would destroy the very chemical uniformity Bjork seeks to preserve by inducing non-uniform oxidation and excessive reactivity. Accordingly, Bjork in view of Harp provides no disclosure or suggestion of HEBM, and no motivation exists for a POSITA to substitute HEBM into either reference's process. Claim 1 is therefore not obvious over Bjork in view of Harp.”.
Applicant further argues the following: “Bjork teaches an oxidation-resistance mechanism based on surface dopant chemistry, where Al/Cr/Ni dopants oxidize uniformly to form a protective oxygen-blocking surface layer (Bjork et al., p. 1256). Bjork therefore relies on gentle grinding and pressing-the UN spheres are "directly pressed" or gently ground-to preserve the UN spherical morphology and the uniform surface-oxide formation that Bjork depends on (Bjork et al., p. 1260 and 1263). Nowhere does Bjork contemplate the types of high-energy mechanical effects inherent to HEBM-such as severe deformation, repeated fracturing and rewelding, or the formation of nano structured grains. Maintaining low permeability and chemical uniformity is essential to Bjork's protective-oxide mechanism. (Bjork et al., p. 1263 and 1261).”
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees with applicant’s above characterization of Bjork’s process of making aluminum doped stabilized uranium nitride fuel spheres because Bjork’s process is NOT limited to only gentle pressing of the aluminum doped stabilized uranium nitride fuel spheres. Applicant’s attention is drawn to Bjork’s page 1260 section: “IV.C. Pelletization of Nitrided Product” where it is directly stated: “The nitrided spheres were either directly pressed into a form of green pellet or milled into fine powder and then pressed, as indicated in Table III.” [Emphasis added]. As such, Bjork clearly discloses that a first milling process step of aluminum doped stabilized uranium nitride fuel spheres falls directly within the scope of their invention, and that said milling process DOES NOT adversely affect the desired uranium nitride spherical morphology and uniform surface-oxide formation as argued by applicant.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764