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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 07/15/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-18 are pending in the application with claims 8-10, 15, and 18 withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 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, 3-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 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.
The terms “significant” and “almost” in claims 1 and 11 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites “wherein, when the vessel hull rests atop the foundation, at least a portion of the nuclear enclosure is below the water surface.” It is unclear the relationship between “when the vessel hull rests atop the foundation” and the “first state of ballasting,” “second state of ballasting,” and “operational position” previously recited in parent claim 11. It is further unclear the relationship between the “at least a portion of the nuclear enclosure ... below the water surface” and the “at least a significant portion of the nuclear enclosure is above the water surface” and “almost an entirety of the nuclear enclosure is below the water surface” previously recited in parent claim 11.
Claims 16-17 recite “wherein, in the second state of ballasting, the nuclear enclosure is between 90 – 100% below the water surface.” It is unclear if this is intending to refer to a percentage by volume, by height, or by another metric of the nuclear enclosure.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication No. 2018/175663 (“Lowrey”) in view of “Impact Crashworthiness of a Floating Offshore Nuclear Power Plant Hull Structure in a Terrorist Attack with an Aircraft Strike” (“Paik”) and US Patent No. 8,867,691 (“Root”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lowrey (previously cited) (see FIGS. 40A-40B) discloses a coastal nuclear power station (4000) ([0004]-[0005], [0262]), comprising:
a harbor comprising a landmass (4002) abutting a body of water (4004) having a water surface ([0012], [0124], [0247], [0262]);
a slip (4008) extending into the landmass, filled by a portion of the body of water, wherein the slip comprises at least one breakwater defining a transition from the landmass to the body of water ([0202], [0247], [0262]);
a marine power structure (4042) (see FIGS. 14-15, 50) disposed within the slip, comprising
a vessel hull (822, 1404) adapted to float on the water surface, wherein the vessel hull is transportable to a deployment location (FIG. 8, [0011]-[0012], [0162], [0169], [0203], [0262]),
a nuclear enclosure (1420, 5000) disposed within the vessel hull ([0169]),
a protective structure (1402) provided on the vessel hull, over the nuclear enclosure, to protect the nuclear enclosure from impact from an object exterior to the vessel hull (FIG. 14, [0169]; structure 1402 is a physical structure provided over the nuclear enclosure and would, therefore, provide at least some protection from an impact),
a nuclear reactor (5002) disposed within the nuclear enclosure, wherein the nuclear reactor generates heat ([0246], [0286]),
a primary coolant system (1440) connected to the nuclear reactor, wherein the heat is transferred to a primary coolant within the primary cooling system ([0235], [0246], [0264]); and
a ballast system (1422), wherein the ballast system is adapted to alter a buoyancy of the vessel hull (FIG. 14, [0203], [0230]); and
a foundation (3308, 3310) disposed within the slip, beneath the water surface, at the deployment location, wherein the foundation is adapted to receive the vessel hull (FIG. 33A, [0005], [0230], [0262]),
wherein the vessel hull is adapted to be ballasted from a first state of ballasting where the nuclear enclosure is above the water surface to a second state of ballasting where the nuclear enclosure is below the water surface (FIG. 14, [0004], [0203], [0230]-[0231], [0262]), and
wherein the second state of ballasting is an operational position of the nuclear reactor ([0203], [0230]).
Lowrey appears to be silent as to the specific structure of the vessel hull. Paik (previously cited) (see FIGS. 5 (p. 3), 23 (p. 18), 24 (p. 19)) is also directed towards a nuclear marine power structure (“floating nuclear power plant”) which comprises a vessel hull (“hull”) adapted to float on a body of water such that the structure is transportable to a deployment location (p. 1: “A floating nuclear power plant is a non-self-propelled vessel that generates electrical power with one or more nuclear reactors installed inside a vessel at sea.... The plant can be built at a shipyard and towed to the site of operation”). Paik teaches the vessel hull comprises an inner hull (“inner side shell”) disposed within an outer hull (“outer side shell”) such that a space (“double-side space”) containing concrete, which is also a radiation shielding material1, is defined between the inner hull and the outer hull (p. 5: “The double sides and double bottom will then be filled with sand except in the fission island, in which the double sides will be filled with concrete”). Paik further teaches this hull structure provides the advantages of reducing impacts from a striking body, thereby protecting the power station from accidents and terrorism (p. 4: “the structural crashworthiness of ThorConIsle’s hull structure was investigated in a terrorist-attack scenario”; p. 7: “The double-side space is filled in with sand or concrete for ballasting, which will contribute to reducing the penetration of the striking body into the hull structures”; p. 10: “Sand or concrete is used for ballasting in the double-side space of the ThorConIsle hull.... It is expected that the ballasting materials contribute to reducing the striking body’s penetration because they absorb part of the initial kinetic energy”; p. 21: “The use of ballasting materials such as sand or concrete in the double-side space of the hull structure can effectively absorb the initial kinetic energy in an aircraft strike”). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to modify Lowrey’s power station to include a hull structure as taught by Paik for the safety benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Lowrey in order to protect the power station from attacks, as suggested by Paik, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Lowrey appears to be silent as to at least one lateral stabilizer as recited in claims 1 and 11. Root (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) is also directed towards a marine power structure (10) comprising a vessel hull (102) adapted to float on a body of water (103) and a foundation (100) adapted to receive the vessel hull (2:35-50). Root teaches at least one lateral stabilizer (e.g., one of elements 105) disposed between the vessel hull and the foundation and adapted to engage the vessel hull, wherein the at least one lateral stabilizer assists to maintain a stability of the vessel hull by limiting an effect on the vessel hull from at least one of (1) a seismic event, (2) a lateral shock, (3) a list angle, and (4) a tilt acceleration (2:54-62, 4:20-41, claim 1). Root further teaches the at least one lateral stabilizer provides the advantage of damping movement of the marine power structure, thus increasing stability, during seismic events or other forces (2:54-62, 4:20-41, claim 1). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to further modify Lowrey’s power station to include the at least one lateral stabilizer as taught by Root for the safety benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Lowrey in order to enhance stability, as suggested by Root, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 3, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the marine power structure of claim 1. Lowrey is silent as to a propulsion system for the vessel hull and further discloses the vessel hull may be floated to the deployment location by means of tugs or heavy lift ships ([0202]). Therefore, the modified Lowery teaches the vessel hull excludes a propulsion system.
Regarding claim 4, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the marine power structure of claim 1. Lowrey further discloses the nuclear reactor comprises a modular reactor having a power output of approximately 50 megawatts (MWe) ([0006], [0011]), which falls within the claimed range of between 1 megawatts (MWe) to 100 megawatts (MWe).
Regarding claim 6, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the marine power structure of claim 1. Lowrey further discloses the nuclear reactor comprises a plurality of nuclear reactors (5002) (FIG. 50, [0024], [0262], [0286]).
Regarding claim 7, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the marine power structure of claim 1. Lowrey further discloses a fuel handling area (614, 5004) within the nuclear enclosure, permitting transfer of nuclear fuel to and from the nuclear reactor (FIGS. 15, 50, [0170], [0227], [0286]).
Regarding claim 12, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the coastal nuclear power station of claim 11. Lowrey further discloses the ballast system enables the vessel hull to float on the water surface and also to sink into the body of water and rest atop the foundation (FIGS. 14, 33A, [0004], [0203], [0230]-[0231]).
Regarding claim 13, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the coastal nuclear power station of claim 11. Lowrey further discloses when the vessel hull rests atop the foundation, at least a portion of the nuclear enclosure is below the water surface ([0004], [0262]).
Regarding claim 14, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the coastal nuclear power station of claim 11. Root teaches a plurality of seismic isolators (e.g., the other two of elements 105) (FIGS. 1-2, 2:54-62, 4:20-41, claim 1). Root further teaches the seismic isolators provides the advantage of damping movement of the marine power structure, thus increasing stability, during seismic events or other forces (2:54-62, 4:20-41, claim 1) and the importance of redundant safety systems to provide maximum protection to the marine power structure during seismic activity (1:44-48). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to further modify Lowrey’s power station to include the seismic isolators as taught by Root for the safety and redundancy benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Lowrey in order to enhance stability and redundancy, as suggested by Root, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claims 16-17, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the nuclear marine power structure of claim 1 and the coastal nuclear power station of claim 11. Lowery discloses in the second state of ballasting, the nuclear enclosure (1420, 5000) is between 90 – 100% below the water surface (FIG. 14, [0004], [0203], [0230]-[0231]; Lowery discloses the MNPs are “immersed in an inexhaustible supply of coolant water” at paragraph [0004] – the term “immersed” means completely under the surface of a liquid2). Additionally, Lowery discloses arranging the marine power structure/coastal nuclear power station according to preferred locations relative to a water level of the marine environment ([0049]) and that the marine environment may be characterized by aspects such as seafloor depth ([0131]). It would have therefore been further obvious to a POSA to have the nuclear enclosure between 90 – 100% below the water surface in the second state of ballasting 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. The skilled artisan, in view of Lowery, would have been capable of submerging the nuclear enclosure based on the desired water level and conditions of the seafloor.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lowrey in view of Paik and KR Patent No. 10-1408348 (“Han”).
Citations to Han refer to the machine translation previously provided with the PTO-892 dated 01/20/2026.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lowrey (see FIGS. 40A-40B) discloses a coastal nuclear power station (4000) ([0004]-[0005], [0262]), comprising:
a harbor comprising a landmass (4002) abutting a body of water (4004) having a water surface ([0012], [0124], [0247], [0262]);
a slip (4008) extending into the landmass, filled by a portion of the body of water, wherein the slip comprises at least one breakwater defining a transition from the landmass to the body of water ([0202], [0247], [0262]);
a marine power structure (4042) (see FIGS. 14-15, 50) disposed within the slip, comprising
a vessel hull (822, 1404) adapted to float on the water surface, wherein the vessel hull is transportable to a deployment location (FIG. 8, [0011]-[0012], [0162], [0169], [0203], [0262]),
a nuclear enclosure (1420, 5000) disposed within the vessel hull ([0169]),
a protective structure (1402) provided on the vessel hull, over the nuclear enclosure, to protect the nuclear enclosure from impact from an object exterior to the vessel hull (FIG. 14, [0169]; structure 1402 is a physical structure provided over the nuclear enclosure and would, therefore, provide at least some protection from an impact),
a nuclear reactor (5002) disposed within the nuclear enclosure, wherein the nuclear reactor generates heat ([0246], [0286]),
a primary coolant system (1440) connected to the nuclear reactor, wherein the heat is transferred to a primary coolant within the primary cooling system ([0235], [0246], [0264]); and
a ballast system (1422), wherein the ballast system is adapted to alter a buoyancy of the vessel hull (FIG. 14, [0203], [0230]); and
a foundation (3308, 3310) disposed within the slip, beneath the water surface, at the deployment location, wherein the foundation is adapted to receive the vessel hull (FIG. 33A, [0005], [0230], [0262]),
wherein the vessel hull is adapted to be ballasted from a first state of ballasting where the nuclear enclosure is above the water surface to a second state of ballasting where the nuclear enclosure is below the water surface (FIG. 14, [0004], [0203], [0230]-[0231], [0262]), and
wherein the second state of ballasting is an operational position of the nuclear reactor ([0203], [0230]).
