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 .
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, and Species A1/B1 in the reply filed on 05/08/25 is acknowledged. The requirement for restriction is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. However, the requirement will be reinstated if the claims are amended such that they no longer recite a special technical feature.
2. Applicants traversal of the election of species requirement is not found persuasive. There is no shared subject matter between the recited species.
3. Accordingly, claims 1-31 are pending with claims 4-9 withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 10-31 are examined herein.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cluster head nuclear reactor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
7. The claims have been amended to recite “a cluster head nuclear reactor.” This term is not found in the disclosure as filed and is, accordingly, new matter.
8. The disclosure as filed did include the term “cluster head” but this term is never defined nor is it illustrated in the Figures. The new term “cluster head nuclear reactor” is not found anywhere in the disclosure as filed and it is it also not present in the Figures. In fact, each nuclear reactor in Figs. 1 and 2a appear equivalent, in direct opposition to the amended claim limitation.
9. Respectfully, Applicant’s arguments (08/05/25) fail to establish the present disclosure’s support for the claim amendments. 26, 27, 29, 30, and 31
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-31 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
12. Claims 1, 17, 26, 27, 29, 31 and 31 have been amended to recite the term “cluster head nuclear reactor.” This term is not defined in the specification. The examiner can find no art-accepted definition of this term. There is no depiction of such a structure in the drawings. In fact, each nuclear reactor in Figs. 1 and 2a appear equivalent, so it’s unclear which nuclear reactor would be considered “a cluster head nuclear reactor.” Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of this claim term. Additionally, claim 1 recites “for controlling a plurality of nuclear reactors per cluster” and subsequently, “are grouped in a cluster” and “of each nuclear reactor of a cluster.” How many clusters are there? What defines a cluster?
13. Claim 1 recites “a database of the state of the nuclear reactors, the database of the state of the nuclear reactors comprising, for at least one nuclear reactor and for at least one given instant, data relating to: a level of use of the nuclear reactor, a use of components of the nuclear reactor, the operating parameters of the nuclear reactor, a state of fuel of the nuclear reactor, planned changes in a rate of use of the nuclear reactor” and “a human-machine interface allowing a supervisor of the nuclear reactors to add data relating to the maintenance operations to the database of the maintenance operations, the data relating to the maintenance operations comprising: a maintenance operation to be carried out, a nuclear reactor on which the maintenance operation must be carried out, a time and a date at which this maintenance operation must be carried out.” The lists of data items do not include “and” or “or,” making it unclear whether the data must comprise all of the items in the list or just one of the items. Claims 14, 15 and 30 are indefinite for this same reason.
14. Claims 11-24 are indefinite because they do not set forth additional structure required in the claimed apparatus. The claims are instead directed to the identity and use of data in the system. The scope of the structure encompassed by the claim limitations is therefore unclear. Regarding the identity of the maintenance operations, a database in a planning system will be structurally the same regardless of the identity of the maintenance operations stored in the database.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
15. It should be noted, as stated in MPEP 2173.06, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore, no art rejections have been made.
Double Patenting
16. See paragraph 28 of the non-final rejection dated 05/28/25 in application 17914110.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646