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 12/03/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are pending in the application with claims 8-10 and 15 withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 11-14 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 1-4, 6-7, and 11-14, 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 in 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 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]),
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 (newly 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 the 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 claims 2 and 12, Lowrey in view of Paik and Root teaches the marine power structure of claim 1 and the coastal nuclear power plant of claim 11. Lowrey further discloses a ballast system (1422) which enables the vessel hull to float on the water surface and also to sink into the body of water and rest atop the foundation (FIG. 14, [0203], [0230]).
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 11-14, 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 provided with the attached PTO-892.
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 in 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 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]),
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 material2, 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 (newly 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 the 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 claims 2 and 12, Lowrey in view of Paik and Han teaches the marine power structure of claim 1 and the coastal nuclear power plant of claim 11. Lowrey further discloses a ballast system (1422) which enables the vessel hull to float on the water surface and also to sink into the body of water and rest atop the foundation (FIG. 14, [0203], [0230]).
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 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Lowery et al. fails to describe or suggest a protective structure provided on the vessel hull, over the nuclear enclosure, to protect the nuclear enclosure from impact from an object exterior to the vessel hull” (Remarks, p. 7). However, Applicant does not appear to specify how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from Lowery. As discussed in the prior Office actions and above, Lowery discloses structure (1402) is provided on the vessel hull (822, 1404) and over the nuclear enclosure (1420, 5000) (FIG. 14, [0169]). Lowery’s structure (1402) is a physical structure and would, therefore, provide at least some protection to the nuclear enclosure (1420, 5000) from an impact. Thus, Lowery discloses the “protective structure” feature recited in claims 1 and 11.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. See MPEP 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 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 7:30AM-5:30PM 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection