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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 04/13/2026. The amendments to the claims 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 method” 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 impurity concentrations” which comprises “predicting local mass fluxes” by “solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations”, “solving closure relations”, “simulating the steady-state or transient boundary conditions”, “analyzing predefined parameters”, “calculating a local instantaneous impurity concentration”, “comparing the local instantaneous impurity concentration to a crud compound precipitation limit”, “predicting crud depositions in the [] fuel assembly to have occurred”, and “determining 235U enrichment levels”. Claim 21 further recites “resolving a disturbance wave momentum conservation and a liquid base film momentum conservation” and “simplifying the disturbance wave momentum conservation”. The method of claims 11 and 21 therefore rely on calculating, manipulating, analyzing, comparing, and determining data.
It is determined that the “modeling”, “predicting”, “solving”, “simulating”, “analyzing”, “calculating”, “comparing”, and “determining” limitations in claim 11 and the “modeling”, “predicting”, “solving”, “simulating”, “analyzing”, “calculating”, “comparing”, “determining”, “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”, “calculating”, “comparing”, “determining”, “resolving”, and “simplifying” steps, the only additional elements that are recited in claims 11 and 21 are the nuclear reactor structures (e.g., “fuel rods”, “Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly”, “fuel pellets”) and nuclear reactor data.
The additional elements of the nuclear reactor structures and data are merely directed toward extra-solution activities and only generally link 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 recites the additional step of “determining predefined parameters” by “resolving a disturbance wave momentum conservation and a liquid base film momentum conservation”. Claims 13 recites the additional step of “calculating the local instantaneous impurity concertation”. Claim 14 specifies the “local instantaneous impurity concentration” of claim 11. Claim 15 recites the additional step of “repeating 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 (previously cited).
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 “modeling local impurity concentrations in coolant water of sub-channels along fuel rods” and “predicting local mass fluxes of a vapor phase and a liquid phase in the coolant water of sub-channels along fuel rods”. It is unclear if these phrases are referring to the same or different “sub-channels” and the same or different “fuel rods”. It is further unclear if the “vapor phase” and “liquid phase” are referring to different phases of the “coolant water” or phases of a different substance.
Claims 11 and 21 are indefinite because it is unclear which “fields” are intending to refer to the same “fields”. For example, the claims recite “for each of the vapor phase and three fields of the liquid phase”, “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”, “between each of the vapor phase and three fields of the liquid phase”. It is unclear if each recitation of “three fields” is intending to refer to the same “three fields”. Further, 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 “fields” can “sum with” another “field”.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “solving the mass conservation equations for impurities dissolved in the coolant water and transported by each of the vapor phase and the liquid phase individually”. The claims previously recite “solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations for each of the vapor phase and three fields of the liquid phase”. It is unclear if the step of “solving the mass conservation equations for impurities” is referring to the same step as the “solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations for each of the vapor phase and three fields of the liquid phase”. It is further unclear the relationship between the “impurities dissolved in the coolant water” and the “local impurity concentrations” previously recited in the claims. It is further unclear what feature the term “individually” is intending to refer to in the claims.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “inlet coolant water flow into sub-channels of the [] fuel assembly”. It is unclear the relationship between these “sub-channels” and the previously recited “sub-channels”.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “calculating a local instantaneous impurity concentration based on the liquid base film thickness between consecutive passing disturbance waves and based on the simulated steady-state or transient boundary conditions, and based on predefined parameters comprising disturbance wave velocity, disturbance wave frequency, and liquid base film thickness, wherein calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations being made for each of the fuel rods of the [] fuel assembly”. It is unclear the relationship between the “local instantaneous impurity concentration” and the “local impurity concentrations” previously recited in the claims. This further renders unclear how the steps of “predicting local mass fluxes”, “solving closure relations”, “solving the mass conservation equations”, “simulating the steady-state or transient boundary conditions”, “analyzing predefined parameters” and “calculating a local instantaneous impurity concentration” result in “modeling local impurity concentrations”. It is further unclear if the “consecutive passing disturbance waves” are referring to waves of the previously recited “disturbance waves”. It is further unclear the relationship between the “predefined parameters comprising disturbance wave velocity, disturbance wave frequency, and liquid base film thickness” and the previously recited “predefined parameters of the disturbance waves and the liquid base film, wherein the predefined parameters comprise disturbance wave velocity, disturbance wave frequency, and liquid base film thickness”. Additionally, the phrase “wherein calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations being made for each of the fuel rods of the [] fuel assembly” appears to be incomplete. It is also unclear the relationship between the step of “calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations being made or each of the fuel rods” and the previously recited step of “calculating a local instantaneous impurity concentration”.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “comparing the local instantaneous impurity concentration to a crud compound precipitation limit”. The claims previously recite “calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations being made or each of the fuel rods” (plural “concentrations”) and “calculating a local instantaneous impurity concentration” (singular “concentration”). It is unclear which (if any) of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentration[s]” the phrase is referring to in the claims.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “predicting crud depositions in the [] fuel assembly to have occurred during a time when said local instantaneous impurity concentration is higher than the crud compound precipitation limit, wherein prediction is repeated for varying enrichment levels of fuel pellets of the fuel rod”. It is 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. Further, the phrase “predicting” would appear to suggest determining if something will happen (future). However, the phrase “to have occurred” suggests determining something that has happened (past). This inconsistency renders unclear whether the claim requires determining if “crud depositions” will occur, determining if “crud depositions” have already occurred, or something else. As similarly discussed above, it is unclear which (if any) of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentration[s]” the phrase is referring to in the claims. It is further unclear if the “prediction” is referring to “predicting crud depositions”. This further renders unclear if the claim requires repeating just the step of “predicting crud depositions”, repeating the steps of “modeling local impurity concentrations” (and associated steps), “comparing”, and “predicting”, or something else. Additionally, the claim previously recites plural “fuel rods”. Thus, the antecedent basis for the phrase “the fuel rod” (singular) is unclear.
Claims 11 and 21 recite “determining 235U enrichment levels for use in the fuel pellets, wherein the enrichment levels are based on predicted crud depositions, wherein crud deposition is reduced under the simulated steady-state or transient boundary conditions and enrichment level of fuel pellets”. It is unclear the relationship between the various “enrichment levels” (e.g., “varying enrichment levels of fuel pellets” previously recited in the claims, “235U enrichment levels”, “the enrichment levels”, “enrichment level of fuel pellets”). It is further unclear which (if any) of the “fuel pellets” are intending to refer to the same “fuel pellets”. It is further unclear the relationship between the “predicted crud depositions” and the “crud deposition” and the previously recited steps of “predicting crud depositions” and “prediction is repeated”. It is further unclear compared to what the “crud deposition” is reduced. Additionally, it is unclear if the claims are intending to positively recite a step of “reduc[ing] crud deposition”. It is also unclear what it means for “crud deposition” to be “reduced under ... boundary conditions and enrichment levels”.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising: determining predefined parameters of said disturbance waves and said liquid base film”. It is unclear the relationship between the “predefined parameters” and the “predefined parameters” previously recited in parent claim 11. This further renders unclear the relationship between the steps of “determining predefined parameters” and “determining comprises resolving ... and simplifying” and the step of “analyzing predefined parameters” previously recited in parent claim 11. It is further unclear if the “determining” step that “comprises resolving” is intending to refer to the “determining predefined parameters” step or another previously recited “determining” step (e.g., “determining 235U enrichment levels” in parent claim 11).
Claims 12 and 21 recite “resolving a disturbance wave momentum conservation and a liquid base film momentum conservation, and simplifying the disturbance wave momentum conservation by neglecting momentum exchanges comprising pressure gradient and inertia terms”. It is unclear the relationship between the “disturbance wave momentum conservation and [] liquid base film momentum balance” and the previously recited “solving mass conservation equations, momentum conservation equations and energy conservation equations for each of the vapor phase and three fields of the liquid phase, the liquid phase comprises three fields consisting of droplets, a liquid base film, and disturbance waves”. It is also unclear how a “momentum conservation” can be “resolv[ed]” or “simplif[ied]”. For example, it is unclear if the claims are intending to refer to “momentum conservation equations”. It is further unclear what feature “compris[es] pressure gradient and inertia terms”.
Claim 13 recites “calculating the local instantaneous impurity concentration axially and azimuthally along a perimeter of each of the fuel rods, within the liquid base film flowing along the fuel rods of the Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly”.
Parent claim 11 previously recites “calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations being made or each of the fuel rods” and “calculating a local instantaneous impurity concentration”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to require an additional “calculating” step, if the claim is intending to refer to one of the previously recited “calculating” steps, or something else. It is further unclear what feature is “within the liquid base film flowing along the fuel rods”.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the local instantaneous impurity concentrations are calculated based on operating conditions of the Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly, wherein operating conditions comprise pressure of the coolant water, velocity of the coolant water, power of the Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly, and fuel rod power distribution”. It is unclear which of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentrations” and “calculat[ions]” the claim is intending to refer to. Additionally, parent claim 11 previously recites “pressure of the coolant water”, “power of the Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly”, 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 Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly, and fuel rod power distribution”. This further renders unclear the relationship between the “calculat[ing] based on operating conditions” and the “simulating the steady-state or transient boundary conditions” previously recited in parent claim 11.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the 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”. It is unclear which (if any) of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentration” the claim is intending to refer to. It is also unclear how a “concentration” can be “performed” for something. It is also unclear if the “inlet flow velocity variations” are intending to refer to the previously recited “predetermined flow velocity variation” or something else. Additionally, the 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” is unclear as there does not appear to be any prior recitation of the “liquid base film ... moving in between the disturbance waves”.
Claim 15 recites “further comprising repeating calculating local instantaneous impurity concentrations for various fuel enrichments in dependence of the calculated local instantaneous impurity concentration in order to prevent formation of crud deposits”. It is unclear which of the previously recited “calculating” steps and “local instantaneous impurity concentrations” the claim is intending to refer to. It is further unclear the relationship between the “various fuel enrichments” and the previously recited “enrichment[s]” (e.g., “varying enrichment levels of fuel pellets”, “235U enrichment levels”, “the enrichment levels”, “enrichment level of fuel pellets” previously recited in parent claim 11). It is further unclear which of the previously recited “local instantaneous impurity concentration” the “calculated local instantaneous impurity concentration” is intending to refer to. It is further unclear how repeating calculations results in “prevent[ing] formation of crud deposits” as calculations are merely mathematical operations. Additionally, it is unclear the relationship between the “crud deposits” and the previously recited “crud depositions” and “impurities”. In the event the “crud deposits” and “crud depositions” are intending to refer to the same feature, it is unclear how the “crud deposits” can both be “predict[ed] ... to have occurred” and “prevent[ed]”.
Response to Arguments
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.
Applicant argues “the claims, as a whole are directed to determining 235U enrichment levels for use in fuel pellets, where crud deposition is reduced. The Office Action’s high level generalizations omit concrete constraints recited in the claims related to the fuel assembly as the object of the method steps” (Remarks, p. 10). As noted above, the step of “determining 235U enrichment levels” is merely directed towards mathematical relationships/calculations and mental processes. This feature is therefore directed towards a judicial exception.
Applicant argues “the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application by improving the technical field of nuclear reactor fuel assembly simulation” (Remarks, p. 10). Applicant further argues “[t]he claimed four-field model ... provides a specific technical solution to the problem of accurately predicting crud deposition in BWR annular two-phase flow. Prior art sub-channel codes ... employed three-field models that could not resolve disturbance wave dynamics” (Remarks, pp. 10-11). However, 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, the steps encompassed by the “four-field model” as recited in the claims (e.g., “predicting”, “solving”, “simulating”, “analyzing”, “calculating”, “comparing”) and “predicting crud deposition” are 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 model” 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 (“a specific technical solution to the problem of accurately predicting crud deposition”) 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 fuel assembly outside of its ordinary capacity. Claims 11 and 21, as best understood by Examiner, do not appear to recite any step that integrates the abstract computational methods into a practical application. The claims merely recite a series of abstract computational steps to produce mathematically calculated crud and enrichment data, but do 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. Unlike the claims of Enfish, the present claims are not directed towards a specific improvement to the way computers operate or an improvement of the computer as a tool. For example, there is nothing in the claims directed towards a specific form of storing or retrieving data, as recited by the Enfish claims. The only “computer”-related features in the claims are the recitations of a “computer-implemented method” in the preambles of claims 11 and 21. The claims do not improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory and instead merely add a general-purpose computer to mathematical calculations. As the claims do no more than require generic, purely conventional computer elements, performing generic computer functions, rather than improve computer capabilities, the claims are not directed towards improving the functioning of a computer.
Applicant argues the “determining 235U enrichment levels” step “constitutes an application of the simulation results to determine the physical configuration of nuclear fuel pellets – a real-world, tangible outcome that goes well beyond producing mathematical data. This is directly analogous to the rubber-curing process in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)” (Remarks, p. 11). However, as noted above, the step of “determining 235U enrichment levels for use in the fuel pellets” is directed towards mathematical relationships/calculations and mental processes. In Diamond, the claims did not merely recite determining or calculating values using the Arrhenius equation in a rubber molding process. Rather, the Diamond claims recited specific limitations including measuring the temperature, repetitively using the measured temperature to calculate a cure time using the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and elapsed time are equivalent (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The Diamond claims effected a transformation or reduction of a particular article (the rubber) to a different state or thing (Diamond, 184). There is no such transformation in the present claims nor do the claims recite any limitations directed towards, for example, actual manufacturing of fuel pellets or operation of a nuclear reactor using the determined and calculated values. Therefore, the present claims are not directly analogous to the claims of Diamond as asserted by Applicant.
Applicant further argues the “Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly and components” are not insignificant extra-solution activity because “Claim 11 is specifically limited to BWR (not PWR or other reactor) fuel assembly design, a four-field annular flow model, disturbance wave analysis, and determination of 235U enrichment levels. These specific constraints substantially limit the scope of the claims and leave the broad field of nuclear simulation available to the public” (Remarks, p. 11). Examiner notes that while claim 11 specifies a “Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly”, claim 21, which is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, is not “specifically limited to BWR ... fuel assembly design”. Additionally, the features of the “four-field annular flow model, disturbance wave analysis, and determination of 235U enrichment levels” (as presented in the claims) are directed towards mathematical relationships/calculations and mental processes. The evaluation under Step 2A, Prong Two requires an analysis of the additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions and an evaluation of the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. In this case, the only additional elements recited in the claims are the “fuel rods”, “Boiling Water Reactor fuel assembly”, “fuel pellets”, and nuclear reactor-related data. As discussed above, the nuclear reactor structures are generic and used in their ordinary capacity. There is nothing to suggest that the mathematical operations and mental processes are applied with, or by use of, a particular machine considering the following factors:
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus: The recited elements of the fuel assembly are generic. All Boiling Water Reactor fuel assemblies have fuel rods and fuel pellets1. The claims do not, for example, specify a particular fuel rod construction or structure. The claims merely recite well-understood, conventional components in the nuclear industry.
Whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method: As discussed above, the claims recite generic and conventional components of a fuel assembly. These components only contribute nominally to the execution of the claimed method and are used in their ordinary capacity. The nuclear reactor components further do not play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed.
Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use: As discussed above, the nuclear reactor components contribute only nominally to the execution of the claimed method and generically link the abstract idea to a nuclear reactor environment.
Applicant further argues “[t]he specific ordered combination of: (1) solving four-field conservation equations for all phase combinations; (2) analyzing disturbance wave velocity, frequency, and film thickness; (3) calculating instantaneous impurity concentrations for each fuel rod axially and azimuthally; (4) comparing to a crud precipitation limit; and (5) determining 235U enrichment levels based on predicted crud depositions – is not shown by the Examiner to be well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art” (Remarks, p. 12). In Step 2B, 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. Each of the above identified features (1)-(5), as presented in the claims, are directed towards mathematical operations and mental processes, i.e., a judicial exception. Apart from the limitations that recite a judicial exception, the only additional elements in claims 11 and 21 are the nuclear structures and data which are mere insignificant extra-solution activities, instructions to apply the exception to a computer, and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry for the reasons set forth 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) 270-5217, 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
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor
Prosecution Insights