Lowrey appears to be silent as to the specific structure of the vessel hull. Paik (see FIGS. 5 (p. 3), 23 (p. 18), 24 (p. 19)) is also directed towards a nuclear marine power structure (“floating nuclear power plant”) which comprises a vessel hull (“hull”) adapted to float on a body of water such that the structure is transportable to a deployment location (p. 1: “A floating nuclear power plant is a non-self-propelled vessel that generates electrical power with one or more nuclear reactors installed inside a vessel at sea.... The plant can be built at a shipyard and towed to the site of operation”). Paik teaches the vessel hull comprises an inner hull (“inner side shell”) disposed within an outer hull (“outer side shell”) such that a space (“double-side space”) containing concrete, which is also a radiation shielding material3, is defined between the inner hull and the outer hull (p. 5: “The double sides and double bottom will then be filled with sand except in the fission island, in which the double sides will be filled with concrete”). Paik further teaches this hull structure provides the advantages of reducing impacts from a striking body, thereby protecting the power station from accidents and terrorism (p. 4: “the structural crashworthiness of ThorConIsle’s hull structure was investigated in a terrorist-attack scenario”; p. 7: “The double-side space is filled in with sand or concrete for ballasting, which will contribute to reducing the penetration of the striking body into the hull structures”; p. 10: “Sand or concrete is used for ballasting in the double-side space of the ThorConIsle hull.... It is expected that the ballasting materials contribute to reducing the striking body’s penetration because they absorb part of the initial kinetic energy”; p. 21: “The use of ballasting materials such as sand or concrete in the double-side space of the hull structure can effectively absorb the initial kinetic energy in an aircraft strike”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to modify Lowrey’s power station to include a hull structure as taught by Paik for the safety benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Lowrey in order to protect the power station from attacks, as suggested by Paik, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Lowrey appears to be silent as to at least one lateral stabilizer as recited in claims 1 and 11. Han (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1b, 9, 11) is also directed towards a marine power structure (10) comprising a marine power structure (B) comprising an outer vessel (400) adapted to float on a body of water (901) and a foundation (100) adapted to receive the vessel hull ([0032]-[0033]). Han teaches at least one lateral stabilizer (e.g., elements 10 disposed on vertical surfaces) disposed between the outer vessel and the foundation and adapted to engage the outer vessel, wherein the at least one lateral stabilizer assists to maintain a stability of the outer vessel by limiting an effect on the outer vessel from at least one of (1) a seismic event, (2) a lateral shock, (3) a list angle, and (4) a tilt acceleration (p. 3: “equipped with a base isolation device to drastically reduce seismic loads that cause major accidents in nuclear power plants, thereby increasing stability and economic feasibility not only in the event of a tsunami but also in the event of an earthquake”, pp. 5-6: “prevent damage and malfunction of nuclear power plants by dispersing and supporting shock waves caused by an earthquake when an earthquake occurs by installing seismic isolation devices between the GBS and the seabed and between the GBS and the barge”, [0038]). Han further teaches the at least one lateral stabilizer provides the advantage of reducing seismic loads, thereby increasing stability (p. 3: “equipped with a base isolation device to drastically reduce seismic loads that cause major accidents in nuclear power plants, thereby increasing stability and economic feasibility not only in the event of a tsunami but also in the event of an earthquake”, pp. 5-6: “prevent damage and malfunction of nuclear power plants by dispersing and supporting shock waves caused by an earthquake when an earthquake occurs by installing seismic isolation devices between the GBS and the seabed and between the GBS and the barge”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to further modify Lowrey’s power station to include the at least one lateral stabilizer as taught by Han for the safety benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Lowrey in order to enhance stability, as suggested by Han, would have been obvious to a POSA. Han teaches the at least one lateral stabilizer is engaged with an outermost structure of the marine power structure (FIGS. 1b, 11). The skilled artisan would have recognized the outermost structure of the modified Lowery’s marine power structure includes the vessel hull (see Lowery, FIGS. 14, 33A). Thus, further modification of Lowery to include the at least one lateral stabilizer as taught by Han would have resulted in the at least one lateral stabilizer (e.g., Han’s element 10) engaged with the vessel hull (e.g., Lowery’s element 822, 1404).
Regarding claim 3, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the marine power structure of claim 1. Lowrey is silent as to a propulsion system for the vessel hull and further discloses the vessel hull may be floated to the deployment location by means of tugs or heavy lift ships ([0202]). Therefore, the modified Lowery teaches the vessel hull excludes a propulsion system.
Regarding claim 4, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the marine power structure of claim 1. Lowrey further discloses the nuclear reactor comprises a modular reactor having a power output of approximately 50 megawatts (MWe) ([0006], [0011]), which falls within the claimed range of between 1 megawatts (MWe) to 100 megawatts (MWe).
Regarding claim 6, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the marine power structure of claim 1. Lowrey further discloses the nuclear reactor comprises a plurality of nuclear reactors (5002) (FIG. 50, [0024], [0262], [0286]).
Regarding claim 7, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the marine power structure of claim 1. Lowrey further discloses a fuel handling area (614, 5004) within the nuclear enclosure, permitting transfer of nuclear fuel to and from the nuclear reactor (FIGS. 15, 50, [0170], [0227], [0286]).
Regarding claim 12, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the coastal nuclear power station of claim 11. Lowrey further discloses the ballast system enables the vessel hull to float on the water surface and also to sink into the body of water and rest atop the foundation (FIGS. 14, 33A, [0004], [0203], [0230]-[0231]).
Regarding claim 13, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the coastal nuclear power station of claim 11. Lowrey further discloses when the vessel hull rests atop the foundation, at least a portion of the nuclear enclosure is below the water surface ([0004], [0262]).
Regarding claim 14, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the coastal nuclear power station of claim 11. Han teaches a plurality of seismic isolators (e.g., elements 10 disposed on horizontal surfaces) disposed on the foundation, between the foundation and the outer vessel (FIGS. 1b, 9, 11, [0038]-[0039]). Han further teaches the seismic isolators, in combination with the at least one lateral stabilizer, provide the advantage of reducing seismic loads, thereby increasing stability (p. 3: “equipped with a base isolation device to drastically reduce seismic loads that cause major accidents in nuclear power plants, thereby increasing stability and economic feasibility not only in the event of a tsunami but also in the event of an earthquake”, pp. 5-6: “prevent damage and malfunction of nuclear power plants by dispersing and supporting shock waves caused by an earthquake when an earthquake occurs by installing seismic isolation devices between the GBS and the seabed and between the GBS and the barge”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to further modify Lowrey’s power station to include the seismic stabilizers as taught by Han for the safety benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Lowrey in order to further enhance stability, as suggested by Han, would have been obvious to a POSA. Han teaches the seismic isolators are disposed between the outermost structure of the marine power structure and the foundation (FIGS. 1b, 11). The skilled artisan would have recognized the outermost structure of the modified Lowery’s marine power structure includes the vessel hull (see Lowery, FIGS. 14, 33A). Thus, further modification of Lowery to include the seismic isolators as taught by Han would have resulted in the seismic isolators (e.g., Han’s element 10) disposed between the foundation (e.g., Lowery’s element 3308, 3310) and the vessel hull (e.g., Lowery’s element 822, 1404).
Regarding claims 16-17, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the nuclear marine power structure of claim 1 and the coastal nuclear power station of claim 11. Lowery discloses in the second state of ballasting, the nuclear enclosure (1420, 5000) is between 90 – 100% below the water surface (FIG. 14, [0004], [0203], [0230]-[0231]; Lowery discloses the MNPs are “immersed in an inexhaustible supply of coolant water” at paragraph [0004] – the term “immersed” means completely under the surface of a liquid4). Additionally, Lowery discloses arranging the marine power structure/coastal nuclear power station according to preferred locations relative to a water level of the marine environment ([0049]) and that the marine environment may be characterized by aspects such as seafloor depth ([0131]). It would have therefore been further obvious to a POSA to have the nuclear enclosure between 90 – 100% below the water surface in the second state of ballasting 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. The skilled artisan, in view of Lowery, would have been capable of submerging the nuclear enclosure based on the desired water level and conditions of the seafloor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “[w]hile Lowrey et al. indicates that the ONP Unit 1400 includes a Reactor Containment Block 1428, and while Fig. 14 depicts the Reactor Containment Block 1428 as being fully below the surface of the water, the Applicant reiterates that Lowery et al. does not describe any embodiments where the ONP Unit 1400 is adapted to be ballasted from a first state of ballasting where at least a significant portion of the Reactor Containment Block 1428 is above the water surface to a second state of ballasting where almost an entirety of the Reactor Containment Block 1428 is below the water surface, and where the second state of ballasting is an operational position of the nuclear reactor” (Remarks, pp. 10-11). However, Lowery explicitly discloses a first state in which the marine power structure is above the water surface (i.e., floated) ([0203], [0230], [0262]) and a second state in which the marine power structure is below the water surface (FIG. 14, [0004], [0203], [0230]-[0231]). Applicant further acknowledges that Lowery’s element 1428 is depicted as “fully below the surface of the water” (Remarks, p. 11). Examiner further notes, in the prior Office action and above, Lowery’s element 1420, 5000 is mapped to the claimed “nuclear enclosure,” which is also disclosed and shown as being above the water surface in a first state of ballasting and being below the water surface in a second state of ballasting (FIG. 14, [0004], [0203], [0230]-[0231], [0262]).
Applicant’s remaining arguments directed towards 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) 270-5217, 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection
2 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/immersed
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection
4 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/immersed
