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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 08/21/2025. 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 Claims 1-8, 13-19, 21, and 24 are pending in the application with claims 6-8 and 13-19 withdrawn.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 § 112(b)
Claims 1-5, 21, and 24 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.
The phrase “proximal to” in claim 1 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase 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.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 (newly 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”), wherein the plurality of heat pipes is located proximal to the plurality of fuel channels (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 (newly 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 drawings overcome the prior drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, but 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 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights