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 .
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 07/16/2026. The amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification have been entered. Claims 1-8, 13-19, 21, and 24 are pending in the application with claims 6-8 and 13-19 withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 21, and 24 are 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 § 103
Claims 1, 3-5, 21, and 24, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “The Nuclear Battery: A Solid-State, Passively Cooled Reactor for the Generation of Electricity and/or High-Grade Steam Heat” (“Kozier”) in view of US Publication No. 2013/0083878 (“Massie”).
Regarding claim 1, Kozier (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) discloses a reactor core block (“core module”), comprising:
a plurality of fuel channels (p. 2: “A ‘fuel rod’ consists of a vertical stack of fuel compacts, about 1.5 m long, inserted into predrilled holes in the graphite core moderator blocks”);
a plurality of heat pipes (“heat pipes”) (p. 2: “Heat passes by conduction from the fuel rods, through the solid graphite moderator, to the heat pipes regularly dispersed throughout the fuel lattice”);
a primary moderator matrix (“graphite core moderator block”) comprising graphite and configured to encompass the plurality of fuel channels and the plurality of heat pipes (p. 2: “A ‘fuel rod’ consists of a vertical stack of fuel compacts, about 1.5 m long, inserted into predrilled holes in the graphite core moderator blocks,” “Heat passes by conduction from the fuel rods, through the solid graphite moderator, to the heat pipes regularly dispersed throughout the fuel lattice”); and
a plurality of second moderator channels (“reflectors”) configured to at least partially surround the plurality of fuel channels and the plurality of heat pipes (p. 5: “The present reference design has a cylindrical fuelled core region surrounded by radial and axial graphite neutron reflectors”; the skilled artisan would recognize that although Kozier describes the “plurality of second moderator channels” as “reflectors,” the graphite forming the “reflectors” would also function as a moderating material as discussed in Kozier, p. 2: “graphite core moderator blocks”).
Kozier discloses the plurality of secondary moderator channels are reflector blocks comprising graphite, rather than metal hydride as recited in claim 1. However, Massie (previously cited) is also directed towards a reactor core comprising a reflector and teaches the reflector may comprise metal hydride in place of or in addition to graphite ([0097]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to utilize a metal hydride in place of or in addition to the graphite of Kozier’s plurality of secondary moderator channels because Massie teaches this as a suitable reflector material. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use a metal hydride for the material of the plurality of secondary moderator channels 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.
Regarding claim 3, Kozier in view of Massie teaches the reactor core block of Claim 1. Massie teaches the metal hydride is zirconium hydride ([0097]). Thus, Kozier’s reactor core block, modified to include the metal hydride material as taught by Massie, would have resulted in the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Kozier in view of Massie teaches the reactor core block of Claim 1. Kozier discloses the plurality of secondary moderator channels are blocks (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kozier in view of Massie teaches the reactor core block of Claim 1. Kozier discloses the plurality of secondary moderator channels is configured to completely surround the plurality of fuel channels and the plurality of heat pipes (FIG. 1, p. 5: “The present reference design has a cylindrical fuelled core region surrounded by radial and axial graphite neutron reflectors”).
Regarding claim 21, Kozier in view of Massie teaches the reactor core block of Claim 1. Kozier discloses the plurality of fuel channels is fewer in number to the plurality of heat pipes (FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding claim 24, Kozier in view of Massie teaches the reactor core block of Claim 1. Kozier discloses the plurality of heat pipes, the plurality of fuel channels, and the plurality of secondary moderator channels extend around a center of the reactor core block (FIG. 1).
Claim 2, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozier in view of Massie further in view of US Patent No. 3,925,577 (“Fatzer”).
Regarding claim 2, Kozier in view of Massie teaches the reactor core block of Claim 1. Kozier does not appear to disclose the primary moderator matrix further comprises one or more of silicon carbide, aluminum nitride, and stainless steel. Fatzer (previously cited) is similarly directed towards a graphite moderator material for a nuclear reactor (10:18-24). Fatzer teaches the graphite material may further include silicon carbide (10:20-26). Fatzer further teaches the silicon carbide provides the advantages of preventing oxidation and containing fission products (10:20-26). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include silicon carbide in the modified Kozier’s graphite primary moderator matrix, as taught by Fatzer, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Kozier in order to enhance oxidation resistance and fission product containment, as suggested by Fatzer, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Applicant argues “[t]he cylindrical fuelled core region of Kozier is the nuclear battery core as shown in FIG. 1” and “the reflectors of Kozier, as described on page 5 and shown in FIG. 1, surround the nuclear battery core, which is different than the nuclear core block comprising a plurality of secondary moderators as claimed” (Remarks, p. 5). However, as noted in the prior Office action and above, Kozier’s “core module” is mapped to the claimed “core block” (see FIG. 1). Kozier’s “core module” (mapped to the claimed “core block”) comprises the “reflectors” (mapped to the claimed “plurality of secondary moderator channels”). Thus, Kozier discloses this feature of claim 1.
Applicant argues “[t]he Examiner’s functional inference that ‘the graphite forming the ‘reflectors’ would also function as a moderator material’ improperly conflates two structurally distinct components in Kozier” and “[t]he citation to ‘graphite core moderator blocks’ (from Kozier’s fuel rod description) cannot be used to characterize the structural form of the surrounding reflector” (Remarks, pp. 5-6). However, the citation to Kozier’s “graphite core moderator blocks” is used to establish a functional property of the material of the “surrounding reflector.” The moderating functionality of a structure is based on the material of the structure, with all materials having some neutron moderating capability (i.e., a non-zero moderating efficiency)1. In this case, the skilled artisan would recognize that Kozier’s “reflectors” made of graphite are also moderators1,2. For example, Kozier discloses that graphite is both a moderating material and a reflecting material (p. 2: “graphite core moderator blocks”; p. 5: “graphite neutron reflectors”).
Applicant argues “[t]he Examiner has not identified any reason why a POSA designing Kozier’s solid-state graphite-moderated, heat-pipe-cooled reactor would look to Massie’s molten salt reactor for reflector material selection” and “Massie’s use of metal hydride as a reflector in a simulated molten salt reactor does not, without further analysis, establish that metal hydride would function predictably as a reflector or secondary moderator in Kozier’s entirely different reactor architecture” (Remarks, pp. 6-8; see also Remarks, p. 8: “the Examiner has not established that metal hydride was known to be a suitable reflector or secondary moderator material in the specific intended use of a solid-state, graphite-moderated, heat-pipe-cooled reactor of the type disclosed in Kozier”). However, both Kozier and Massie are directed towards reactor cores with reflector materials (Kozier, FIG. 1; Massie, [0097]). As similarly discussed above, the ability of a material to function as a reflector is based on the material itself, with all materials having some reflecting capability (i.e., non-zero scattering cross-section)2,3. Thus, a material used as a reflector in a liquid fuel-salt system (such as Massie’s zirconium hydride and/or graphite) would also function as a reflector in a solid-state, conduction-cooled, heat-pipe environment.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “[t]he Examiner has not addressed whether metal hydride would maintain its structural integrity and moderating function in Kozier’s operating thermal environment, nor whether the hydrogen desorption behavior of metal hydride at the reflector temperatures in Kozier’s design would affect reactor performance in a predictable manner” (Remarks, p. 9), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Massie teaches that zirconium hydride can be used in place of or in addition to graphite as a neutron reflector ([0097]). Massie therefore establishes that zirconium hydride and/or graphite are known and suitable for neutron reflection. Thus, the proposed combination involves selection of known material (e.g., zirconium hydride and/or graphite) based on suitability for its intended use (e.g., as a reflector material). 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.
Applicant’s argument that Examiner has applied hindsight reasoning (Remarks, p. 9) is unpersuasive. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Kozier describes a graphite neutron reflector (p. 5). Massie similarly teaches a neutron reflector which may be formed of zirconium hydride and/or graphite ([0097]). As discussed above, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use a metal hydride for the material of the plurality of secondary moderator channels 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 (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Additional References
The following references would also appear to be applicable to Applicant’s invention and are therefore cited in the attached PTO-892:
US Publication No. 2022/0139578: discloses a reactor core block comprising a plurality of fuel channels (201A-N), a primary moderator matrix (121A) configured to encompass the plurality of fuel channels, and a plurality of secondary moderator channels (121B) configured to at least partially surround the plurality of fuel channels (FIGS. 2B-C, [0033]-[0034]) and further discloses reflectors comprising “reflector composite moderator blocks” ([0041], [0045]).
US Publication No. 2023/0024338: discloses a reactor core block comprising a plurality of fuel channels (131A-M), a primary moderator matrix (103O) configured to encompass the plurality of fuel channels, and a plurality of secondary moderator channels (103P-U) configured to at least partially surround the plurality of fuel channels (FIG. 3A, [0091]-[0092]) and further discloses graphite and zirconium hydride are moderating materials ([0053], [0080]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 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, specification, and/or drawings.
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) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_reflector
3 https://www.ncnr.nist.gov/resources/activation/scattering_table.html#h
