DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 6 July 2026. 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 Claims 1 and 10-15 are withdrawn.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 here
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 “the a columnar shape of the reactor core” lacks proper antecedent basis. Also, the use of “the a“ is unclear, and implies that the claim is missing words, which would render the claim incomplete.
It is unclear what component is “with a sealed structure”. Also, the phrase “a sealed structure in which the reactor core is placed” is unclear in its meaning.
The phrase “the space enclosed by the body and the lids” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “covers all over outer sides of the reactor core” is unclear. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “covers all outer sides of the reactor core”.
The phrase “the control part” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether this (single) control part is from the previously mentioned “plurality of control parts” or is a different control part that is distinct from said plurality.
The phrase “the control part . . . causes a neutron absorber to be positioned on . . . the control part” is incomprehensible.
The phrase “the control part . . . by rotating the cylindrical shape, causes the neutron absorber to rotate” is unclear. If the neutron absorber is a part of the control part then rotation of the control part inherently “causes the neutron absorber to rotate”. Thus, it is unclear how said phrase further limits the structure of the claim.
The phrase “the nuclear fuel” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the control unit” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the direction close to the reactor core” lacks proper antecedent basis. Also, 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 the skilled artisan would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Some of the many intended function method phrases are: “after a temperature of the nuclear fuel body increases to a certain value”; “does not vary the position of the neutron absorber”; “continues an operation cycle “; “positive reactivity is introduced”; “rotates the neutron absorber”; and “stops the operation and ends a current operation cycle”. These phrases are not required to (and may never) occur. Thus, it is unclear how these phrases further limit the physical structure of the nuclear reactor apparatus.
Claim 5
The phrase “the last operation period” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8
The phrase “the reactor core is formed with a support has holes” is unclear. Said phrase appears to be missing words, which would render the claim incomplete.
The phrase “the nuclear fuel is disposed in each of holes” is unclear. Said phrase appears to be missing words, which would render the claim incomplete.
The phrase “the support is formed by a neutron moderator” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how a neutron moderator can be operated to build a support.
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; control parts, and a controller. The “controller” can read on a drive mechanism for a control part. The “controller” can also read on a single controller of plural controllers (e.g., computer systems) that assist in controlling reactivity and operation cycles. Hence, although the single controller “does not vary the position of the neutron absorber in the control part”, the claim allows for other controllers to vary the position at various times. Claim 4 is not directed to a method. 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, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKellar (US 2018/0268950).
Claims 4-5 and 7
McKellar teaches a nuclear reactor comprising a reactor core (200, 202); a shielding portion (e.g., 204, 214, 216, 314) radially outside of the reactor core; a thermal conduction part (e.g., 222) that transfers core heat exterior of the shielding portion; and a control part (208) that includes a neutron absorber (210).
A controller (e.g., computer system) controls positioning of the neutron absorber. For example, McKellar teaches that “the control drums 208 may be selectively rotated to control a reaction rate of the reactor core 200” [0032]. McKellar’s controller is capable of being used in the manner mentioned in the claims. Regardless, use of a computer (controller) to accurately position control elements based on current and desired reactor conditions is required in the art. 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 neutrons.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sterbentz (US 2018/0226159).
Claims 4-5 and 7
Sterbentz teaches a nuclear reactor comprising a reactor core (200, 400); a shielding portion (e.g., 254, 260, 262, 264; 454, 460, 462, 464) radially outside of the reactor core; a thermal conduction part (e.g., 208, 408) that transfers core heat exterior of the shielding portion; and a control part (256, 456) that includes a neutron absorber (258, 458).
A controller (e.g., computer system) controls positioning of the neutron absorber. For example, Sterbentz teaches that “the control drums 256 may be rotated to control a reaction rate of the reactor core 200” [0032]. Sterbentz’s controller is capable of being used in the manner mentioned in the claims. Regardless, use of a computer (controller) to accurately position control elements based on current and desired reactor conditions is required in the art. 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 neutrons.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClure (US 2016/0027536).
Claims 4-5 and 7
McClure teaches a nuclear reactor comprising a reactor core (610); a shielding portion (e.g., 640) radially outside of the reactor core; a thermal conduction part (e.g., 620) that transfers core heat exterior of the shielding portion [0050]; and a control part (650) that includes a neutron absorber (660).
A controller (e.g., computer system) controls positioning of the neutron absorber. For example, McClure teaches a mechanism for rotating the neutron absorber [0052]. McClure’s controller is capable of being used in the manner mentioned in the claims. Regardless, use of a computer (controller) to accurately position control elements based on current and desired reactor conditions is required in the art. 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 neutrons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure remains 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 unclear phrase “reactor core is placed inside a thermal conduction part”.
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 remains 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”. The Title should indicate that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the distinctive feature of this application (Claim 4) is that the control drum is not operated during operation, and that autonomous control is achieved solely through physical phenomena such as Doppler reactivity”. Applicant also argues that the applied references “do not describe an operational control method such as the one of the present invention”.
The examiner contends that claim 4 is directed to an apparatus, not a method. However, Applicant's arguments are directed to method features. Regardless, these functional method features are either not required to be performed in the apparatus as claimed or are capable of being met by the applied prior art structure.
As a courtesy, below is an example claim of an apparatus using wording that provides more patentable weight to a “controller”. It should be understood that this claim is not an indication that it: contains allowable subject matter; is supported by the original disclosure; and has been fully searched.
Example claim: A nuclear reactor system comprising:
a cylindrical reactor core having nuclear fuel,
a radiation shield including
a cylindrical body surrounding the core,
a first lid sealing a first end of the body, and
a second lid sealing a second end of the body; and
a plurality of heat pipe configured to transfer heat generated in the reactor core to a location exterior of the shield,
a plurality of cylindrical reactively control drums, wherein each control drum:
is located within the body,
includes an outer circumference,
includes a neutron absorber located in an arc segment of the outer circumference, wherein the arc segment is less than the total outer circumference, and
is rotatable to cause the neutron absorber to vary in distance from the reactor core; and
a controller configured to:
(a) determine that temperature of the nuclear fuel has risen to a certain value, whereby the determination is indicative that the core has entered an initial critical state during a planned reactor operation cycle;
(b) subsequent to (a), determine that temperature of the nuclear fuel has decreased below the certain value, whereby the determination is indicative that the temperature decreased as a result of a decrease in fission reactions due to neutron capture in a Doppler effect in a resonance region, and the core is no longer in the critical state;
(c) subsequent to (b), determine that temperature of the nuclear fuel has risen above the certain value, whereby the determination is indicative that reactivity has increased as a result of positive reactivity introduced via Doppler effect feedback, and the core has reentered the critical state;
(d) subsequent to (c), determine that temperature of the nuclear fuel has decreased to the certain value; and
(e) responsive to (d), cause rotation of the control drums to move each neutron absorber closer to the reactor core, which causes shutdown of the reactor and ends the planned reactor operation cycle; and
wherein during the planned reactor operation cycle prior to (e), the controller does not allow the control drums to be rotated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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.
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 and/or the specification.
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
Prosecution Insights