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 07/13/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-19 are pending in the application with claims 4-5 withdrawn. Claims 1, 6-7, and 11-19 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.
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 (see also [0020]-[0024]). 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 current values measured from full-length detector elements in each of a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core according to the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
40
92
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 licensed 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 (see also [0020]-[0024]). 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 current values measured from the plurality of detector elements in each of a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core according to the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
40
92
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 core is operating within predetermined licensed core operating limits 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 “general purpose computer” and nuclear reactor structures and the steps of “measuring current values from a plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies which are disposed in the reactor core of the nuclear installation,” “measuring reactor thermal power,” and “continuing operation of the reactor within the predetermined licensed core operating limits based at least in part on the produced measured core power distribution.” Apart from the “determining,” “adjusting,” “producing,” and “verifying” steps, the only additional elements that are recited in claim 11 are the “general purpose computer” and nuclear reactor structures and the steps of “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,” “measuring reactor thermal power,” and “continuing operation of the reactor core when the verifying confirms operation within predetermined licensed core operating limits.”
These additional elements (1) do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
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 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.
The additional elements of measuring current values and measuring reactor thermal power are mere data gathering. As such, these features are insignificant extra-solution activities and also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The additional element of “continuing operation of the reactor” is post-solution activity based on a mathematical scheme using variables representing processes of a physical environment (a reactor core). The limitations are mere instructions to apply the exception to nuclear reactor operations and insignificant extra-solution activities. The claims fail to recite specific details of “continuing operation” and, under broadest reasonable interpretation, “continuing operation” would suggest that such steps do not result in any actual change to reactor conditions and/or operation, i.e., the reactor is “continu[ed]” to be operated in the same manner. Therefore, the limitations are not adequately “meaningful” to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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. Claims 14-17 describe further steps in the mathematical operations/mental processes and therefore do not add anything significant to the invention as these claims merely recite another judicial exception of an abstract idea. Claims 18-19 describe performing the mathematical operations/mental processes during a power ascent of the reactor core and additional mathematical operations/mental processes. Increasing the power of the reactor core is not a positively recited step of the claimed methods and is a process that does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. The claims do not impose a meaningful limit to the judicial exception as the claims merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea and/or pre-solution activities that are only tangentially related to the invention and/or only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 nuclear reactor structures and data, the “measuring” steps, and the “continuing operation” steps. 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 (e.g., “a reactor core,” “a nuclear installation,” “fuel assemblies”), measuring current values from vanadium neutron detector assemblies, measuring reactor thermal power, detector elements having differing axial lengths, and operation of a reactor within predefined limits 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. 4,080,251, US Patent No. 5,490,184, US Patent No. 8,681,920, US Patent No. 8,767,903, US Publication No. 2003/0128793, US Publication No. 2011/0002432, US Publication No. 2011/0268239, and KR Publication No. 10-2007-0081106 (cited below). The combination of the additional elements of the “general purpose computer,” nuclear reactor structures, measuring current values, measuring reactor thermal power, detector elements, and continuing operation is also conventional and generic as evidenced by at least US Patent No. 3,565,760 (cited below), US Patent No. 4,080,251, US Patent No. 8,681,920, US Patent No. 8,767,903, US Publication No. 2003/0128793, and KR Publication No. 10-2007-0081106 (cited below). The claimed “general purpose computer” and nuclear reactor structures are operated in their normal, ordinary capacities and there is nothing to suggest that “continuing operation of the reactor ... within [] predetermined licensed core operating limits” would change how the computer or the nuclear reactor structures operate beyond its normal, operating capacity.
Moreover, the steps of “continuing operation of the reactor within the predetermined licensed core operating limits” as recited in claim 1 and “continuing operation of the reactor core when the verifying confirms operation within predetermined licensed core operating limits” as recited in claim 11 are basic tasks of power plant staff. As admitted by Applicant, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a reactor confirmed to be operating within licensed limits is not shut down as a result of that confirmation; rather, it continues to operate within those limits” (emphasis omitted) (Remarks dated 07/13/2026, p. 9). All nuclear reactors have operating limits and it is the duty of power plant staff to operate reactors only within these operating limits. Operating a reactor core within its operating limits is a routine task performed by power plant staff during operation of the core. The claims fail to recite specific details of the steps of operating the reactor core and the reactor core is not operated outside of its ordinary capacity.
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 are also well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by at least US Patent No. 3,565,760 (cited below), US Patent No. 8,681,920, US Patent No. 8,767,903, US Publication No. 2011/0002432, and KR Publication No. 10-2007-0081106 (cited below). 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. Claims 14-17 describe further steps in the method and do not add anything significant to the invention as these claims merely recite another judicial exception of an abstract idea. Claims 18-19 describe performing the calculations during a power ascent of the reactor core and further steps in the method. These features do not add anything significant to the invention because they are merely pre-solution activities that are only tangentially related to the invention and only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or another judicial exception of an abstract idea. Further, operating a reactor core from 0% to 50% rated thermal power was extremely well-known in the art, e.g., US Patent No. 4,077,836, US Patent No. 4,400,343, US Patent No. 4,734,249, US Patent No. 6,608,878, and US Publication No. 2001/0016025. The claims merely recite further embellishments on the abstract idea, reciting additional mathematical operations or mental processes, or insignificant pre- or post-solution activities that do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1, 6-7, and 11-19 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 11-19 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(b)
Claims 1, 6-7, and 11-19 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.
Claim 1 recites “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 current values measured from full-length detector elements in each of a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core.” It is unclear if the “current values” are intending to refer to the “current values” previously recited in the “measuring current values” step of the claim or different values. It is further unclear the relationship between the “full-length detector elements” and the previously recited “plurality of vanadium neutron detector assemblies.” It is also unclear what the “detector elements” are a “full-length” of in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what feature is “in each of a plurality of radial core locations.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrases “the measured slope,” “the reactor,” and “the number of instrumented fuel assemblies in the reactor” in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “K is the measured slope of a relationship between the measured reactor relative power (QT) and a corresponding
PNG
media_image2.png
24
73
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.” The claim previously recites “creating the calibration relationship between a measured total reactor relative power level and a sum of current values measured from full-length detector elements in each of a plurality of radial core locations.” It is unclear the relationship between “K,” “the measured slope,” and the “relationship between the measured reactor relative power (QT) and a corresponding
PNG
media_image2.png
24
73
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” and “the calibration relationship.” It is further unclear what the phrase “a corresponding
PNG
media_image2.png
24
73
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” is intending to refer to and what it means for a measured reactor relative power level to have a “corresponding”
PNG
media_image2.png
24
73
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The claim would appear to previously suggest a singular “sum of current values.” However, the phrase “corresponding” would appear to suggest multiple “sum[s].”
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “plurality of vanadium neutron detector elements” and the “full-length detector elements” previously recited in parent claim 1. It is further unclear the relationship between the “fuel assembly” and the “instrumented fuel assemblies” previously recited in parent claim 1. It is similarly unclear the relationship between the “full-length vanadium neutron detector element” in claim 7 and the “full-length detector elements” previously recite din parent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “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 current values measured from the plurality of detector elements in each of a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core.” It is unclear if the “current values” are intending to refer to the “current values” previously recited in the “measuring current values” step of the claim or different values. Additionally, it is unclear what feature is “in each of a plurality of radial core locations.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the number of instrumented fuel assemblies in the reactor” in claim 11.
Claim 11 recites “K is a measured slope of a relationship between the measured reactor relative power (QT) and a corresponding
PNG
media_image2.png
24
73
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.” The claim previously recites “creating the calibration relationship between a measured total reactor relative power level and a sum of current values measured from the plurality of detector elements in each of a plurality of radial core locations.” It is unclear the relationship between “K,” the “measured slope,” and the “relationship between the measured reactor relative power (QT) and a corresponding
PNG
media_image2.png
24
73
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” and “the calibration relationship.” It is further unclear what the phrase “a corresponding
PNG
media_image2.png
24
73
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” is intending to refer to and what it means for a measured reactor relative power level to have a “corresponding”
PNG
media_image2.png
24
73
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The claim would appear to previously suggest a singular “sum of current values.” However, the phrase “corresponding” would appear to suggest multiple “sum[s].”
Claim 11 recites “continuing operation of the reactor core when the verifying confirms operation within predetermined licensed core operating limits.” It is unclear operation of what feature the claim is intending to refer to. It is further unclear if the “predetermined licensed core operating limits” is intending to refer to the same feature as the previously recited “predetermined licensed core operating limits” or another feature.
Claim 12 recites “the plurality of vanadium neutron detector elements having differing axial lengths.” It is unclear if this is intending to refer to the “the plurality of detector elements having differing axial lengths” previously recited in parent claim 11. It is further unclear the relationship between the “fuel assembly” and the “instrumented fuel assemblies” previously recited in parent claim 11.
Claims 14-15 recite “wherein the measured core power distribution is generated without converting predicted neutron flux distributions into predicted detector currents using nuclear design methods.” It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what is done “using nuclear design methods.” It is further unclear the scope encompassed by “nuclear design methods.” It is further unclear if the claims are intending to require a step of “predict[ing] neutron flux distributions.”
Claims 16-17 recite “wherein the measured relative core power distribution is determined without using nuclear design data.” It is unclear the scope encompassed by “nuclear design data.” For example, parent claim 1 and 11 recite “determining a measured relative core power distribution” using, at least, “a maximum licensed thermal power.” This would appear to be data (e.g., information) related to the design of the reactor, i.e., “nuclear design data.” Thus, the claims would appear to in fact determine the measured relative core power distribution using “nuclear design data.”
In claims 18-19, it is unclear the relationship between the “rated thermal power” and the other “power[s]” (e.g., “reactor thermal power,” “measured total reactor relative power level,” “maximum licensed thermal power”) previously recited in parent claims 1 and 11. It is further unclear the relationship between the “linear relationship between the value of K and the measured total reactor relative power level QT” and the other relationships and variables previously recited in the parent claims. For example, it is unclear if the “linear relationship” is related to the equations recited in parent claims 1 and 11.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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”);
measuring reactor thermal power (“measured power level”) (p. 2: “the distribution of the total power and power developed throughout the core must be monitored”; p. 3: “The reactor protection module can take into account the current measured power level”);
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 current values measured full-length detector elements (20, 32) in each of a plurality of radial core locations within the reactor core (p. 3: “neutron sensors are included in in-core instrument assemblies located at various locations across the 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”); and
continuing operation of the reactor within the predetermined licensed core operating limits based at least in part on 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”).
Additionally, as admitted by Applicant, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a reactor confirmed to be operating within licensed limits is not shut down as a result of that confirmation; rather, it continues to operate within those limits” (Applicant’s Remarks dated 07/13/2026, p. 9). Thus, in view of Applicant’s remarks, the skilled artisan would further understand that WESTINGHOUSE’s reactor, confirmed to be operating within licensed limits, would not be shut down as a result of that confirmation and, instead, would continue to operate within those limits.
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”), the calibration relationship is created using an average current value (i.e.,
PNG
media_image3.png
40
59
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) and the measured reactor thermal power divided by a maximum licensed thermal power. 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 (previously 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 determining a measured power distribution based on an average of measured current values from the plurality of neutron detector assemblies and and a measured reactor thermal power divided by a maximum licensed thermal power (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 measured current values and a ratio of the measured reactor thermal power to the maximum licensed thermal power in WESTINGHOUSE’s method for the predictable advantages of calibrating the current values and 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 an 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”).
It should be noted, as stated in MPEP 2173.06, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore, no prior art rejections have been made for claims 14-19.
Response to Arguments
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.
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 argues the step of “continuing operation of the reactor” in claims 1 and 11 “provides direct integration of any recited judicial exception into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and § 2106.05(a)-(c)” (Remarks, pp. 10-11).
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) address evaluating if the claims contain an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field. 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. It is noted that 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. The present claims are directed towards methods “pertaining to a power distribution of a [] reactor core.” As asserted by Applicant, “[i]n order to use the measured power distribution results to satisfy commercial reactor peaking factor surveillance requirements, it is necessary to perform an extensive power distribution measurement uncertainty analysis and submit the results to the NRC for review and approval” ([0002]). The invention provides the improvements of “advantageously avoid[ing] the need to convert predicted neutron flux distributions into detector currents,” “advantageously allow[ing] the reactor power distribution to be measured using vanadium ODA-style detectors without the need for extensive nuclear method re-licensing effort,” and “greatly simplify[ing] and reduc[ing] the time and costs required to allow the ODA to be implemented by customers” ([0018], [0025]-[0026]). However, Applicant’s asserted improvements result from routine application of computers as tools, not from any technical innovation, and the claims do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system. The claims recite generic computer components (e.g., “a general purpose computer”) which are merely used to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Applicant’s claimed methods result in improved performance of nuclear reactors and there is no recitation in the claims requiring that the nuclear reactor exclude “extensive nuclear method re-licensing effort[s]” or that the ODA be implemented in a shorter time frame or with less costs. The asserted improvement is merely an improvement on the calculations (i.e., the abstract idea) 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. The fact that Applicant’s abstract computational methods might be better than other abstract computational methods does not demonstrate that the claimed mathematical operations/mental processes are integrated into a practical application. As stated by Applicant, “[t]he nuclear methods that are used to calculate the measured core power distribution can advantageously instead use the measured relative core power distribution described herein to adjust a predicted relative core power distribution to produce a measured core power distribution that can be used to verify that the reactor is operating within the licensed core operating limits” ([0025]). Thus, the invention involves performing calculations (e.g., “determining a measured relative core power distribution based solely upon the measured current values and a calibration relationship”) in place of performing different calculations (e.g., “convert[ing] the predicted neutron flux into a predicted detector current using an analytic relationship”; see also [0016]). Applicant’s claims are generic and do not cover a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. For example, claims 1 and 11 recite “continuing operation of the reactor ... within [] predetermined licensed core operating limits.” These limitations do not amount to more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, in view of the following considerations:
1. Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished): The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” As discussed above, the claims merely recite “continuing operation of the reactor within the predetermined licensed core operating limits based at least in part on the produced measured core power distribution” (claim 1) and “continuing operation of the reactor core when the verifying confirms operation within predetermined licensed core operating limits” (claim 11). There is no recitation of or indication as to how the reactor was previously operated or the specific steps undertaken in order to “continu[e]” operation of the reactor core nor is there any description of the mechanisms for continuing operation of the reactor core in this manner.
2. Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process: Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. As discussed above, the reactor core is used only in its ordinary capacity and there is no indication that a computer, if being used, needs to be more than a generic device.
3. The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception: A claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. As discussed above, “continuing operation of the reactor within the predetermined licensed core operating limits” is “based at least in part on” the calculations (claim 1) and “continuing operation of the reactor core” is performed “when” the calculations “confirm[] operation within predetermined licensed core operating limits” (claim 11). These limitations merely state the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result (e.g., operating the reactor core within predetermined limits). The claims explicitly encompass a result in which there is no actual change to reactor conditions and/or operations (“continuing operation”). Thus, the limitations do not confine the judicial exception to a particular, practical application of the judicial exception.
MPEP 2106.05(b) addresses evaluating if judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. It is noted that, while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. In view of the following factors, Examiner does not find that the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine:
1. The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus: The elements of the computer, reactor core, and detector assemblies are generic. The claims merely recite well-understood, conventional components in the nuclear industry as discussed above.
2. Whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method: Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. As discussed above, the claims recite a generic computer and generic and conventional components of a reactor core. Further, the detector assemblies cannot carry out the “determining,” “adjusting,” “producing,” or “verifying” steps of the claimed method. These components only contribute nominally to the execution of the claimed method and are used in their ordinary capacity.
3. Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use: As discussed above, the reactor components and detector assemblies contribute only nominally to the execution of the claimed method. The activity of continuing operation of a reactor within predefined limits is well-understood and convention and generically links the abstract idea to a nuclear reactor environment and the detector assemblies are merely used in a data gathering step. Thus, these features do not integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more.
MPEP 2106.05(c) addresses evaluating if the claims affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. An “article” includes a physical object or substance. The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. “Transformation” of an article means that the “article” has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Examiner notes, while the transformation of an article is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. As discussed above, the computer, reactor core, and detector assemblies are used in their ordinary capacity. As explicitly recited in the claims, the method results in “continuing operation of the reactor” (claims 1, 11). The judicial exception, therefore, does not result in a change in reactor operations. Rather, the method allows for the use of different calculations to verify that the reactor is operating safely ([0016], [0018], [0025]-[0026]). There is no change in the reactor itself nor does the claimed method result in a new or different function or use of the reactor. Further, as discussed above, the claims explicitly recite that there is no actual change to reactor operations (“continuing operation”). In view of the following factors, Examiner does not find that the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
1. The particularity or generality of the transformation: A more particular transformation would likely provide significantly more. However, as discussed above, the claims do not recite a particular transformation and generally recite “continuing operation of the reactor” (claims 1, 11).
2. The degree to which the recited article is particular: A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to an and all articles would likely not provide more than the judicial exception. A transformation that can be specifically identified, or that applies to only particular articles, is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrates a judicial exception into a practical application). However, as discussed above, the reactor core is used in its ordinary capacity. Further, there is no recitation as to the specific features of the reactor core itself.
3. The nature of the transformation in terms of the type or extent of change in state or thing: A transformation resulting in the transformed article having a different function or use would likely provide significantly more. However, as discussed above, the reactor core is used in its ordinary capacity and in the same manner prior to and after the mathematical calculations/mental processes. The “continuing operation” of the reactor does not result in a different function or use of the reactor as the reactor structure itself and operation of the reactor are unchanged and the reactor is still used in its ordinary capacity.
4. The nature of the article transformed. Transformation of a physical or tangible object or substance is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application) than the transformation of an intangible concept. As noted above, the claims explicitly recite there is no change in the reactor and there is no change in reactor operation as a result of the calculations.
5. Whether the transformation is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use (i.e., the extent to which (or how) the transformation imposes meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed steps). A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). The continuing operation of a reactor does not impose meaningful limits on the execution of the claimed method steps and, as discussed above, are no more than mere instruction to apply the abstract idea to a reactor.
Applicant argues the claims are “directly analogous to the eligibility path in PEG Example 43” (Remarks, p. 11). Example 43 (“the Example”) of the Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples is directed towards the “treatment or prophylaxis” consideration. In the Example, claim 1 was directed towards calculating a ratio and administering a treatment to a patient. It was found that the additional element of “administering a treatment to the patient having a non-responder phenotype” in claim 1 failed to meaningfully limit the claim because it did not require any particular application of the recited calculation and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. It was further found that claims 2-4 encompassed the administration of a “particular treatment or prophylaxis” under the 2019 PEG, and, therefore, integrated the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claims were not directed to the judicial exception. The Example notes that, “[a]s illustrated by the analysis of this claim and described in the 2019 PEG, the ‘treatment’ consideration ... encompasses both treatment and prophylaxis limitations.... Examples of ‘treatment’ and ‘prophylaxis’ limitations include (but are not limited to) administration of medication, dialysis, organ transplants, phototherapy, physiotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, and the like.” While the courts have found such limitations as indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims of the present invention do not include any limitations directed towards applying or using the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Unlike the claims in the Example, there is not a recitation of, for example, administration of medication, dialysis, organ transplants, phototherapy, physiotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, or the like such that the claims encompass the administration of a particular treatment or prophylaxis. The claims are therefore not analogous to the claims of the Example.
Applicant argues “[t]he reactor is not being used in its ordinary capacity as a generic power source; rather, its continued operation is expressly conditioned upon the recited measurement, determination, and verification steps” (Remarks, p. 11). Applicant appears to attribute the “recited measurement, determination, and verification steps” as evidence that the reactor is not being used in its ordinary capacity as a generic power source. However, there is nothing to suggest that the reactor is in fact not being used in its ordinary capacity as a generic power source. As discussed above and as noted by Applicant, the method involves the “continued operation” of the reactor. There is no change in the reactor itself nor do the “measurement, determination, and verification steps” result in a new or different function or use of the reactor. The reactor is “continu[ed]” to be operated in the same manner and the limitations simply apply the abstract idea to a nuclear reactor environment.
Applicant argues “[t]he Office Action characterizes the recited ‘measuring current values’ and ‘determining measured relative core power distribution’ steps as insignificant extra-solution activity” (Remarks, p. 11). However, the “determining” step was not characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity in either the prior Office actions or above. Rather, it is determined that the “determining” step recites mathematical relationships/calculations and mental processes, i.e., an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the “measuring” step is not generic (Remarks, pp. 11-12). However, in support of Applicant’s argument, Applicant appears to merely repeat the language of the claims. As discussed in the prior Office actions and above, the additional elements of measuring current values and measuring reactor thermal power are mere data gathering. As such, these features are insignificant extra-solution activities and also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Further, these features are no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry in view of the above-cited references.
Applicant argues the step of “determining ... based solely upon the measured current values and a calibration relationship” is not “widely prevalent or in common use” in the field (Remarks, p. 13). However, the Step 2B analysis involves a determination as to 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. As discussed above, the “determining” step is directed to a judicial exception.
Applicant argues “[t]he ordered combination recited in amended claims 1 and 11 – including the physical measurement of reactor thermal power, the recited calibration relationship in which K is a measured slope and QT is calculated from the measured reactor thermal power divided by a maximum licensed thermal power, the determining step performed ‘based solely upon’ the measured current values and the recited calibration relationship, and the ‘continuing operation’ step ... – has not been shown to be widely prevalent or in common use in the field” (Remarks, pp. 13-14). However, as noted above, “determining a measured relative core power distribution” and “creating the calibration relationship” are part of a “mathematical concept/calculation” and “mental process” identified as an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. 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.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the above rejections.
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) 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 364
Prosecution Insights