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 09/26/2025. The amendments to the claims and specification (abstract) have been entered. Claims 11-15 and 21 are pending in the application and 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.
Analysis - 35 USC § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”. 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to”. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula”. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment”. Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application”. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]’”. Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”. Id.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. 101: the USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 Guidance”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
The claims are first evaluated to determine if they are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 11 and 21 recite a series of steps, and, therefore, are directed towards a process.
Step 1 – is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?: YES
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Step 2A, Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
It is determined that claims 11 and 21 are directed to an abstract idea, and, particularly, to “[a] computer-implemented simulation method of formulating a Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly design” the function of which is accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a generic computer or mental processes. Specifically, claims 11 and 21 recite the method is accomplished by “modeling local concentrations of constituents” which “comprises a sub-channel approach of predicting local mass fluxes” and “solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations”, “solving closure relations”, “simulating steady-state or transient boundary conditions”, “analyzing predefined parameters”, “analyzing the liquid base film thickness”, “comparing said calculated local instantaneous impurity concentration to a crud compound precipitation limit”, and “predicting crud depositions in the fuel assembly design to have occurred”. Claim 21 further recites “resolving a disturbance wave momentum balance and a liquid base film momentum balance” and “simplifying the resolving the disturbance wave momentum balance”. The method of claims 11 and 21 therefore rely on calculating data, manipulating data, analyzing data, and comparing data.
It is determined that “modeling”, “predicting”, “solving”, “simulating”, “analyzing”, and “comparing” limitations in claim 11 and the “modeling”, “predicting”, “solving”, “simulating”, “analyzing”, “comparing”, “resolving”, and “simplifying” limitations in claim 21 recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Under the 2019 Guidance, these mathematical formulas, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations fall within the “mathematical concepts” groupings.
Furthermore, these limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. A mere recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “computer-implemented”) performing mathematical operations does not take the calculating out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claims 11 and 21 also recite mental processes, which is a second one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Guidance.
Therefore claims 11 and 21 recite an abstract idea and we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether the claims are “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One – does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?: YES
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Step 2A, Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Here, apart from the “modeling”, “predicting”, “solving”, “simulating”, “analyzing”, “comparing”, “resolving”, and “simplifying” steps, the only additional elements that are recited in claims 11 and 21 are the nuclear reactor structures (e.g., “Boiling Water Reactor”, “fuel assembly design”, “fuel rods”) and nuclear reactor data.
The additional elements of the nuclear reactor structures and data are merely directed towards an extra-solution activity and only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Further, these machines do not amount to the application of the judicial exception to a particular machine. For example, the nuclear reactor elements are generic and used in their ordinary capacity. They only contribute nominally to the execution of the claimed method and are merely directed towards a data gathering step/field of use.
Claim 12 specifies the “analyzing” step of claim 11. Claims 13 recites the additional steps of “applying the four-field model and the calculation of local instantaneous impurity concertation within a sub-channel analysis code” and specifies the “calculating local instantaneous impurity concertation” step of claim 11. Claim 14 recites the additional step of “applying an impurity concentration model” and specifies the “calculating local instantaneous impurity concentration” step of claim 11. Claim 15 recites the additional step of “repeating the calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations”. Claims 12-15 therefore do not impose a meaningful limit to the judicial exception as the claims merely recite another judicial exception of an abstract idea. The claims merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea, reciting additional mathematical operations, and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two – does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?: NO
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As noted above, for Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
The pertinent issue is, namely, whether the additional elements recited in the claim (i.e., the claim elements in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Apart from the limitations that recite an abstract idea, the only additional elements in claims 11 and 21 are the nuclear structures and data. As discussed above, these elements are mere insignificant extra-solution activities and instructions to apply the exception to a computer. Further, the nuclear structures are no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry, as evidenced by at least Gosdin and Lange (both cited below).
As discussed above, claims 12-15 are directed towards judicial exceptions. The claims merely recite further embellishments on the abstract idea, reciting additional mathematical operations, that do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 11-15 and 21 fail to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B – does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 11-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. As shown in the above analysis, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea and lack an additional element that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 11-15 and 21 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.
