NON-FINAL REJECTION AFTER FILING RCE
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 Group I in the reply filed on 11/12/24 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 23-37 and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 is deemed to be indefinite in regards to what is meant by the limitation of: “the matrix comprising one or more gas volumes configured to accommodate gas”. What is meant by a: “gas volume”? Is Applicant trying the claim that the matrix is a foamed material that has empty pores that can contain a gas generated through neutron absorption by a neutron absorbing material? If so, said needs to be much more clear.
independent claim 1, is also deemed to be very indefinite in regards to the three functional requirements that make up the radiation shielding apparatus which comprises: 1) a matrix material, 2) a neutron absorbing material and 3) a neutron thermalizing material (i.e. also called a thermal moderator). Because said three functional requirements massively overlap each other in scope, the metes and bounds of the claim itself is indefinite. As way of illustration only, a polyethylene polymer can readily function as the matrix material, as well as the neutron absorbing material (due to its hydrogen-rich nature) and as well as the neutron thermalizing material (also due to its hydrogen-rich nature), and thus can perform said three functions all at the same time. When said is the case, independent claim 1 further requirement for: “a mixture positioned in the matrix” also becomes totally confusing, because what constitutes the mixture when the components are the same?
All other list claims are being rejected here because they are either directly or indirectly dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 23, 37 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 23, 37 and 41-42 are not further limiting in scope than is independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/26 with the RCE and amendment have been fully considered but are not persuasive to put the claims in condition for allowance for the reasons set forth above. Additional examiner comments are set forth next.
Applicant’s said amendment is deemed to have overcome the previously made prior-art rejections over Hall et al. and Sayala because neither of these prior-art references teach or adequately suggest applicant’s independent claim 1 limitation of: “a mixture that is functionally graded in density, wherein density of the mixture decreases along an outward direction from a nuclear fuel region of a reactor core.”. Also see the Examiner Interview Summary Sheet mailed 03/11/26.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights