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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 11/5/2024 is acknowledged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 20180316082 A1, hereinafter Keller) in view of Sporer (US 10103466 B1, hereinafter Sporer)
Claim 1. Keller teaches a nuclear instrumentation and control system ([0402] recites ‘nuclear plant electronics’), comprising:
a housing ([0494] recites ‘card rack cabinet or processor chassis’); and
a plurality of selectively removable slave boards (2500, fig 25) configured to be installed within the housing [0494] and electrically coupled to the instrumentation and control system nuclear reactor ([0402] recites ‘nuclear plant electronics’), wherein
at least one of the selectively removable slave boards includes a base board (main board of 2500, fig 25) and a daughter card ([0462] recites ‘controller can be provided on separate PCB substrates and coupled with each other by way of connectors, cables or in a mother-board/daughter-board approach’), the base board having circuitry and a footprint for the daughter card thereon,
the footprint being a two-dimensional region of the base board including an input/output circuit and a power connector ([0462] recites ‘FPGA/CPU 1216, RAM memory 1218 and EPROM/Program memory 1238 define a controller …. controller can be provided on separate PCB substrates and coupled with each other by way of connectors, cables or in a mother-board/daughter-board approach’),
the daughter card comprising a control circuit ([0462] recites ‘controller can be provided on separate PCB substrates’), wherein
the daughter card is configured to be selectively coupled to the base board of the at least one selectively removable slave board of the plurality of selectively removable slave boards via a mechanical connector (since the daughter card is physically connected) and an electrical connector (since the daughter card is electrically connected) including the input//output circuit and the power connector of the footprint (since the daughter card is powered connected)
However one could argue that Keller fails to specifically teach the daughter card is configured to be selectively coupled to the base board of the at least one selectively removable slave board of the plurality of selectively removable slave boards via a mechanical connector and an electrical connector including the input//output circuit and the power connector of the footprint.
Sporer teaches a daughter card (9, fig 5) is configured to be selectively coupled to the base board (11, fig 5) of the at least one selectively removable slave board of the plurality of selectively removable slave boards via a mechanical connector (18, fig 5) and an electrical connector (10, fig 5) including the input//output circuit and the power connector of the footprint (portion of 11 that is overlapped with 9, 10, 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Sporer into the device of Keller. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Keller in the above manner for the purpose of securely connecting the daughter card to the base board
Claim 2. Keller in view of Sporer teaches the nuclear instrumentation and control system of claim 1, wherein the control circuit comprises at least one of a field programmable gate array, an application specific integrated circuit, and a microprocessor (Keller [0462] recites ‘FPGA/CPU 1216, RAM memory 1218 and EPROM/Program memory 1238 define a controller …. controller can be provided on separate PCB substrates and coupled with each other by way of connectors, cables or in a mother-board/daughter-board approach’).
Claim 7. Keller in view of Sporer teaches the nuclear instrumentation and control system of claim 1, wherein the daughter board further comprises a functional logic circuit (Keller [0462] recites ‘FPGA/CPU 1216, RAM memory 1218 and EPROM/Program memory 1238 define a controller …. controller can be provided on separate PCB substrates and coupled with each other by way of connectors, cables or in a mother-board/daughter-board approach’)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina (US 5511223 A, hereinafter Scecina)
Claim 3. Keller in view of Sporer teaches the nuclear instrumentation and control system of claim 2, but fails to specifically teach that the mechanical connector and the electrical connector are seismically robust
Scecina teaches the mechanical connector and the electrical connector are seismically robust (col 2 lines 30-36 recite ‘The single connector usually does not provide sufficient mechanical support to hold the board in place, particularly if the module must withstand seismic events. Therefore, additional hardware, such as card guides, must be used to retain the board in place, thus adding to the cost to manufacture the module’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Scecina into the device of Keller in view of Sporer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Keller in view of Sporer in the above manner for the purpose of protecting the control circuitry in the event of an earthquake.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina, still further in view of Paulsen (US 4089040 A, hereinafter Paulsen)
Claim 4. Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina teaches the nuclear instrumentation and control system of claim 3, but fails to specifically teach the mechanical connector comprises a jack screw.
Paulsen teaches a mechanical connector comprises a jack screw (abstract recites ‘To assist in overcoming the frictional forces associated with the engagement and disengagement of the connector parts, a jackscrew mechanism is provided including a rod that extends between the front and rear panels of the module, and a nut secured to the rack at the rear thereof and coacting with a threaded, rearwardly protruding end of the rod. During module insertion, manual rotation of the rod at the front of the rack causes a cinching force to be exerted at the rear of the module and rack immediately adjacent the connector parts to effect engagement thereof. Counter-rotation of the rod exerts a reverse, separating force between the connector parts to initiate removal of the module’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Paulsen into the device of Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina in the above manner for the purpose of overcoming the frictional forces associated with the engagement and disengagement of the connector parts (abstract of Paulsen)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina, still further in view of Morris (US 20170245388 A1, hereinafter Morris)
Claim 5. Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina teaches the nuclear instrumentation and control system of claim 3, but fails to specifically teach the electrical connector comprises greater than two-hundred pins but less than six-hundred pins.
Morris teaches an electrical connector comprises greater than two-hundred pins but less than six-hundred pins (Morris [0014] recites ‘about 400 pins’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Moris into the device of Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina in the above manner for the purpose of handling 400 bits simultaneously.
Claim 6. Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Scecina further in view of Morris teaches the nuclear instrumentation and control system of claim 5, wherein the electrical connector comprises four-hundred pins (Morris [0014] recites ‘about 400 pins’).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of Sporer, further in view of Kim (US 20110202163 A1, hereinafter Kim)
Claim 8. Keller in view of Sporer teaches the nuclear instrumentation and control system of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach the plurality of selectively removable base boards comprises at least one of a core logic board, an input board, an output board, and a communication board, or combinations thereof.
Kim teaches a plurality of selectively removable base boards comprises at least one of a core logic board, an input board, an output board, and a communication board, or combinations thereof ([0012] recites ‘a monitoring interface card, which monitors the integrity of the bistable logic card and the bistable logic interface card, and transmits monitoring results to a maintenance and test panel’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the arrangement as taught by Kim into the device of Keller in view of Sporer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Keller in view of Sporer in the above manner for the purpose of detecting non-permissible plant conditions to shutdown the plant or mitigate the consequences of abnormal conditions (Kim [0011]).
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular elements, columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are made moot by the new rejections as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS R BURTNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0966. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Allen Parker can be reached on 303-297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS R BURTNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/ROCKSHANA D CHOWDHURY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights