DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request for continued examination (RCE) filed 17 December 2025 has been entered. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-15 are pending. Claims 1 and 10-15 are withdrawn. Claims 4-8 are further 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)
Claims 4-8 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Initial Comment
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Thus, they do not meet the requirements for grant of a U.S. Patent.
Claim 4
The phrase “a shielding portion comprising a body which is cylindrically formed in the reactor core” is unclear. The specification appears to show that a shielding portion body (2) surrounds (is outside of) the reactor core, which contains the nuclear fuel. Thus, it is unclear how this shielding body can be “in the reactor core”.
The phrase “the columnar shape” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the space enclosed by the body and the lids” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “a sealed structure . . . that covers all over outer sides of the reactor core” is unclear. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “a sealed structure . . . that covers all outer sides of the reactor core”.
The phrase “a control part that supported by the shielding portion” is unclear. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “a control part supported by the shielding portion”.
The phrase “a movement mechanism of the neutron absorber” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the movement mechanism is formed of neutron absorber material. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “a movement mechanism for the neutron absorber”.
The phrase “a movement mechanism . . . that moving the neutron absorber” is unclear. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “a movement mechanism . . . for moving the neutron absorber”.
The phrase “the control parts” (plural) lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the control unit” (twice) lacks proper antecedent basis.
It is unclear how a previously not mentioned “operation cycle” can be continued. Thus, in the phrase “and continued an operation cycle”, the wording “operation cycle” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the controller does not vary the position of the neutron absorber” is unclear. The phrase is directed to an intended method function. It is unclear how the phrase further limits the structure of the nuclear reactor apparatus.
The intended method function phrase “after a temperature of the nuclear fuel body increases to a certain value” is not required to (and may never) occur. Thus, it is unclear how the phrase further limits the structure of the nuclear reactor apparatus.
The intended method function phrase “when the temperature of the nuclear fuel drops to the certain value” is not required to (and may never) occur. Thus, it is unclear how the phrase further limits the structure of the nuclear reactor apparatus.
The phrase “the controller moves the position of the neutron absorber” is unclear. The phrase is directed to an intended active method function. It is unclear how the phrase further limits the structure of the nuclear reactor apparatus.
The phrase “the direction close to the reactor core” lacks proper antecedent basis. Additionally, in said phrase it is unclear what constitutes the term “close”. The dividing boundary between “close” and “not close” to a reactor core is unclear and unknown. The term 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.
The phrase “ends a operation cycle” is unclear. It is unclear whether this “operation cycle” is the same as the previously mentioned “operation cycle” (in the phase ‘continued an operation cycle’) or is a different “operation cycle”.
The phrase “the last operation period” lacks proper antecedent basis.
For the many reasons noted above, the subject matter of claim 4 is defined by intended functional results to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the results. The recited functions do not follow from positively recited structure. Thus, the claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended functional results.
Claim 5
The phrase “the controller moves the neutron absorber in a position that is further away” is unclear. The phrase is directed to an intended active method function. It is unclear how the phrase further limits the structure of the nuclear reactor apparatus.
Claim 8
The phrase “the reactor core has a support has holes” is unclear. The phrase appears to be missing at least one word. Thus, it appears that the claim is incomplete.
The phrase “the support is formed by a moderator” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether a tool of moderator material is used to form (make) the support. It is also unclear what the “moderator” moderates. For example, it is unclear whether the “moderator” is a coolant flow moderator, a heat moderator, a pressure moderator, a neutron moderator, or some other kind of moderator. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “the support is formed of a moderator of neutrons”.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 is directed to the structure of an apparatus comprising: a reactor core; a shielding portion; a thermal conduction part; a control part; and a controller. The intended use language is not required to occur. Prior art structure that is capable of being used in the manner mentioned in the claim meets the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKellar (US 2018/0268950).
Claims 4-5 and 7
The reasons for rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 17 September 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. McKellar’s controller is capable of being used in the manner mentioned in the claims. McKellar discloses lids. Nevertheless, sealing lids (end closures) are required in the art in order to contain the radioactive nuclear fuel.
Claim 8
The reactor core includes a radial support that includes graphite [0031], which conventionally functions as a moderator. Nuclear fuel is located inside the support.
Alternatively, McKellar discloses a support (228) which contains holes for nuclear fuel (220). The support inherently moderates at least one of coolant flow, heat, pressure, or neutrons.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sterbentz (US 2018/0226159).
Claims 4-5 and 7
The reasons for rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 17 September 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. Sterbentz’s controller is capable of being used in the manner mentioned in the claims. Sterbentz discloses lids. Nevertheless, sealing lids (end closures) are required in the art in order to contain the radioactive nuclear fuel.
Claim 8
The reactor core includes a radial support that includes graphite [0031], which conventionally functions as a moderator. Nuclear fuel is located inside the support.
Alternatively, Sterbentz discloses a support (412, 470, 494) which contains holes for nuclear fuel (404). The support inherently moderates at least one of coolant flow, heat, pressure, or neutrons.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClure (US 2016/0027536).
Claims 4-5 and 7
The reasons for rejections set forth in the Office Action dated 17 September 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. McClure’s controller is capable of being used in the manner mentioned in the claims. McClure discloses lids. Nevertheless, sealing lids (end closures) are required in the art in order to contain the radioactive nuclear fuel.
Claim 8
McClure discloses a support comprising a monolith which contains holes for nuclear fuel (730) (e.g., [0056]). The support inherently moderates at least one of coolant flow, heat, pressure, or neutrons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over each of McKellar, Sterbentz, and McClure as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kimura (JP 2018021763A).
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a heat pipe can be implemented with various geometries and density, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain geometry and density in light of the specific nuclear reactor design. Kimura shows (e.g., last page) that it is well known in the art to employ a solid heat pipe instead of a liquid heat pipe to meet a particular nuclear reactor design. Thus, modification of each of McKellar, Sterbentz, and McClure to have employed a solid heat pipe, as suggested by Kimura, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
a shielding portion body in a reactor core (claim 4);
neutron absorber movement mechanism (claim 4);
thermal conduction part penetrates the shielding portion (claim 6); and
a metal block (claim 7).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Requirements for an acceptable replacement drawing sheet are discussed in a prior Office Action.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
It consist of an unclear long rambling sentence. It is unclear where one feature ends and another feature begins. It is suggested that the long rambling sentence be broken into several shorter clear sentences.
It includes indefinite language noted in the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
The phrase “the reactor core is placed inside a thermal conduction part” is nonsensical.
An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is too generic for the recited invention. The generic Title appears to be directed to a conventional nuclear reactor. For example, every nuclear reactor is legally required to have structure “for controlling the position of a neutron absorber”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. Most arguments are directed to function language in the claims. Said language is either not required to be performed or is capable of being met by the applied prior art structure.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646