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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 RCE submission filed on 06/25/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 06/25/2025. Claims 1 and 4 are pending in the application and 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response (p. 2) suggests that replacement drawings were intended to be filed with the response dated 06/25/2025. However, Examiner cannot find any drawings in the file dated 06/25/2025. The most recent drawings were filed 12/03/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the collection chamber” should be amended to recite “the at least one collection chamber”
“the pressure chamber” should be amended to recite “the at least one pressure chamber”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1 and 4 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an upper reflector, a side reflector, a lower reflector, heat exchangers, a main circulation pump (MCP) with at least one collection chamber and at least one pressure chamber arranged therein”. It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear which feature is “with at least one collection chamber” and which feature has “at least one pressure chamber arranged therein”.
The term “essentially” in claim 1 (“essentially vertically extending”, “essentially cylindrical shape”) 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a fuel composition circulates by way of the MCP along the primary circuit formed by the heat exchangers connected in series along a flow, the core, the collection chamber of the MCP, and the pressure chamber of the MCP, after which the fuel composition re-enters the heat exchangers”. It is unclear the relationship between the “fuel composition” and the previously recited “circulating fuel composition”. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the primary circuit formed by the heat exchangers ...”. While the claim previously recites “a primary circuit”, there is no prior recitation of the structures forming the “primary circuit”. It is further unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what features are “connected in series” and “along a flow”. It is further unclear “after” what the “fuel composition re-enters the heat exchangers”. It is further unclear what the “flow” is intending to refer to. For example, it is unclear if the “flow” is referring to a flow of the “fuel composition”. The claim further does not clearly recite that the “fuel composition” enters the “heat exchangers”. It is therefore unclear the antecedent basis of the phrase “the fuel composition re-enters the heat exchangers”.
Claim 1 recites “wherein an outer surface of the heat exchangers, not adjacent to the shell and the sections of the side reflector, is in contact with the molten salt coolant of the secondary circuit”. It is unclear if the “outer surface” refers to an outer surface of each of the “heat exchangers”. It is further unclear if the “outer surface” is referring to any of the previously recited “surfaces of the heat exchangers”. Additionally, it is unclear the relationship between the “outer surface” and the other structures of the reactor. The specification appears to disclose the “molten salt coolant of the secondary circuit” is received inside of the heat exchangers: “in the upper part of each heat exchanger of the primary/secondary circuit there are inlet and outlet pipelines of the secondary circuit for supplying and removing molten salt coolant” (p. 4), “In the upper part of each heat exchanger (4), the inlet and outlet pipelines (11) are arranged that are intended for supplying and removing molten salt coolant of the secondary circuit” (p. 6), “Practically all heat released in the core (1) during operation of the reactor is removed by molten salt coolant of the secondary circuit in the ‘salt-salt’ heat exchangers (4) of the primary/secondary circuit” (p. 7). The phrase “outer” would suggest the claim is referring to an external surface of the “heat exchangers”. However, the original disclosure only appears to disclose an internal surface of the “heat exchangers” is in contact with the “molten salt coolant”.
Claim 4 recites “wherein a tube sheet with openings is installed on the lower reflector, the tube sheet being configured to align a distribution profile of consumption of the fuel composition in the core”. The term “align” typically refers to relative positions between two or more things1. It is unclear what feature is “align[ed]” with “a distribution profile of consumption of the fuel composition”. It is further unclear how the “tube sheet” can be “configured to align a distribution profile of consumption”. For example, are the openings of the tube sheet positioned on the tube sheet in a particular manner? Alternatively, are the sizes of the openings of the tube sheets varied according to some other feature or parameter? Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the fuel composition of the core”. While parent claim 1 previously recites “a circulating fuel composition of a primary circuit”, there is no prior recitation that the “fuel composition” is “of the core” or that the “primary circuit” includes the “core”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2017/0301421 (“Abbott2017”) in view of US Publication No. 2018/0137944 (“Abbott2018”), US Patent No. 5,265,136 (“Yamazaki”), and US Publication No. 2021/0110940 (“Botha”).
