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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on July 8, 2026.
Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 12-22 are withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetherbee et al in view of Aoyama et al in view of Savchenko et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al in view of Wetherbee et al.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiallard et al in view of Wetherbee et al in view of Tahara et al is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs et al in view of Wetherbee et al in view of Tahara et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venneri et al in view of Aoyama et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venneri et al in view of Aoyama et al in view of Savchenko et al is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hobbs et al (US Patent Application 2011/0168926 (already of record)) in view of Kovacik et al (US Patent 5,232,657) OR RU144391 in evidence of Wetherbee et al (US Patent 3,019,176 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, Hobbs et al teaches a compressed powder composite for absorbing neutrons…the compressed powder composite material is preferably a pellet that includes nickel matrix uniformly mixed with a neutron absorber powder material (which satisfies claimed entrained phase) (Abstract). Hobbs et al further teaches mixing a neutron absorbing material and a metal powder to form a fire mixture, packing to a first density, heating at a first temperature and pressure (which satisfies claimed sintering) to bring the first mixture to a second density (Paragraph 10). Hobbs et al further teaches the powder is compacted and compressed to the desired dimensions and density (Paragraph 21). Hobbs et al further teaches the nickel is the matrix of the composite (Paragraphs 32-33). Hobbs et al further teaches up to about 15wt % of the neutron absorbers (Paragraphs 24, 35). However, Hobbs et al further teaches boron carbide or gadolinium phosphate as neutron absorbing materials (Paragraph 34). However, Hobbs et al fails to specifically disclose a rare earth hydride and the density of greater than 99% and a pocket that comprises hydrogen.
In the same field of endeavor, Kovacik et al teaches a neutron absorber arrangement comprising gadolinium-titanium hydride or a rare earth hydride as a neutron absorber (Abstract, Col 7, Lines 30-33) and RU144391 teaches protection of fast neutron reactors comprising hafnium hydride as a neutron absorber (Paragraphs 1, 10-11).
In the same field of endeavor, Wetherbee et al teaches hot pressing and sintering of the mixture increasing the density to at least 80% (Col. 6, Lines 48-51).
With regard to the density of greater than 99%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a density of the matrix of greater than 99% in Hobbs et al in evidence of Wetherbee et al as Hobbs et al teaches compacting and sintering the pellet material in order to provide an increased density and it is well known as evidenced Wetherbee et al that this process can increase the density to greater than 80%. It would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to provide a density of 99% based on the teachings in Hobbs et al in evidence of Wetherbee et al.
With regard to hafnium hydride or gadolinium zirconium hydride, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted hafnium hydride or gadolinium zirconium hydride in Hobbs et al in view of Kovacik et al or RU 144391 as a neutron absorbing material. With regard to about 10-50vol%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided about 10-50vol% as Hobbs et al teaches up to about 15wt%, which overlaps the instantly claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regard to a pocket that comprises hydrogen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expected a pocket that comprises hydrogen in Hobbs et al in view of Kovacik et al or RU 144391 as Hobbs et al already teaches compressed powder composite for absorbing neutrons…the compressed powder composite material is preferably a pellet that includes nickel matrix uniformly mixed with a neutron absorber powder material and Kovacik et al or RU144391 teaches they hydride material , hence, a hydride material embedded in a nickel matrix is expected to have hydrogen in the pockets of embedded material.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viallard et al (US Patent 5,762,831 (already of record)) in view of Wetherbee et al (US Patent 3,019,176 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 4, Viallard et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Viallard et al teaches a nuclear fuel material comprising particles of nuclear fuel material in a ceramic matrix, compressing and sintering (Col. 2, Lines 34-41). Viallard et al further teaches a MgO matrix (Col. 1, Line 56). Viallard et al further teaches the final density of the pellets are greater than 95% (which overlaps the claimed range) (Col. 5, Lines 48-50). However, Viallard et al fails to specifically disclose a metal hydride.
In the same field of endeavor, Wetherbee et al teaches a fuel element comprising a matric and solid metal hydride moderating material (Col. 2, Lines 36-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a metal hydride in Viallard et al in view of Wetherbee et al in order to provide moderating effects to the material as taught in Wetherbee et al.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venneri et al (WO Patent 2019/164617 (already of record)) in view of Kovacik et al (US Patent 5,232,657) OR RU144391.
Regarding claims 1-4, Venneri teaches a magnesium oxide matrix and high moderating material beryllium dispersed with the matrix (which satisfies claimed entrained phase) (Paragraph 34). Venneri further teaches 35 and 54vol% fractions of moderator (Paragraphs 94, 113). Venneri further teaches greater than 95% density (Figure 5). Venneri et al further teaches the addition of a sintering aid comprising lithium and aluminum and sintering to form the composite (Abstract, Paragraph 62). However, Venneri fails to specifically disclose gadolinium hydride.
In the same field of endeavor, Kovacik et al teaches a neutron absorber arrangement comprising gadolinium-titanium hydride or a rare earth hydride as a neutron absorber (Abstract, Col 7, Lines 30-33) and RU144391 teaches protection of fast neutron reactors comprising hafnium hydride as a neutron absorber (Paragraphs 1, 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted hafnium or rare earth hydrides in Venneri et al in view of Kovacik et al or RU144391 in order to provide a moderating material to the matrix material in Venneri et al. Simple substitution of one known moderating material for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venneri et al (WO Patent 2019/164617 (already of record)) in view of Kovacik et al (US Patent 5,232,657) OR RU144391 in view of Savchenko et al (Zirconium alloys matrix as innovative material for composite fuel (already of record)).
Regarding claims 8-11, Venneri teaches a magnesium oxide matrix and high moderating material beryllium dispersed with the matrix (which satisfies claimed entrained phase) (Paragraph 34). Venneri further teaches 35 and 54vol% fractions of moderator (Paragraphs 94, 113). Venneri further teaches greater than 95% density (Figure 5). Venneri et al further teaches the addition of a sintering aid comprising lithium and aluminum and sinterting to form the composite (Abstract, Paragraph 62). However, Venneri fails to specifically disclose gadolinium hydride and a matrix comprising zirconium and/or titanium.
In the same field of endeavor, Kovacik et al teaches a neutron absorber arrangement comprising gadolinium-titanium hydride or a rare earth hydride as a neutron absorber (Abstract, Col 7, Lines 30-33) and RU144391 teaches protection of fast neutron reactors comprising hafnium hydride as a neutron absorber (Paragraphs 1, 10-11).
In the same field of endeavor, Savchenko teaches zirconium matrix alloys comprising titanium for composite fuel…they have high thermal conductivity and compatibility with fuel components (Abstract, Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted gadolinium hydride in Venneri et al in view of Kovacik et al or RU144391 in order to provide a moderating material to the matrix material in Venneri et al. Simple substitution of one known moderating material for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a matrix comprising zirconium and/or titanium in Venneri et al in order to provide matrix material with high thermal conductivity and that are compatible with fuel components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 are 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.
Claim 1 would be allowable if “titanium, zirconium, or combinations thereof” was deleted from line 6.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant have shown in the specification and figure 5, unexpected results with regard to sintered composite structures comprising either magnesium oxide ceramic matrix or nickel matrix with gadolinium, hafnium, europium or samarium hydrides compared to conventional shield materials or aluminum metal shields with gadolinium, hafnium, europium or samarium hydrides.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
With respect to the rejection over Viallard et al in view of Wetherbee et al, Applicant argues that Wetherbee et al teaches fissionable or fusionable material. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument because 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights