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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 12, 2026.
Claims 1-26 are pending. Claims 18-26 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Venneri et al is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al in view of Cain et al is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al in view of Cain et al in view of Dorr et al is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al in view of McReynolds is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12-15, 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al in view of Venneri is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al in view of Venneri in view of McReynolds in view of Townley et al is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venneri et al (WO Patent 2019/164617 (already of record)) Handwerk et al (US Patent 2,900,263) in view of Tanabe et al (JP2001-208881).
Regarding claims 1-7, Venneri teaches a magnesium oxide matrix and high moderating material beryllium dispersed with the matrix (Paragraph 34). Venneri further teaches a moderating material can be a beryllium metal with a shell of BeO (Paragraph 76). Venneri further teaches 35 and 54vol% fractions of moderator (Paragraphs 94, 113). Venneri further teaches greater than 95% density (Figure 5). However, Venneri fails to specifically disclose less than 100 ppm of halide sintering aid.
In the same field of endeavor, Handwerk et al teaches a fuel element for a nuclear reactor (Col. 1, Lines 15-18) comprising a sintering aid such as calcium fluoride to obtain better densification (Col. 3, Lines 41-45).
In the same field of endeavor, Tanabe et al teaches a fuel element comprising 10-500ppm of a sintering agent in order to avoid reducing the amount of material in the densified pellets (Abstract, Paragraphs 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a halide sintering aid at 100ppm or less in Venneri et al in view of Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al in order to obtain better densification without significantly reducing the amount of the main components as taught in Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al.
Claims 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al (US Patent 5,762,831 (already of record)) in view of Cain et al (US Patent 3,088,892 (already of record)) in view of Handwerk et al (US Patent 2,900,263) in view of Tanabe et al (JP2001-208881).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, Viallard et al teaches a composite nuclear fuel material comprising a matrix and particles of nuclear fuel (Abstract). Viallard et al further teaches MgAl2O4 matrix (Col. 3, Line 38). Viallard et al further teaches greater than 94% density (Col. 5, Lines 48-49). Viallard et al further teaches the fuel material is generally between 20-40% by volume (Col. 2, Lines 10-11). However, Viallard et al fails to specifically disclose beryllium fuel particles and less than 100 ppm of halide sintering aid.
In the same field of endeavor, Cain et al teaches fuel elements for nuclear power reactors comprising UO2 particles coated with beryllium in a matrix (Claims 1 and 4).
In the same field of endeavor, Handwerk et al teaches a fuel element for a nuclear reactor (Col. 1, Lines 15-18) comprising a sintering aid such as calcium fluoride to obtain better densification (Col. 3, Lines 41-45).
In the same field of endeavor, Tanabe et al teaches a fuel element comprising 10-500ppm of a sintering agent in order to avoid reducing the amount of material in the densified pellets (Abstract, Paragraphs 31-32).
With regard to beryllium fuel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided UO2 particles coated with beryllium in Viallard et al in view of Cain et al in order to provide a fuel element/material to the composite nuclear fuel material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
With regard to less than 100ppm of a halide sintering aid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a halide sintering aid at 100ppm or less in Viallard et al and Cain et al in view of Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al in order to obtain better densification without significantly reducing the amount of the main components as taught in Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al.
In the alternative, claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al (US Patent 5,762,831 (already of record)) in view of Cain et al (US Patent 3,088,892 (already of record)) in view of Handwerk et al (US Patent 2,900,263) in view of Tanabe et al (JP2001-208881) as applied to claims 1-5, 7 above, and in further view of Dorr et al (WO Patent 03/015105).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Viallard et al and Cain et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Viallard et al and Cain et al fails to specifically disclose beryllium particles.
In the same field of endeavor, Dorr et al teaches nuclear fuel powder and sintered compacts (Abstract) comprising beryllium powder (Pg. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided beryllium powder in the composite nuclear fuel material in order to provide regulate the thermal conductivity of the fuel as taught in Dorr et al.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al (US Patent 5,762,831 (already of record)) in view of McReynolds (US Patent 3,019,176 (already of record)) in view of Handwerk et al (US Patent 2,900,263) in view of Tanabe et al (JP2001-208881).
Regarding claims 8-11, Viallard et al teaches a composite nuclear fuel material comprising a matrix and particles of nuclear fuel (Abstract). Viallard et al further teaches MgAl2O4 matrix (Col. 3, Line 38). Viallard et al further teaches greater than 94% density (Col. 5, Lines 48-49). Viallard et al further teaches the fuel material is generally between 20-40% by volume (Col. 2, Lines 10-11). However, Viallard et al fails to specifically disclose zirconium and yttrium hydride, 10-50vol% of the hydride in the composite material and less than 100 ppm of halide sintering aid.
In the same field of endeavor, McReynolds teaches a fuel element comprising a fuel element comprising a metal hydride moderating material. The metal hydride moderating material has thermal neutron absorption….zirconium and yttrium hydrides may be used as the particulate moderating material in forming the fuel element (Col. 3, Lines 13-21).
In the same field of endeavor, Handwerk et al teaches a fuel element for a nuclear reactor (Col. 1, Lines 15-18) comprising a sintering aid such as calcium fluoride to obtain better densification (Col. 3, Lines 41-45).
In the same field of endeavor, Tanabe et al teaches a fuel element comprising 10-500ppm of a sintering agent in order to avoid reducing the amount of material in the densified pellets (Abstract, Paragraphs 31-32).
With regard to zirconium and yttrium hydride, 10-50vol% of the hydride in the composite material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided zirconium and yttrium hydride in Viallard et al in view of McReynolds in order to provide a fuel element/material to the composite nuclear fuel material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. With respect to the amount of hydride particles in the composite, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided in the range between 20-40vol% as Viallard et al teaches a composite comprising a fuel material between 20-40vol%.
With regard to less than 100ppm of a halide sintering aid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a halide sintering aid at 100ppm or less in Viallard et al and McReynolds in view of Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al in order to obtain better densification without significantly reducing the amount of the main components as taught in Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al.
Claims 12-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al (US Patent 5,762,831 (already of record)) in view of Venneri (US Patent Application 2017/0287575 (already of record)) in view of Handwerk et al (US Patent 2,900,263) in view of Tanabe et al (JP2001-208881).
Regarding claims 12-15, 17, Viallard et al teaches a composite nuclear fuel material comprising a matrix and particles of nuclear fuel (Abstract). Viallard et al further teaches MgAl2O4 matrix (Col. 3, Line 38). Viallard et al further teaches greater than 94% density (Col. 5, Lines 48-49). Viallard et al further teaches the fuel material is generally between 20-40% by volume (Col. 2, Lines 10-11). However, Viallard et al fails to specifically disclose a microencapsulated nuclear fuel particles and less than 100 ppm of halide sintering aid.
In the same field of endeavor, Venneri teaches a ceramic matrix of nuclear fuels incorporating neutron (Abstract). Venneri further teaches the fuel particles are tristructural isotropic fuel particles that are fully microencapsulated (Paragraphs 10-12, 42). Venneri further teaches the microencapsulated fuel provides improved function and mitigates the positive reactivity (Paragraphs 2, 10).
In the same field of endeavor, Handwerk et al teaches a fuel element for a nuclear reactor (Col. 1, Lines 15-18) comprising a sintering aid such as calcium fluoride to obtain better densification (Col. 3, Lines 41-45).
In the same field of endeavor, Tanabe et al teaches a fuel element comprising 10-500ppm of a sintering agent in order to avoid reducing the amount of material in the densified pellets (Abstract, Paragraphs 31-32).
With regard to a microencapsulated nuclear fuel particle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a microencapsulated nuclear fuel particles in Viallard et al in view of Venneri in order to provide improved function and mitigate the positive reactivity as taught in Venneri.
With regard to less than 100ppm of a halide sintering aid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a halide sintering aid at 100ppm or less in Viallard et al and Venneri in view of Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al in order to obtain better densification without significantly reducing the amount of the main components as taught in Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al (US Patent 5,762,831 (already of record)) in view of Venneri (US Patent Application 2017/0287575 (already of record)) in view of Handwerk et al (US Patent 2,900,263) in view of Tanabe et al (JP2001-208881) as applied to claims 12-15, 17 above, and in further view of McReynolds (US Patent 3,019,176 (already of record)) and Townley et al (In-pile performance of ceramic coated-particle fuels (already of record)).
Regarding claim 16, Viallard et al, Venneri, Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Viallard et al, Venneri, Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al teach the features above. However, Viallard et al, Venneri, Handwerk et al and Tanabe et al fail to specifically disclose a beryllium containing phase and metal hydride phase in the matrix.
In the same field of endeavor, Townley et al teaches spherical fuel particles coated with a layer of ceramic material such as beryllium oxide (Abstract).
In the same field of endeavor, McReynolds teaches a fuel element comprising a fuel element comprising a metal hydride moderating material. The metal hydride moderating material has thermal neutron absorption….zirconium and yttrium hydrides may be used as the particulate moderating material in forming the fuel element (Col. 3, Lines 13-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided fuel particles comprising beryllium and metal hydride in order to provide a fuel element/material to the composite nuclear fuel material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 March 7, 2026