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
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 3-5 and 21-35 in the reply filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged. As such, non-elected claims 1-2 are withdrawn from further consideration. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 3 is very confusing in regards to the actual structure being claimed for the neutron reflector.
Independent claim 3 reads as followed:
“(Original) A neutron reflector, comprising:
a plurality of outer reflector blocks arranged in a first ring; and
a plurality of inner reflector blocks arranged in a second ring,
wherein
an inner surface of each of the plurality of outer reflector blocks faces a center of the first ring,
circumferential surfaces of the plurality of outer reflector blocks face in a circumferential direction of the first ring and are configured to abut the circumferential surfaces of circumferentially adjacent ones of the plurality of outer reflector blocks to form an arc of the first ring,
an outer surface of each of the plurality of inner reflector blocks faces a center of the first ring,
circumferential surfaces of the plurality of inner reflector blocks face in a circumferential direction of the second ring and are configured to abut the circumferential surfaces of circumferentially adjacent ones of the plurality of inner reflector blocks to form an arc of the second ring, and
the inner surfaces of the plurality of outer reflector block are configured to support the plurality of inner reflector blocks at the outer surface of the inner reflector blocks, such that top surfaces of the plurality of inner reflector block do not support a vertical load when in an installed position in the neutron reflector.” [Emphasis added].
In lines 5-6 of the claim, what is meant by “a center of the first ring”? What “center”? Is Applicant trying to refer to some sort of a gap or space that is formed between the inner surface of the outer reflector blocks arranged in a first ring and the outer surface of the inner reflector blocks arranged in a second ring?
In lines 7-8 of the claim, what further specificity or limitation is Applicant trying to convey with the statement: “circumferential surfaces of the plurality of outer reflector blocks face in a circumferential direction of the first ring” as compared to the claim’s line 2 requirement that the neutron reflector comprises: “a plurality of outer reflector blocks arranged in a first ring;” [Emphasis added]. A first ring by definition has circumferential surface(s).
In lines 11-12 of the claim, what is meant by “a center of the first ring”? What “center”? Is Applicant trying to refer to some sort of a gap or space that is formed between the outer surfaces of the inner reflector blocks arranged in a second ring and the inner surface of the outer reflector blocks arranged in a first ring?
In lines 13-14 of the claim, what further specificity or limitation is Applicant trying to convey with the statement: “circumferential surfaces of the plurality of inner reflector blocks face in a circumferential direction of the first ring” as compared to the claim’s line 3 requirement that the neutron reflector comprises: “a plurality of inner reflector blocks arranged in a second ring;” [Emphasis added]. A second ring by definition has circumferential surface(s), and thus the plurality of its inner reflector blocks would seem to always face in a circumferential direction of the first ring.
Claims 4-5 and 21-34, are either directly or indirectly dependent on independent claim 3, and are thus also deemed to be indefinite. Finally, independent claim 35, has many of the same problems that Independent claim 3 has and is thus also deemed to be indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
EXAMINATION NOTE:
In light of the very indefinite structural nature of Applicant’s claimed neutron reflector, see the above rejection under second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), it is not possible to accurately compare Applicant’s claimed neutron reflector to the neutron reflectors of the prior-art. Nevertheless, the examiner will try to make such comparisons, as best as possible, and if necessary will set forth an obvious type rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, because the indefinite issues with Applicant’s claims would seem to preclude making an anticipation type prior-art rejection at the present time.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koutz et al. U.S. Patent Number 3,124,514.
Koutz et al. discloses core neutron reflector. Koutz et al. independent claim 1 reads as followed: “A gas cooled nuclear reactor including a vertically disposed pressure vessel, a reactor core assembly within the lower portion of said vessel comprising a plurality of elongated, vertically disposed fuel elements, and a side reflector surrounding said core assembly for substantially its entire height, said reflector comprising a ring of reflector material, said ring being formed of a plurality of blocks of reflector material disposed in side-by-side relation circumferentially of said core assembly, and means supporting each of said blocks comprising a link pivotally interconnecting the lower end of said block to said vessel, said reactor also including a plenum shroud disposed in the upper portion of said vessel in inwardly spaced relation to the wall thereof and forming a substantial seal at its lower edge with the upper edge of said reflector ring to define a chamber located above said core assembly for heated gases emerging from said core assembly, an outlet conduit connected to said plenum shroud to provide an outlet for the gases from said chamber, and an inlet conduit connected to said pressure vessel to provide an inlet for coolant gases into the vessel outwardly of said plenum shroud and said reflector ring.” [Emphasis added].
Koutz et al. thus as best understood, shows inner neutron reflector blocks forming an inner ring which have their outside surface supported by at least the inside surface of the reflector blocks of the outer ring (see the Figures 2 and 3). The inner reflector blocks 48 form a first ring and the outer reflector blocks 50 form a second ring. Outer reflector blocks are shown to have pressure-transfer buttons or projections 68 which act to ensure proper spacing of the reflector blocks and the transfer of pressure would amount to supporting the outer surface of the inner reflector blocks. The inner reflector blocks do not support a vertical load when in an installed position as their weight is supported from below by the support mechanism 51. Applicant’s independent claims 3 and 35, are thus deemed at a minimum, to be extremely obvious over Koutz et al. said disclosure.
Furthermore, Applicant’s dependent claims 4-5 and 21-34, set forth various features in regards to the surface structure of the inner surface of the outer ring blocks and the surface structure of the outer surface of the inner ring blocks, so that the inner ring blocks are support by the outer ring blocks. Said surface features are also deemed to be set forth within Koutz et al.’s Figures 2-5, wherein protrusions on the inner surface of the outer ring blocks are disclosed along with protrusions on the outer surface of the inner ring blocks to form an interlocking set up wherein the inner block ring is supported by the outer block ring. Furthermore, as shown in the description of Figures 2-5, both the inner blocks and outer blocks are made from graphite thus meeting the limitation of Applicant’s dependent claim 27. As such, Applicant’s claims 4-5 and 21-34 are also deemed to be very obvious over Koutz et al.’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH DAVID ANTHONY whose telephone number is (571)272-1117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH D ANTHONY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights