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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 06/30/2025. The amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification1 have been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-13 are pending in the application with claims 4-5 withdrawn. Claims 1, 6-7, and 11-13 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 Objections
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 12: “the axial direction” should be amended to recite “an axial direction”
Claims 6 and 12: “the fuel assembly” should be amended to recite “a fuel assembly”
Appropriate correction is required.
Analysis - 35 USC § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”. 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to”. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula”. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment”. Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application”. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]’”. Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”. Id.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. 101: the USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 Guidance”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
The claims are first evaluated to determine if they are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 1 and 11 recite a series of steps, and, therefore, are directed towards processes.
Step 1 – is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?: YES
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Step 2A, Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
It is determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and, particularly, to “[a] method pertaining to a power distribution of a reactor core of a nuclear installation,” the function of which is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a generic computer or mental processes. Specifically, claim 1 recites the method is accomplished by “determining a measured relative core power distribution based solely upon the measure current values and a calibration relationship, wherein determining the measured relative core power distribution comprises creating the calibration relationship between a measured total reactor relative power level and a sum of all measured currents from the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies positioned in a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core according to the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
77
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”, “adjusting a predicted relative core power distribution based upon the determined measured relative core power distribution”, “producing a measured core power distribution based upon the adjusted predicted relative core power distribution”, and “verifying if the reactor core is operating within predetermined core operating limits based at least in part upon the produced measured core power distribution”. The method of claim 1 therefore relies on manipulating, calculating, and evaluating data.
It is determined that claim 11 is similarly directed to an abstract idea, and, particularly, to “[a] method pertaining to a power distribution of a nuclear reactor core,” the function of which is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a generic computer or mental processes. Specifically, claim 11 recites the method is accomplished by “determining a measured relative core power distribution based upon the measure current values and a calibration relationship, wherein determining the measured relative core power distribution comprises creating the calibration relationship between a measured total reactor relative power level and a sum of all measured currents from the plurality of vanadium detector assemblies positioned in a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core according to the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
77
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”, “adjusting a predicted relative core power distribution based upon the measured relative core power distribution”, “producing a measured core power distribution based upon the adjusted predicted relative core power distribution”, and “verifying that the reactor is operating within commercial nuclear reactor peaking factor requirements based upon the produced measured core power distribution”. The method of claim 11 therefore also relies on manipulating, calculating, and evaluating data.
It is determined that the “determining”, “adjusting”, “producing”, and “verifying” limitations in claims 1 and 11 recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Under the 2019 Guidance, these mathematical formulas, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations fall within the “mathematical concepts” groupings. Furthermore, these limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. A mere recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “a general purpose computer”) performing mathematical operations does not take the calculating out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claims 1 and 11 also recite mental processes, which is a second one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Guidance.
Therefore claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea and we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether the claims are “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One – does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?: YES
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Step 2A, Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Here, apart from the “determining”, “adjusting”, “producing”, and “verifying” steps, the only additional elements that are recited in claim 1 are: “the method being executed on a general purpose computer” and “measuring current values from a plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies which are disposed in the reactor core of the nuclear installation”. Apart from the “determining”, “adjusting”, “producing”, and “verifying” steps, the only additional elements that are recited in claim 11 are: “the method being executed on a general purpose computer” and “measuring current values from a plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies which are disposed in the reactor core, each of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprising a plurality of detector elements having differing axial lengths”.
The additional element of the computer (“a general purpose computer”) is simply a tool to perform the abstract idea. Adding a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Furthermore, the claims do no more than require a generic, purely conventional computer that operates in its ordinary capacity. As such, this feature is merely instruction to apply the exception to a computer and, accordingly, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The additional element of measuring current values is mere data gathering. As such, this feature is insignificant extra-solution activity and also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The additional elements of the nuclear reactor structures and data are directed towards extra-solution activity and only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Further, these elements do not amount to the application of the judicial exception to a particular machine. For example, the nuclear reactor structures are generic and used in their ordinary capacity. They only contribute nominally to the execution of the claimed method and are merely directed towards a data gathering step/field of use.
Claims 6-7 and 12-13 specify the structure of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies. The structures are merely recited as the source of the data and contribute only nominally to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step). As such, these features are insignificant extra-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two – does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?: NO
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As noted above, for Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
The pertinent issue is, namely, whether the additional elements recited in the claim (i.e., the claim element in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Apart from the limitations that recite an abstract idea, the only additional elements in claims 1 and 11 are the use of a “general purpose computer”, the “measuring” step, and the nuclear reactor structures and data. As discussed above, these elements are mere instructions to apply the exception to a generic computer and insignificant extra-solution activities/field of use.
The computer structures are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, claims 1 and 11 broadly recite “the method being executed on a general purpose computer”. The disclosure also describes the computer with a high-level of generality ([0019], [0027], [0036], [0039]). Thus, the additional element of the “general purpose computer”, described in generic terms, serves merely to calculate and evaluate data and is well-known, routine, and conventional. Similarly, the nuclear reactor structures, measuring current values from vanadium neutron detector assemblies, and detector elements having differing axial lengths are no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry, as evidenced by at least US Patent No. 3,565,760 (cited below), US Patent No. 8,767,903, US Patent No. 8,681,920, US Publication No. 2011/0268239, KR Publication No. 10-2007-0081106 (cited below), and US Publication No. 2011/0002432. The combination of the additional elements of the “general purpose computer”, nuclear reactor structures, measuring current values, and detector elements is also conventional and generic as evidenced by at least US Patent No. 8,767,903, US Patent No. 8,681,920, US Publication No. 2011/0268239, and KR Publication No. 10-2007-0081106 (cited below).
As discussed above, claims 6-7 and 12-13 are directed towards the insignificant, pre-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the detector element structures by which the data is gathered is also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by at least US Patent No. 3,565,760 (cited below), US Patent No. 8,767,903, US Patent No. 8,681,920, KR Publication No. 10-2007-0081106 (cited below), and US Publication No. 2011/0002432. Claims 6-7 and 12-13 therefore merely recite further embellishments on the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1, 6-7, and 11-13 fail to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B – does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 6-7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. As shown in the above analysis, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea and lack an additional element that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1, 6-7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11, as currently presented, recite “wherein determining the measured relative core power distribution comprises creating the calibration relationship between a measured total reactor relative power level and a sum of all measured currents from the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies positioned in a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core according to the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
30
77
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where
QT is a measured total reactor relative power level, wherein QT is calculated using the measured reactor thermal power;
K is a relationship between reactor thermal power and the current values from the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies,
N is the number of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies,
i is the instrumented radial core location, and
I1(i) is the measured current value”.
However, the original specification as filed discloses “N is the number of instrumented fuel assemblies in the reactor” ([0020]), not “N is the number of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies” as currently recited in claims 1 and 11. This feature is therefore new matter.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1, 6-7, and 11-13 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “a sum of all measured currents from the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies positioned in a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core”. It is unclear if the “measured currents” are intending to refer to the “current values” in the “measuring current values from a plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies” or different currents. Additionally, it is unclear the scope encompassed by the phrase “all measured currents”. For example, it is unclear if the “sum of all measured currents” is (1) a sum of all currents ever measured by each of the detector assemblies, (2) a sum of currents measured by the each of the detector assemblies during a certain period of time, (3) a sum of a single current measured by each of the detector assemblies, or (4) another interpretation.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “QT is a measured total reactor relative power level”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same “measured total reactor relative power level” previously recited in the claims or a different “measured total reactor relative power level”.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “wherein QT is calculated using the measured reactor thermal power”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the measured reactor thermal power” in the claims. While the claims previously recite “measuring current values”, “a measured relative core power distribution”, “a measured total reactor relative power level”, and “a sum of all measured currents”, there is no prior recitation of a “measured reactor thermal power”.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “K is a relationship between reactor thermal power and the current values”. It is unclear the relationship between “K” and the “calibration relationship between a measured total reactor relative power level and a sum of all measured currents”. It is further unclear if “reactor thermal power” is referring to the previously recited “the measured reactor thermal power” or something else.
Claim 11 recites “the reactor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim. It is unclear if the claim is intending to refer to the “reactor core”.
Claim 11 recites “verifying that the reactor is operating within commercial nuclear reactor peaking factor requirements”. “Commercial ... requirements” may vary by regulating body (e.g., requirements from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission may be different from requirements from the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group) and by year (e.g., requirements from the 1980s may be different from requirements in 2024). It is therefore unclear what “commercial ... requirements” the claim is intending to refer to. Examiner suggests amending claim 11 similar to claim 1 to recite, for example, “verifying that the reactor core is operating within predetermined
Claim 12 recites “wherein each assembly of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprises a plurality of vanadium neutron detector elements of non-equal lengths”. Parent claim 11 previously recites “each of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprising a plurality of detector elements having differing axial lengths”. It is unclear the relationship between the “plurality of vanadium neutron detector elements of non-equal lengths” and the previously recited “a plurality of detector elements having differing axial lengths”.
Claim 13 recites “wherein each assembly of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprises a full-length vanadium neutron detector element and at least one additional vanadium neutron detector element”. Parent claim 11 previously recites “each of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprising a plurality of detector elements having differing axial lengths”. It is unclear if the “full-length vanadium neutron detector element” and the “at least one additional vanadium neutron detector element” are intending to refer to elements of the previously recited “plurality of detector elements” or different elements.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 11-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR Publication No. 10-2007-0081106 (“WESTINGHOUSE”) in view of US Patent No. 3,565,760 (“Parkos”).
Citations to WESTINGHOUSE refer to the machine translation provided with the PTO-892 dated 08/19/2024.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, WESTINGHOUSE (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 8) discloses a method pertaining to a power distribution of a reactor core of a nuclear installation (118) (p. 1: “The present invention relates to a reactor protection system. More specifically, the present invention provides for continuous monitoring of power levels and three-dimensional power distributions occurring within the reactor core”), the method being executed on a general purpose computer (116) and comprising:
measuring current values (“current signal”, “electrical signals”) from a plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies (10) which are disposed in the reactor core of the nuclear installation (p. 4: “The neutron sensor 50 includes a sensing element 52 in which vanadium is preferred”; p. 5: “signals from the sensors in the reactor 118 are transmitted”), each of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprising a plurality of detector elements (22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32) having different axial lengths (p. 4: “the neutron sensors 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 are supplied with different lengths for different sensors to monitor different parts of the core.... The neutron sensors 26 and 30 are provided at a medium length and the neutron sensor 22 is provided at the shortest length. The sensors 20, 32 therefore extend through the active area 64 of the instrument assembly 10”);
determining a measured relative core power distribution based upon the measured current values and a calibration relationship (p. 3: “Electrical signals generated from the various sensor elements are provided to a plurality of reactor protection modules”; p. 5: “a constant value that is to be multiplied with the electrical signal value of each zone is calculated to convert the signal to the reactor power level”), wherein determining the measured relative core power distribution comprises creating the calibration relationship between a measured total reactor relative power level and the measured currents from the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies positioned in a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core (p. 5: “The total power level and also the power level in each of the six regions The signal values are known and the ratio of the total reactor power from each zone is also known. Once these ratios are known, a constant value that is to be multiplied with the electrical signal value of each zone is calculated to convert the signal to the reactor power level”);
adjusting a predicted relative core power distribution based upon the determined measured relative core power distribution (p. 3: “These modules generate a predictable node power distribution and corresponding predictable signal for each neutron detector. The reactor protection module can take into account the current measured power level.... The reactor protection module then determines the measured and predicted neutron sensor signal using these ratios to adjust the predicted node power distribution generated using the advanced node core power distribution prediction method”);
producing a measured core power distribution based upon the adjusted predicted relative core power distribution (p. 3: “The reactor protection module will then generate a detailed three-dimensional power distribution from the adjusted local power distribution”; p. 5: “Each node system computation module 138, 140, 142, 144 generates a reference three-dimensional power distribution from the adjusted node power distribution”); and
verifying that the reactor core is operating within predetermined core operating limits based at least in part upon the produced measured core power distribution (pp. 2-3: “In any reactor, the distribution of the total power and power developed throughout the core must be monitored.... [T]he core should be monitored to ensure that it does not exceed the authorized power allowed to operate a particular reactor”; p. 6: “If the value sent to any of the reactor protection activation modules 146, 148, 150, 152 exceeds the tolerance, the channel generates a reactor shutdown signal).
WESTINGHOUSE discloses the calibration relationship is between the measured total reactor relative power level and the measured current value (i.e., QT = K * I) (p. 5: “The total power level and also the power level in each of the six regions The signal values are known and the ratio of the total reactor power from each zone is also known. Once these ratios are known, a constant value that is to be multiplied with the electrical signal value of each zone is calculated to convert the signal to the reactor power level”), but does not appear to explicitly disclose the measured current value is an average current value (i.e.,
PNG
media_image2.png
40
59
media_image2.png
Greyscale
). However, as discussed above, WESTINGHOUSE discloses the reactor core includes a plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies positioned in a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core (p. 3: “Gamma rays and neutron sensors are included in in-core instrument assemblies located at various locations across the core”). Parkos (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1, 4-5) is similarly directed towards a method pertaining to a power distribution of a reactor core (101) comprising a plurality of neutron detector assemblies (1-41) positioned in a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core (5:11-58). Parkos teaches the method comprises measuring current values from the plurality of neutron detector assemblies and determining a measured power distribution based on an average of the measured current values (6:25-30, 7:41-55, 7:61-64). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to utilize an average of the WESTINGHOUSE’s measured current values for the predictable advantages of enhancing fault tolerance while reducing equipment requirements, as taught by Parkos (Abstract, 3:21-39, 7:41-55).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, WESTINGHOUSE in view of Parkos teaches the method of claims 1 and 11. WESTINGHOUSE discloses each assembly of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprises a plurality of vanadium neutron detector elements (22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32) of non-equal lengths, and wherein each one of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector elements extends in the axial direction along an active fuel length of a fuel assembly (FIG. 1, p. 4: “the neutron sensors 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 are supplied with different lengths for different sensors to monitor different parts of the core.... The neutron sensors 26 and 30 are provided at a medium length and the neutron sensor 22 is provided at the shortest length. The sensors 20, 32 therefore extend through the active area 64 of the instrument assembly 10”).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, WESTINGHOUSE in view of Parkos teaches the method of claims 1 and 11. WESTINGHOUSE discloses each assembly of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprises a full-length vanadium neutron detector element (32) and at least one additional vanadium neutron detector element (22, 24, 26, 28, 30), wherein the at least one additional detector element runs less than the full-length (FIG. 1, p. 4: “the neutron sensors 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 are supplied with different lengths for different sensors to monitor different parts of the core.... The neutron sensors 26 and 30 are provided at a medium length and the neutron sensor 22 is provided at the shortest length. The sensors 20, 32 therefore extend through the active area 64 of the instrument assembly 10”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings overcome the prior drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, but have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
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 above rejections.
Applicant argues the features of “determining a measured relative core power distribution based solely upon the measured current values and a calibration relationship” and “adjusting a predicted relative core power distribution based upon the measured relative core power distribution” are not well-understood, routine, conventional and provide an improvement to nuclear technology (Remarks, pp. 11-13).
In Step 2B, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the additional elements recited in the claim (i.e., claim elements in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. An additional element (or combination of additional elements) may amount to an inventive concept and qualify as “significantly more” when the additional element (or combination of additional elements) (1) improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field, (2) applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine or manufacture, (3) effects a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, (4) adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or adds unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or (5) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include (1) adding the words ‘apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, (2) appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, (3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as mere data gathering, or (4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The only additional elements that are recited in claims 1 and 11 are “a general purpose computer” (claims 1 and 11), “measuring current values from a plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies which are disposed in the reactor core of the nuclear installation” (claims 1 and 11), and “each of the plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies comprising a plurality of detector elements having differing axial lengths” (claim 11).
These additional elements are directed towards mere instructions to apply the exception to a generic computer and/or insignificant extra-solution activity of data-gathering and/or field of use, which the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. These features do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, are not applied with any particular machine, do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, do no more than recite well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant asserts the claimed invention improves nuclear technology by “avoid[ing] the need to convert predicted neutron flux distributions into detector currents (i.e., predicted currents) to determine the relative core power distribution” (emphasis in original) (Remarks, p. 13; see also [0018]). This improvement is provided by “determining a measured relative core power distribution based solely upon the measured current values and a calibration relationship” and “adjusting a predicted relative core power distribution based upon the measured relative core power distribution” as recited in claims 1 and 11 (Remarks, pp. 11-13). However, these features are part of a “mental process” and “mathematical concept/calculation” identified as an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Applicant’s asserted improvements are merely improvements on the calculations (i.e., abstract ideas) themselves, rather than an improvement to a computer or a technology, and Applicant’s invention does not use a computer or a nuclear reactor outside of its ordinary capacity. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. In other words, an improvement of the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in a technology or technical field. It is the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions in the claim that must provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Further, these additional elements (i.e., “a general purpose computer”, “measuring current values”, the detector elements, and the nuclear reactor structures), when considered individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by at least US Patent No. 3,565,760 (cited below), US Patent No. 8,767,903, US Patent No. 8,681,920, US Publication No. 2011/0268239, KR Publication No. 10-2007-0081106 (cited below), and US Publication No. 2011/0002432 as discussed above.
The claims do not clearly link the claimed method to any structure that would have an effect on the parameters or operation of the nuclear reactor or the reactor itself and therefore do not represent an improvement to nuclear technology. For example, as currently presented, the claims are so broad as to encompass a result in which there is no actual change to reactor conditions and/or operations. There is no restriction on how the reactor is operated based on the calculations or any recitation of or indication as to the specific steps undertaken in order to operate the reactor in view of the claimed calculations.
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 The material inserted into the specification and drawings by way of Applicant’s amendments is the material previously incorporated by reference and does not contain new matter (see US Patent No. 8,767,903, FIGS. 4-5, 4:28-32, 4:48-5:44; see instant specification, [0014]).