Regarding claim 1, Abbott2017 (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 3-4, 7, 22) discloses an integral fast reactor (100, 400, 2200), comprising:
a circulating fuel composition (108) of a primary circuit and a coolant of a secondary circuit ([0031], [0067], [0116]);
a vessel (107, 2218) with a neutron source (e.g., fuel material) and operating elements (408, 410, 412, 414, 416) of a control and protection system ([0032], [0034], [0053]);
an upper reflector (2208A), a side reflector (110, 302, 304, 306, 704, 712, 2208C), a lower reflector (2208B) ([0047], [0066], [0116]), heat exchangers (706, 2210) ([0066]-[0067], [0116]), a main circulation pump (MCP) (2212) ([0116]),
wherein the side reflector comprises a plurality of vertically extending sections (302, 304, 306, 704, 712) of the side reflector ([0035], [0047]), wherein the sections of the side reflector rest on a shell (see feature between elements 702 and 712 in FIG. 7) of cylindrical shape;
a core (106, 301, 702, 2204) formed in a region between the upper reflector, the lower reflector, and an inner surface of the shell ([0032], [0046], [0066], [0116]);
wherein the primary circuit includes the core, the heat exchangers, and the MCP and wherein the circulating fuel composition flows through the primary circuit ([0031], [0046], [0116]), and
wherein an outer surface of the heat exchangers, not adjacent to the shell and the sections of the side reflector, is in contact with the coolant of the secondary circuit ([0116]).
Abbott2017 discloses a coolant of a secondary circuit ([0067]), but appears to be silent as to the specific coolant. However, it was known in the art to use molten salt coolant in a secondary circuit of an integral fast reactor. For example, Abbott2018 (newly cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards an integral fast reactor comprising a circulating fuel composition (106) of a primary circuit and a coolant (116) of a secondary circuit ([0017]-[0018]). Abbott2018 discloses the coolant of the secondary circuit may be a molten salt coolant ([0018]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to have a molten salt coolant as the coolant of Abbott2017’s secondary circuit because Abbott2018 teaches this as a suitable coolant for use in a circulating fuel fast reactor. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use molten salt for the material of coolant since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Abbott2017 does not appear to disclose the main circulation pump having at least one collection chamber and at least one pressure chamber. Yamazaki (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards an integral molten salt fast reactor comprising a core (8) connected to a main circulation pump (18) (4:39-45). Yamazaki teaches the main circulation pump has a pressure chamber (22, 29) (5:24-36) and a collection chamber (19, 21, 23) (5:7-24). Yamazaki further teaches this is a suitable arrangement for pumping molten salt and teaches the pump comprising the pressure chamber and collection chamber provides the advantages of allowing for circulation of molten salt even if there is a trip of the pump (5:55-6:13). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use Yamazaki’s circulation pump, comprising at least one collection chamber and at least one pressure chamber, in the modified Abbott2017’s reactor for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Abbott2017 in order to enhance safety and reliability, as suggested by Yamazaki, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Abbott2017 does not appear to disclose the heat exchangers are installed between the sections of the side reflector. However, Abbott2017 discloses there may be gaps between the plurality of side reflector modules in order to provide space for structures or instrumentation which may require direct or indirect access to the core ([0035], [0047]-[0050], [0052], [0066], [0084]). Botha (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1A-1C) is similarly directed towards an integral molten salt reactor ([0003]-[0004]) comprising a vessel (102) ([0018]), heat exchangers (142) ([0022]), a side reflector (124) ([0021]), a core (106), and a shell (120) ([0019]-[0020]). Botha teaches the heat exchangers are positioned within the side reflector such that surfaces of the heat exchangers rest on the shell of the core ([0012], [0022], [0025]). Botha further teaches this arrangement of the heat exchangers and the side reflector provides the advantages of having the side reflector serve as a heat transfer medium, thereby distributing heat around the heat exchangers and reducing the likelihood for the heat exchangers to fail ([0025]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to arrange the modified Abbott2017’s heat exchangers between the sections of the side reflector and on the shell, in the manner as taught by Botha, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Abbott2017 in order to enhance thermal distribution and safety, as suggested by Botha, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 4, Abbott2017 in view of Abbott2018, Yamazaki, and Botha teaches the integral fast reactor according to claim 1. Abbott2017 discloses a tube sheet (2231) with openings is installed on the lower reflector, the tube sheet allowing for passage of the fuel salt therethrough (FIG. 22, [0116]).
Claims 1 and 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott2018 in view of Yamazaki and Botha.
Regarding claim 1, Abbott2018 (see FIGS. 1, 3A-3B) discloses an integral fast reactor (100) ([0016]), comprising:
a circulating fuel composition (106) of a primary circuit and a molten salt coolant (114) of a secondary circuit ([0017]-[0018]);
a vessel (118) with a neutron source (e.g., fuel material) and operating elements (“fuel displacement devices”) of a control and protection system ([0017], [0021], [0045]);
an upper reflector (108, 306), a side reflector (108, 308), a lower reflector (108, 302), heat exchangers (110, 310, 322), a main circulation pump (MCP) (112, 312) ([0017]-[0018], [0056]),
wherein the side reflector comprises a plurality of vertically extending sections of the side reflector (see separated segments 308 in FIG. 3A), wherein surfaces of the heat exchangers and the sections of the side reflector rest on a shell of essentially cylindrical shape;
a core (104, 304) formed in a region between the upper reflector, the lower reflector, and an inner surface of the shell ([0017], [0056]);
wherein the primary circuit includes the core, the heat exchangers, and the MCP and wherein the circulating fuel composition flows through the primary circuit ([0019]), and
wherein an outer surface of the heat exchangers, not adjacent to the shell and the sections of the side reflector, is in contact with the molten salt coolant of the secondary circuit ([0058]-[0059]).
Abbott2018 does not appear to disclose the main circulation pump having at least one collection chamber and at least one pressure chamber. Yamazaki (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards an integral molten salt fast reactor comprising a core (8) connected to a main circulation pump (18) (4:39-45). Yamazaki teaches the main circulation pump has a pressure chamber (22, 29) (5:24-36) and a collection chamber (19, 21, 23) (5:7-24). Yamazaki further teaches this is a suitable arrangement for pumping molten salt and teaches the pump comprising the pressure chamber and collection chamber provides the advantages of allowing for circulation of molten salt even if there is a trip of the pump (5:55-6:13). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use Yamazaki’s circulation pump, comprising at least one collection chamber and at least one pressure chamber, in Abbott2018’s reactor for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Abbott2018 in order to enhance safety and reliability, as suggested by Yamazaki, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Abbott2018 does not appear to disclose the heat exchangers are installed between the sections of the side reflector. Botha (see FIGS. 1A-1C) is similarly directed towards an integral molten salt reactor ([0003]-[0004]) comprising a vessel (102) ([0018]), heat exchangers (142) ([0022]), a side reflector (124) ([0021]), a core (106), and a shell (120) ([0019]-[0020]). Botha teaches the heat exchangers are positioned within the side reflector such that surfaces of the heat exchangers rest on the shell of the core ([0012], [0022], [0025]). Botha further teaches this arrangement of the heat exchangers and the side reflector provides the advantages of having the side reflector serve as a heat transfer medium, thereby distributing heat around the heat exchangers and reducing the likelihood for the heat exchangers to fail ([0025]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to arrange the modified Abbott2018’s heat exchangers between the sections of the side reflector and on the shell, in the manner as taught by Botha, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Abbott2018 in order to enhance thermal distribution and safety, as suggested by Botha, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 4, Abbott2018 in view of Yamazaki and Botha teaches the integral fast reactor according to claim 1. Abbott2018 further discloses a tube sheet (254) with openings is installed on the lower reflector, the tube sheet allowing for passage of the fuel salt therethrough (FIG. 2F, [0033]-[0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the rejections above.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM-5:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/align