Claims 11 and 21 recite in the preamble “[a] computer-implemented simulation method of formulating a Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly design”. The claimed method appears to therefore suggest the steps of the claimed method are performed in order to “formulat[e] a Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly design”. However, the claims later recite “modeling local concentrations of constituents in coolant water along fuel rods within the fuel assembly design”, “power of the fuel assembly design”, “calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations ... for each of the fuel rods of the fuel assembly design”, and “predicting crud depositions in the fuel assembly design”. This renders unclear how the “fuel assembly design” can be used to formulate itself. The recitations in the preamble would not appear to follow from the remaining limitations in the claims.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “the modeling local concentrations of constituents comprises a sub-channel approach of predicting local mass fluxes of a vapor phase and a liquid phase in the coolant water along the fuel rods for given steady-state or transient boundary conditions, the sub-channel approach comprises solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations for the vapor phase and the liquid phase”. It is unclear the relationship between the “predicting local mass fluxes of a vapor phase and a liquid phase” and the “solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations” and whether these limitations are intended to be positively recited steps of the claimed method.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “the liquid phase comprises three fields consisting of droplets, a liquid base film, and disturbance waves, with the vapor phase being a fourth field, the three fields sum with the fourth field for a total of four fields defining a four field model”.
It is unclear what a “field” is intended to be in the claims. For example, are these referring to physical features, a mathematical variable, categories, forms of the phases, or something else? This further renders unclear how the fields can “sum with” another field and “defin[e] a ... model”.
It is also unclear the relationship between the “model” and the step of “modeling local concentrations of constituents”.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “solving the mass conservation equations, the momentum conservation equations and the energy conservation equations, for said four fields, and solving closure relations describing transfer of mass between said four fields, the solving closure relations, comprising solving the mass conservation equations for the constituents in the coolant water and transported by each of the said four fields individually”.
It is unclear if the claims are missing a term/phrase (e.g., the phrase “the solving closure relations” would appear to be incomplete).
Additionally, the claims previously recite “solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations for the vapor phase and the liquid phase”. It is unclear if the previously recited “solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations for the vapor phase and the liquid phase” step, the “solving the mass conservation equations, the momentum conservation equations and the energy conservation equations”, and the “solving the mass conservation equations for the constituents” step are intended to refer to the same or different steps.
It is further unclear where one feature end and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature is “transported by each of the said four fields” and what feature the term “individually” is intending to refer to in the claims.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “simulating steady-state or transient boundary conditions for at least one of inlet coolant water flow into sub-channels, temperature of the coolant water, pressure of the coolant water, and power of the fuel assembly design, the coolant water flow comprising a predetermined flow velocity variation”.
It is unclear if the “steady-state or transient boundary conditions” are referring to the “given steady-state or transient boundary conditions” previously recited in the claims or something else.
It is further unclear how the “sub-channel” relates (if at all) to the previously recited “sub-channel approach”.
It is further unclear if “the coolant water flow” is intending to refer to the “inlet coolant water flow into sub-channels” previously recited in the claims or something else.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “analyzing predefined parameters of said disturbance waves and the liquid base film, comprising wave velocity, wave frequency and liquid base film thickness”. It is unclear what feature “compris[es] wave velocity, wave frequency and liquid base film thickness”.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “analyzing the liquid base film thickness between consecutive passing ones of said disturbance waves prior to calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations based on the liquid base film thickness and simulated boundary conditions, the calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations being made for each of the fuel rods of the fuel assembly design wherein, and,”.
It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature is “based on the liquid base film thickness”.
In the event the “predetermined parameters” includes “liquid base film thickness”, it is further unclear the relationship between the “analyzing the liquid base film thickness” step and the previously recited “analyzing predetermined parameters” step.
Additionally, it is unclear if the claims are intending to positively recite a step of “calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations”.
It is further unclear the relationship between the “impurity” and the previously recited “constituents”, and, therefore, also unclear the relationship between the “local concentrations of constituents” and the “local instantaneous impurity concentrations”.
It is further unclear if the “simulated boundary conditions” are referring to one or both of the previously recited “given steady-state or transient boundary conditions” and “simulat[ed] steady-state or transient boundary conditions” or other boundary conditions.
It is further unclear if the claims are missing a term/phrase (e.g., the phrase “wherein, and,” appears to be incomplete).
Claims 11 and 21 recite “comparing said calculated local instantaneous impurity concentration to a crud compound precipitation limit, predicting crud depositions in the fuel assembly design to have occurred during a time said concentration is higher than said precipitation limit”.
The claims previously recite plural “local instantaneous impurity concentrations”. It is therefore unclear if the claims are referring to one of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentrations” or something else.
It is further unclear if the claims are intending to require the occurrence of crud or if the claims are intending to recite that crud depositions are predicted to have occurred if the concentration is higher than the precipitation limit, or something else.
It is further unclear if “said concentration” is intending to refer to one of the previously recited “local concentrations”, one of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentrations”, or something else.
Claims 12 and 21 recite “wherein said step of analyzing predefined parameters of said disturbance waves and said liquid base film includes resolving a disturbance wave momentum balance and a liquid base film momentum balance, and simplifying the resolving the disturbance wave momentum balance by neglecting momentum exchanges comprising pressure gradient and inertia terms”.
It is unclear the relationship between the “disturbance wave momentum balance and [] liquid base film momentum balance” and the previously recited “solving the mass conservation equations, the momentum conservation equations and the energy conservation equations, for said four fields”.
It is further unclear what feature “compris[es] pressure gradient and inertia terms”.
Claim 13 recites “applying the four-field model and the calculation of local instantaneous impurity concentration within a sub-channel analysis code and the calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations being performed axially and azimuthally, along a perimeter of each of the fuel rods, within the liquid base film flowing along the fuel rods of the fuel assembly design”.
It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature is “along a perimeter of each of the fuel rods”.
It is also unclear what feature is “within the liquid base film flowing along the fuel rods of the fuel assembly design”.
It is further unclear what it means for a “model” and a “calculation” to be “appl[ied] ... within a ... code”.
As similarly discussed above, parent claim 11 previously recites plural “local instantaneous impurity concentrations”. It is therefore unclear if the claim is referring to one of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentrations” or something else.
It is further unclear the relationship between the “sub-channel code” and the previously recited “sub-channel approach” and “sub-channels”.
It is further unclear how a calculation can be “performed axially and azimuthally”.
Claim 13 recites “the calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations being performed under operating conditions of the fuel assembly design comprising pressure of the coolant water, velocity of the coolant water, power of the fuel assembly design, and fuel rod power distribution”.
As best understood by Examiner, the claims would appear to be referring to a design of a fuel assembly, i.e., a non-physical assembly. It is unclear how a “design” can be “operat[ed]”.
It is further unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature “compris[es] pressure of the coolant water, velocity of the coolant water, power of the fuel assembly design, and fuel rod power distribution”.
Additionally, parent claim 11 previously recites “pressure of the coolant water”, “power of the fuel assembly design”, and “a predetermined flow velocity variation”. It is unclear the relationships between these previously recited features and the “pressure of the coolant water, velocity of the coolant water, power of the fuel assembly design, and fuel rod power distribution”.
Claim 14 recites “after applying of said wave disturbance model, further applying an impurity concentration model to the four fields, wherein the calculating local instantaneous impurity concentration is performed for the liquid base film which is moving in between the disturbance waves during inlet flow velocity variations of the coolant water”.
There is no previous recitation of “applying [a] wave disturbance model”. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim.
It is further unclear the relationship between the “impurity concentration model” and the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentration[s]”.
Additionally, as similarly discussed above, parent claim 11 previously recites plural “local instantaneous impurity concentrations”. It is therefore unclear if the claim is referring to one of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentrations” or something else.
It is further unclear the relationship between the “calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations ... for the liquid base film” and the previously recited “calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations ... for each of the fuel rods”.
There is also insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the liquid base film which is moving in between the disturbance waves during inlet flow velocity variations of the coolant water”.
It is further unclear the relationship between the “inlet flow velocity variations” and the previously recited “predetermined flow velocity variation” in parent claim 11.
Claim 15 recites “repeating the calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations for various fuel enrichments in dependence of the calculated local instantaneous impurity concentration in order to prevent the formation of crud deposits”.
It is unclear which of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentrations” the phrase “the calculated local instantaneous impurity concentration” is intending to refer to in the claim.
The claim would suggest multiple “calculated local instantaneous impurity concentration[s]”. It is therefore unclear which of the concentration(s) the repeated calculations are “in dependence of”.
It is further unclear how repeating calculations results in “prevent[ing] the formation of crud deposits”. Calculations are merely mathematical operations. How can doing math “prevent[] the formation of crud deposits”?
Further, it is unclear if the “crud deposits” are intending to refer to actual, physical crud deposits, or, for example, “crud deposits” in a simulation.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The following prior art rejections represent Examiner’s best interpretation of the claims in view of the numerous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections discussed above. Examiner has made a diligent attempt to extract the examinable elements from the claims and apply art to them. It should be understood that clarification of the application (via claim amendments) may necessitate future prior art rejections thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11 and 13-15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Application of sub-channel modeling to BWR core analysis” (“Gosdin”) in view of “Methodology for an Advanced Risk Assessment of Crud Induced Power Shift using Coupled Multi-Physics Simulations and a Monte Carlo Scenario Analysis of the Potential Financial Benefits” (“Lange”) and “Properties of disturbance waves in vertical annular two-phase flow” (“Sawant”).
Regarding claim 11, Gosdin (previously cited) discloses a computer-implemented simulation method for analyzing a two-phase coolant water flow regime in a boiling water reactor (BWR) (Abstract), wherein the method comprises
a sub-channel approach of predicting local mass fluxes of a vapor phase and a liquid phase in the coolant water (Abstract) by solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations, and energy conservation equations (p. 295: “CTF involves three momentum conservation equations, three mass conservation equations, and two energy conservation equations”); and
simulating steady-state or transient boundary conditions for a condition of interest (p. 297: “Each case was run until completion using the CTF internal pseudo-steady-state convergence criteria that check engineering parameters of interest”).
Gosdin does not appear to disclose using the method to predict local concentrations of constituents in the coolant. Lange (previously cited) is similarly directed towards a computer-implemented simulation method for analyzing a two-phase coolant flow regime in a light water reactor (Abstract; p. 28: “CTF is a sub-channel T/H code that utilizes a two-fluid, three-field modeling approach. The fluids are liquid and vapor”) by simulating steady-state or transient boundary conditions for a condition of interest (Abstract, p. 26: “the core simulation is performed in a serial, multiple stage process using the different physics codes”; p. 35: “Assumptions 1 and 2 make the dissolution model a steady state model”; p. 38: “The boundary conditions for the diffusion model are set assuming that the concentration of solute molecules at the interface of the precipitate is the solubility limit concentration”; p. 52: “3D single assembly depletions with reflective radial boundaries and vacuum (non-reentrant) axial boundaries were performed”). Lange teaches the two-phase coolant flow regime includes a liquid phase comprising droplets and a liquid base film and a vapor phase (p. 42: “The fluids are liquid and vapor and the fields are liquid film, liquid drops, and vapor”), simulating the boundary conditions for a temperature of the coolant water and power (FIG. 2-14, p. 28: “CTF uses local power conditions supplied by MPACT and calculates the local heat transfer effects on the coolant. This information is passed back to MPACT and the power distribution is re-solved until convergence is reached by each code”) and, using the simulation, calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations based on said simulated boundary conditions, wherein the calculation is made for each fuel rod of a fuel assembly (p. 17: “The results from the T/H calculations are processed into input for the CIPS analysis.... BOA uses inputs such as the assembly crud histories from previous cycles, boron concentration, lithium, corrosion source terms, and the sub-channel fluid conditions to calculate the crud thickness and deposition of boron for each state point in a cycle”; p. 18: “BOA relies upon an external T/H code to define the local T/H conditions”, “The boiling calculated in BOA is also used to calculate the solute concentration process in crud”; p. 26: “CTF includes boiling and two phase heat transfer physics that is critical to accurate simulation of crud growth and CIPS onset”; p. 30: “perform simulations of crud and boron deposition on each fuel rod”), comparing said calculated local instantaneous impurity concentrations to a crud compound precipitation limit, and predicting crud depositions to have occurred when said concentrations are higher than said precipitation limit (p. 17: “If the pattern passes or is close to the threshold, the calculated boron deposition can be fed back into the core design process at the beginning. The designer can then adjust the core design considering the boron deposition calculated by BOA to further alleviate CPS risk”). Lange further teaches the calculating and comparing steps allow for determining the effects of crud on various core designs and advanced crud induced power shift risk analysis (Abstract). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to modify Gosdin’s method to include the calculating and comparing steps taught by Lange for the design and safety benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Gosdin in order to enhance core design and safety, as suggested by Lange, would have been obvious to a POSA.
The modified Gosdin does not appear to disclose disturbance waves. Sawant (previously cited) is similarly directed towards analyzing two-phase flow regimes in nuclear reactors (p. 3528: “Annular two-phase flow regime is important for the operation of several industrial equipments such as nuclear reactors”, “An accurate prediction of amount of these entrained droplets ... is essential for the estimation of dryout in nuclear reactors”). Sawant teaches two-phase annular flow regimes have a liquid phase comprising droplets, a liquid base film, and disturbance waves, and a vapor phase (p. 3528: “Annular two-phase flow regime is important for the operation of several industrial equipments such as nuclear reactors.... It is characterized by the presence of a liquid film adjacent to the wall and a gas phase flowing through the center. The gas phase usually contains liquid droplets entrained from the liquid film surface. The waves traversing the liquid film interface in annular flow have been classified into two main categories by several researchers; ripple and disturbance waves”). The skilled artisan would have therefore recognized that the modified Gosdin’s coolant water, in annular two-phase flow, would also have a liquid phase comprising droplets, a liquid base film, disturbance waves, and a vapor phase, in view of Sawant.
The modified Gosdin does not appear to disclose analyzing parameters of the disturbance waves and base film. However, Lange discusses the importance of understanding the causes of dryout conditions in order to further enhance efficiency and safety (p. 5: “CASL is targeting some of these operational issues including: ... Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) - ... Film boiling is much less efficient at transferring heat and can cause a local dry-out condition where there is no liquid touching the nuclear fuel rod. This dramatically increases the temperature of the fuel rod materials and accelerates corrosion which may lead to fuel rod failures. Having an accurate prediction of the Critical Heat Flux (CHF) that causes the departure from nucleate boiling could allow for higher power generation while insuring adequate safety margins”). Sawant teaches analyzing wave velocity and wave frequency of the disturbance waves and analyzing the liquid film thickness (Abstract, p. 3530: “The liquid film thickness measurement port is used to measure instantaneous liquid film thickness and various disturbance properties”; p. 3533: “The film thickness measurement ... can be utilized for the estimation of disturbance wave frequency and amplitude. However, in order to estimate disturbance wave velocity and wavelength, the film thickness measurements from both the probes are necessary”). Sawant further teaches analysis of the properties of the disturbance waves is essential for the estimation of dryout and can significantly contribute to mechanistic models in annular two-phase flow (p. 3528: “Disturbance waves have been identified as the major source of entrained droplets in annular flow.... An accurate prediction of amount of these entrained droplets is essential for the estimation of dryout in nuclear reactors.... Since majority of droplets are generated from disturbance waves, a knowledge of disturbance wave properties is essential for the development of mechanistic models for the prediction dryout and pressure drop in annular flow”; p. 3529: “detailed understanding of disturbance wave properties can significantly contribute to the development of various mechanistic models in annular two-phase flow”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include the disturbance wave and liquid film thickness analyses as taught by Sawant in the modified Gosdin’s method for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Gosdin in order to better estimate dryout and, therefore, enhance efficiency and safety, as suggested by Lange and Sawant, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claims 13-14, Gosdin in view of Lange and Sawant teaches the method according to claim 11. Gosdin discloses using a sub-channel code (Abstract). Lange teaches using a mechanistic model to analyze annular two-phase flow, the results of which are then used to calculate the local instantaneous impurity concentrations along the fuel rods (p. 16: “The T/H code calculates the subcooled-boiling for each channel at each state point from the given inputs”; p. 17: “The results from the T/H calculations are processed into input for the CIPS analysis.... BOA uses inputs such as the assembly crud histories from previous cycles, boron concentration, lithium, corrosion source terms, and the sub-channel fluid conditions to calculate the crud thickness and deposition of boron for each state point in a cycle”; p. 18: “BOA relies upon an external T/H code to define the local T/H conditions”, “The boiling calculated in BOA is also used to calculate the solute concentration process in crud”; p. 26: “CTF includes boiling and two phase heat transfer physics that is critical to accurate simulation of crud growth and CIPS onset”; p. 29: “MAMBA-1D is coupled to CTF and simulates crud growth on the fuel rod surface with T/H and heat transfer data supplied by CTF. MAMBA-1D calculates crud growth, erosion, boron hideout, additional heat transfer resistance due to the updated crud data, and boiling mass transfer due to the heat transfer effects of the crud”). Thus, Gosdin’s method, modified to include Lange’s impurity concentration calculations and Sawant’s disturbance wave and base film thickness analyses, would have resulted in the features of claims 13 and 14.
Regarding claim 15, Gosdin in view of Lange and Sawant teaches the method according to claim 11. Lange teaches calculating the local instantaneous impurity concentrations for fuel rods having varying fuel enrichment (p. 48: “The enrichment of 235U in the fuel pellets ranges from 3-5%, which is constant for each assembly but may vary between assemblies”; p. 52: “a batch of fuel is split into sub-batches. These are sets of fuel within the same batch that have differing fuel enrichments”; p. 97: “Each core design has 72 feed assemblies with varying enrichments”). Thus, Gosdin’s method, modified to include Lange’s impurity concentration calculations and Sawant’s disturbance wave and base film thickness analyses, would have resulted in the features of claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the abstract overcome the prior objection to the abstract.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objection.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created additional issues as discussed above.
Examiner notes that claim 12 was not indicated as allowable in the prior Office action or above. Claim 12 is rejected at least under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Further, Applicant’s response includes substantial amendments to the claims. A new ground of rejection may be necessitated by Applicant’s amendments of the claims.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “(four) additional scalar transport equations”, “model[ing] the detailed impurity transport from the inlet to the outlet of the fuel assemblies”, “calculat[ing] the resulting (i.e., node level) impurity concentration distributions in each of the considered four fields”, and “predict[ing] such disturbance wave characteristics”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues “‘comparing said calculated local instantaneous impurity calculation ...’ cannot be performed by the human mind” (emphasis in original) (Remarks, p. 10) and “[d]ependent claims 12-15 recite further limitations that cannot be performed by the human mind” (Remarks, p. 11). However, Applicant does not appear to provide any explanation as to why such limitations “cannot be performed by the human mind”, and, therefore, has not substantiated the arguments with sufficient evidence that the limitations could not be performed in the human mind. Additionally, Applicant appears to assert that claims 11-15 are not directed to a judicial exception because the claim limitations “cannot be performed by the human mind”. However, as noted in the prior Office action and above, the “compar[ing]” limitation of claim 11 and the limitations of claims 12-15 also recite mathematical relationships or mathematical calculations, which fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. Thus, claim 11 recites an abstract idea, i.e., a judicial exception, and requires further analysis in Prong Two and claims 12-15 do not impose a meaningful limit to the judicial exception as the claims merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant further argues “[c]laim 11, as a whole, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer and by improving the modeling of BWR fuel assembly designs” (Remarks, p. 10) and “the computer-implemented simulation method includes a code that uses the four field approach that provides ‘highly detailed solutions of the multi-film flow in BWR fuel assemblies while enhancing flexibility and reducing the computer time by an order of magnitude as compared to a standard three-field sub-channel analysis approach’” (Remarks, p. 10).
It is first noted that the feature upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “a code”) is not recited in claim 11.
Additionally, an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. It is noted that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. In other words, an improvement of the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in a technology or a technical field. In this case, as discussed in the prior Office action and above, “solving the mass conservation equations, the momentum conservation equations and the energy conservation equations, for said four fields” is part of a “mental process” and “mathematical concept/calculation” identified as an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. It is the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions in the claim that must provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Nevertheless, even if the “four field approach” feature was considered as an “additional element” rather than as part of the abstract idea, this feature does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant’s asserted improvements are merely improvements on the calculations (i.e., the abstract ideas) themselves, rather than an improvement to a computer or a technology, and Applicant’s invention does not appear to use a computer or a nuclear reactor outside of its ordinary capacity. Claim 11, as best understood by Examiner, does not appear to recite any step that integrates the abstract computational methods into a practical application. The claim merely recites a series of abstract computational steps to produce mathematically calculated crud data, but does not include any steps that apply the calculated data in a practical way. The fact that Applicant’s abstract computational methods might be better than other abstract computational methods does not demonstrate that the claimed steps are integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues the “neglecting momentum exchanges” feature in claim 12 “involves improving the functioning of the computer” (Remarks, p. 11). However, Applicant has not explained why or how this feature “improv[es] the functioning of the computer”. As similarly noted above, the claim does no more than require generic, purely conventional computer elements, performing generic computer functions, rather than improve computer capabilities, and, therefore, does not the functioning of a computer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM-5:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646