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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9, 11-13 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 10-27-25 is acknowledged.
Claims 10, 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10-27-25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Brien et al. (2020/0321134).
Regarding claim 1, O’Brien et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a fuel pellet 100:
Obtaining a first material containing a nuclear fuel in a first region 120 with a longitudinal axis 104 (para 31); and
Overmolding a second material in a second region 118 around at least a radially outermost surface of the first material relative to the longitudinal axis (fig. 2-6, abstract, claim 15).
Regarding claim 2, O’Brien et al. discloses wherein the second region includes at least part of an axial surface of the first material (para 61).
Regarding claim 4, O’Brien et al. discloses debinding the first material and the second material at a first temperature (para 64).
Regarding claim 5, O’Brien et al. discloses sintering the first material and the second material at a sintering temperature greater than a powder injection molding temperature (para 64).
Regarding claim 13, O’Brien et al. discloses overmolding a third material in a third region 222 around at least a radially outermost surface of the second material relative to the longitudinal axis (see fig. 3, para 39).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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(s) 3, 5, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. as applied to claim 1 or 4 above, and further in view of Heikkila (2015/0080495).
Regarding claim 3, O’Brien et al. does not teach wherein overmolding the second material includes powder injection molding the second material. However, Heikkila teaches that metal particulates can be used in the composite materials for metal injection molding or 3D printing. In another embodiment, using the Press and Sinter process, the coated particulate can be formed into unique shaped for fuel pellets to enhance combustion (para 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify O’Brien et al. with the injection molding as taught by Heikkila for overmoding the second material since Heikkila teaches an alterative method for shaping metal into fuel pellets.
Regarding claim 5, Heikkila teaches wherein debinding the first material and the second material at a first temperature included exposing the first material and the second material to a solvent (para 136).
Regarding claim 11, O’Brien et al. discloses wherein the first material includes the nuclear fuel (para 31). O’Brien et al. does not teach a wax binder. However, Heikkila teaches that in general, powder injection molded products are made by obtaining desirable raw materials, such as inorganic, ceramic or elemental or alloy metal powders. These powders can be combined with optional additives, such as resins, waxes, graphite, dyes or lubricant which can be mixed and then formed into an initial shape using hot or cold compaction techniques (para 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Brien et al. with the teaching of Heikkila since Heikkila teaches that use of wax binder is known for power injection molded products of inorganic, ceramic or metal powders.
Regarding claim 12, Heikkila teaches wherein obtaining the first material includes power injection molding the first material (para 39).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. and Heikkila as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Staudigel et al. (2024/0351099).
Regarding claim 6, Heikkila does not teach wherein the solvent is heptane. However, Staudigel et al. teaches that various solvents have been used for solvent debinding, including organic solvents, such as heptane (para 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use heptane as the solvent since Staudigel teaches that heptane is a known solvent used for solvent debinding.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Staudigel et al. (2024/0351099).
Regarding claim 7, O’Brien et al. does not teach after debinding the first material and second material at the first temperature, debinding the first material and the second material at a second temperature. However, Staudigel et al. teaches that during thermal debinding of the binder, as the temperature rises, increasing amounts of binder evaporate from the entire binder mass (para 66). Staudigel et al. further teaches thermal debinding may be carried out at more than one temperature T1, e.g., the removal of a part of the binder at the T1a is carried out for a period of time Δt1a and the removal of the rest of the binder at the temperature T1b is carried out for a period of time Δt1b (para 243). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Brien et al. with the teaching of Staudigel et al. in order to ensure complete removal of the binder.
Regarding claim 8, Staudigel et al. teaches wherein debindng the first material and the second material at a second temperature includes exposing the first material and the second material to a negative ambient pressure (para 245).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. (2020/0321134) in view of Heikkila (2015/0080495).
Regarding claim 19, O’Brien et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a fuel pellet 100:
Molding a first material containing a nuclear fuel in a first region 120 with a longitudinal axis 104 (para 31);
Overmolding a second material in a second region 118 around at least a radially outermost surface of the first material relative to the longitudinal axis (fig. 2-6, abstract, claim 15);
Debinding at least one of the first material and the second material (para 64);
Sintering at least one of the first material and the second material (para 64); and
Densifying at least one of the first material and the second material (para 64, 66).
O’Brien et al. does not teach using injection molding to form the first material and to overmold the second material. However, Heikkila teaches that metal particulates can be used in the composite materials for metal injection molding or 3D printing. In another embodiment, using the Press and Sinter process, the coated particulate can be formed into unique shaped for fuel pellets to enhance combustion (para 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify O’Brien et al. with the injection molding as taught by Heikkila for injection molding the first material and overmoding the second material since Heikkila teaches an alternative method for shaping metal into fuel pellets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach wherein the first region is located around a mandrel, and the method further comprises removing the mandrel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742