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 06/19/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-2, 8, 11-17, and 20-25 are pending in the application with claims 8, 16-17, and 21 withdrawn (see Non-Final Rejection, para. 3). Claims 1-2, 11-15, 20, and 22-25 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 25 is objected to because “the at least one self-powered detector has a height of between” should be amended to recite “the height of the at least one self-powered detector is between”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-2, 11-15, 20, and 22-25 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 “at least one self-powered detector” and “the at least one self-powered detector being a single enlarged spiral detector”. It is unclear compared to what other structure the spiral detector is “enlarged” (i.e., made larger). Additionally, it is unclear if the claimed “excore detector assembly” comprises a single detector or at least one (i.e., one or more) detectors. This further renders unclear which detector the “detector” in claim 22 is referring to.
The term “approximately” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, the specification discloses “approximately (+/- 10%) a half of core 14” ([0024]) and “by ‘approximately half the length of the core 14’, it is meant preferably between 25% and 50% of the length of the core” ([0035]). It is unclear if the claimed height of the detector is intended to be between 40% and 60% a height of the core, a height of the core +/- 10% of the height of the core, between 25% and 50% of the core, or something else. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the claim as requiring a detector having a height of between 25% and 50% of a height of the nuclear reactor core.
Claim 20 recites “half of the nuclear reactor core of the nuclear reactor pressure vessel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the nuclear reactor pressure vessel”.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 11-15, 22, and 24, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,141,709 (“Gaussa”) in view of US Patent No. 3,390,270 (“Treinen”) and US Patent No. 4,140,911 (“Todt”).
Regarding claim 1, Gaussa (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 3) discloses an excore detector assembly for measuring flux outside of a nuclear reactor core (1:15-24) comprising:
a housing (54, 54B) (7:8-15); and
at least one detector (42) inside the housing for measuring flux generated by the nuclear reactor core (3:46-56, 6:45-54)
Gaussa appears to be silent as to the detailed structure of the at least one detector and further does not appear to explicitly disclose the at least one detector is a self-powered detector, but discloses the at least one detector may be a “conventional power level excore detector” (6:48-54). Treinen (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a detector assembly for measuring flux (Abstract) comprising a detector (10) for measuring flux generated by the nuclear reactor core (1:45-51). Treinen teaches the detector is a self-powered detector (1:52-54) including a sheath (14), a detector material section (12) inside the sheath, an insulator (16) between the sheath and the detector material, and a flux signal output line (22), the self-powered detector being a single detector (Abstract, 2:61-68, 3:35-37). Treinen further teaches the self-powered detector instantaneously responds to changes in flux, has a relatively long operating lifetime, and does not require auxiliary electrical power for operation (1:37-44, 1:52-54, 5:14-28). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to use a self-powered detector as taught by Treinen in Gaussa’s excore detector assembly for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Gaussa in order to enhance responsiveness and reliability, as suggested by Treinen, would have been obvious to a POSA.
The modified Gaussa does not appear to teach the at least one self-powered detector is a spiral detector. Todt (previously cited) (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a detector assembly for measuring flux comprising a self-powered detector (1:7-14). Todt teaches the self-powered detector has a spiral shape (3:16-21). Todt further teaches the spiral shape provides a longer detector material section (“active emitter portion”) allowing for greater detector sensitivity (3:43-46). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the single detector of the modified Gaussa in the spiral arrangement as taught by Todt for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Gaussa in order to enhance detector sensitivity, as suggested by Todt, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 2, Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Gaussa discloses at least one moderator (56) surrounding the at least one self-powered detector (FIG. 3, 7:4-12, 7:33-44).
Regarding claim 11, Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Gaussa discloses the housing is formed of a metallic material (9:36-52).
Regarding claim 12, Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Treinen teaches the detector material section is formed of a thermal neutron reaction material (e.g., gadolinium or cadmium) capable of capturing neutrons and thereby generating capture gamma to produce energetic electrons for creating a prompt signal (Abstract, 3:2-9; see also instant specification at paragraph [0022] which discloses gadolinium and cadmium as suitable materials capable of capturing neutrons and thereby generating capture gamma to produce energetic electrons for creating a prompt signal). Thus, Gaussa’s detector assembly, modified to include at least one self-powered detector as taught by Treinen and the spiral detector shape as taught by Todt, would have resulted in the features of claim 12.
Regarding claims 13-14, Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Treinen teaches the detector material section is formed of gadolinium (3:2-9). Thus, Gaussa’s detector assembly, modified to include at least one self-powered detector as taught by Treinen and the spiral detector shape as taught by Todt, would have resulted in the features of claims 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 15, Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Todt teaches the spiral detector includes a hollow center (FIGS. 3-4). Thus, Gaussa’s detector assembly, modified to include at least one self-powered detector as taught by Treinen and the spiral detector shape as taught by Todt, would have resulted in the features of claim 15.
Regarding claim 22, Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Gaussa discloses the at least one self-powered detector is surrounded by a cylindrical moderator (56) spaced from the detector (FIGS. 3, 4B, 7:4-12, 7:33-44).
Regarding claim 24, Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 11. Gaussa discloses the metallic material is aluminum (9:49-43).
Claims 1-2, 12-15, and 22-23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Publication No. S54-14291 (“Akita”) in view of Treinen and Todt.
Regarding claim 1, Akita (newly cited) (see FIGS. 4-5) discloses an excore detector assembly for measuring flux outside of a nuclear reactor core (6) comprising:
a housing (see U-shaped structure in FIG. 4); and
at least one neutron detector (4) inside the housing for measuring flux generated by the nuclear reactor core.
Akita appears to be silent as to the detailed structure of the at least one neutron detector and further does not appear to explicitly disclose the at least one neutron detector is a self-powered detector. Treinen (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a detector assembly for measuring flux (Abstract) comprising a detector (10) for measuring flux generated by the nuclear reactor core (1:45-51). Treinen teaches the detector is a self-powered detector (1:52-54) including a sheath (14), a detector material section (12) inside the sheath, an insulator (16) between the sheath and the detector material, and a flux signal output line (22), the self-powered detector being a single detector (Abstract, 2:61-68, 3:35-37). Treinen further teaches the self-powered detector instantaneously responds to changes in flux, has a relatively long operating lifetime, and does not require auxiliary electrical power for operation (1:37-44, 1:52-54, 5:14-28). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use a self-powered detector as taught by Treinen in Akita’s excore detector assembly for the performance benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Akita in order to enhance responsiveness and reliability, as suggested by Treinen, would have been obvious to a POSA.
The modified Akita does not appear to teach the at least one self-powered detector is a spiral detector. Todt (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a detector assembly for measuring flux comprising a self-powered detector (1:7-14). Todt teaches the self-powered detector has a spiral shape (3:16-21). Todt further teaches the spiral shape provides a longer detector material section (“active emitter portion”) allowing for greater detector sensitivity (3:43-46). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the single detector of the modified Akita in the spiral arrangement as taught by Todt for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Akita in order to enhance detector sensitivity, as suggested by Todt, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 2, Akita in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Akita discloses at least one moderator (2) surrounding the at least one detector (FIG. 5, p. 2: “the source region and intermediate region are surrounded by a moderator”).
Regarding claim 12, Akita in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Treinen teaches the detector material section is formed of a thermal neutron reaction material (e.g., gadolinium or cadmium) capable of capturing neutrons and thereby generating capture gamma to produce energetic electrons for creating a prompt signal (Abstract, 3:2-9; see also instant specification at paragraph [0022] which discloses gadolinium and cadmium as suitable materials capable of capturing neutrons and thereby generating capture gamma to produce energetic electrons for creating a prompt signal). Thus, Akita’s detector assembly, modified to include at least one self-powered detector as taught by Treinen and the spiral detector shape as taught by Todt, would have resulted in the features of claim 12.
Regarding claims 13-14, Akita in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Treinen teaches the detector material section is formed of gadolinium (3:2-9). Thus, Akita’s detector assembly, modified to include at least one self-powered detector as taught by Treinen and the spiral detector shape as taught by Todt, would have resulted in the features of claims 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 15, Akita in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Todt teaches the spiral detector includes a hollow center (FIGS. 3-4). Thus, Akita’s detector assembly, modified to include at least one self-powered detector as taught by Treinen and the spiral detector shape as taught by Todt, would have resulted in the features of claim 15.
Regarding claim 22, Akita in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Akita discloses the detector is surrounded by a cylindrical moderator (2) spaced from the detector (FIG. 5, p. 2: “the source region and intermediate region are surrounded by a moderator”; p. 3: “the neutron detector (4) is installed at the center (8) of the neutron detector insertion hole (3)”).
Regarding claim 23, Akita in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 22. Akita discloses the housing is a cylindrical housing, the cylindrical moderator being surrounded by the cylindrical housing, the cylindrical housing being spaced from the cylindrical moderator (FIG. 4).
Claims 11 and 24, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akita in view of Treinen and Todt, further in view of Gaussa.
Regarding claims 11 and 24, Akita in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Akita appears to be silent as to the material of the housing. However, Gaussa (see FIGS. 1, 3) is similarly directed towards an excore detector assembly comprising a housing (54B) (7:8-15). Gaussa teaches the housing is formed of a metallic material, the metallic material being aluminum (9:36-52). Gaussa further teaches aluminum provides the advantages of having a high resistance to radiation contamination (9:36-52). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the modified Akita’s housing formed of aluminum, as taught by Gaussa, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Akita in order to minimize radiation contamination, as suggested by Gaussa, would have been obvious to a POSA. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to form the housing of aluminum since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 20 and 25, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt, further in view of US Patent No. 4,079,236 (“Graham”).
Regarding claim 20, Gaussa in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Gaussa shows the at least one detector has a height that is less than a height of the nuclear reactor core (FIG. 1), but does not appear to disclose the height of the at least one detector is approximately half of a height of the nuclear reactor core. However, it was known in the art to have excore detector assemblies employing multiple vertically aligned neutron detectors, each detector having a height that is approximately half of a height of a nuclear reactor core. For example, Graham (newly cited) (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards an excore detector assembly (32, 32’) for measuring flux outside of a nuclear reactor core (18) (Abstract), the excore detector assembly comprising at least one neutron detector (a-d). Graham teaches the at least one neutron detector comprises a plurality of vertically stacked neutron detectors (a-d), a height of each of the neutron detectors being approximately half of the nuclear reactor core (5:34-48). Graham further teaches that employing multiple neutron detectors along the axial length of the core has the advantages of providing independently responsive flux sensitive areas and providing power data specific to different axial portions of the nuclear reactor core (2:29-41, 5:34-48, 6:41-64). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to utilize multiple detectors, each having a height of approximately half of the height of the nuclear reactor core, in the modified Gaussa’s excore detector assembly, as taught by Graham, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Gaussa in order to enhance core monitoring, as suggested by Graham, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 25, Gaussa in view of Treinen, Todt, and Graham teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 20. Graham teaches the height of the at least one self-powered detector is between 25% and 50% of the nuclear reactor core (FIGS. 1, 3). Thus, Gaussa’s detector assembly, modified to include at least one self-powered detector as taught by Treinen, the spiral detector shape as taught by Todt, and the multiple axial detectors as taught by Graham, would have resulted in the features of claim 25.
Claims 20 and 25, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akita in view of Treinen and Todt, further in view of Graham.
Regarding claim 20, Akita in view of Treinen and Todt teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 1. Akita appears to show the at least one detector has a height that is equal to a height of the nuclear reactor core (FIG. 4), and does not appear to disclose the height of the at least one detector is approximately half of the nuclear reactor core. However, it was known in the art to have excore detector assemblies employing multiple vertically aligned neutron detectors, each detector having a height that is approximately half of a height of a nuclear reactor core. For example, Graham (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards an excore detector assembly (32, 32’) for measuring flux outside of a nuclear reactor core (18) (Abstract), the excore detector assembly comprising at least one neutron detector (a-d). Graham teaches the at least one neutron detector comprises a plurality of vertically stacked neutron detectors (a-d), a height of each of the neutron detectors being approximately half of a height of the nuclear reactor core (5:34-48). Graham further teaches that employing multiple neutron detectors along the axial length of the core has the advantages of providing independently responsive flux sensitive areas and providing power data specific to different axial portions of the nuclear reactor core (2:29-41, 5:34-48, 6:41-64). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to utilize multiple detectors, each having a height of approximately half of the height of the nuclear reactor core, in the modified Akita’s excore detector assembly, as taught by Graham, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Akita in order to enhance data collection, as suggested by Graham, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 25, Akita in view of Treinen, Todt, and Graham teaches the excore detector assembly as recited in claim 20. Graham teaches the height of the at least one self-powered detector is between 25% and 50% of the nuclear reactor core (FIGS. 1, 3). Thus, Akita’s detector assembly, modified to include at least one self-powered detector as taught by Treinen, the spiral detector shape as taught by Todt, and the multiple axial detectors as taught by Graham, would have resulted in the features of claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of record and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant and Examiner previously discussed that the present invention has a single detector whereas Todt’s assembly has four detectors (44, 46, 48, 50). However, upon further consideration, Examiner notes that Todt is used to disclose a shape of the detector (e.g., the spiral shape), not the detector itself. Gaussa and Akita both disclose a generic excore detector assembly comprising a housing and a neutron detector (Gaussa, FIGS. 1, 3; Akita, FIGS. 4-5). Treinen establishes that the neutron detector may be a single self-powered neutron detector having a sheath, detector material section, insulator, and flux signal output line as recited in claim 1 (FIG. 1). Todt further establishes that the neutron detector may have a spiral shape in order to improve detector sensitivity (FIG. 3, 3:43-46). Specifically, Todt teaches “[t]he helical wrap of the detectors provides a longer active emitter portion for a given length of the core and permits greater detector sensitivity” (3:43-46). The skilled artisan would have recognized that having Treinen’s single detector in the spiral shape would provide the advantages taught by Todt.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. See MPEP 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
Interview Information
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM-5:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646