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
The following statement made in the previous Action remains pertinent: Applicant’s election without traverse of species (2) directed to Figure 2 in the reply filed on 08/12/2025 is acknowledged. Due to the below-detailed considerable indefiniteness rejections of the claims, Examiner is unable to presently identify specific claims that should or should not be withdrawn. Examiner expects to make this determination following the resolution of said rejections. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/12/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–5 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s label of Figure 4 as prior art has overcome the Drawing objection, which is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have cured some, but not all, of the indefiniteness rejections. The cured ones are withdrawn. The remaining ones are repeated herein with additional explanation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that Figure 1 should not be labeled as prior art is persuasive; this Drawing objection is herein withdrawn.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Examiner cannot find the following claimed terms or synonyms thereof in the Specification: first response relationship, second response relationship, third response relationship, fourth response relationship, fifth response relationship, sixth response relationship, seventh response relationship, eighth response relationship, ninth response relationship, and tenth response relationship.
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.
Claims 1–5 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.
Claim 1 recites “fuel rod neutron production” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Fuel rods are well-known structural elements of nuclear reactors. The fuel rod/rods should be positively recited prior to their neutron production being referred to.
Claim 1 recites “the fuel assembly cell” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the relationship between/difference between the fuel rod (see the immediately prior rejection above) and the fuel rod cell should be made clear. Is the “cell” simply referring to the empty space within a fuel rod?
Claim 1 recites “neutrons that are produced from fuel rod neutron production.” This limitation is confusing and redundant. The phrase “neutron production” does not make sense here. This is like saying “water that is produced from a rain cloud water production.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “each node” and “adjacent node.” There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. No such node has yet been introduced. It is unclear what the relationship is between the recited nodes and the rest of the recited structure, e.g., the fuel rods/fuel rod cells/core/et cetera.
Claim 3 recites “fuel rod neutron production” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The relationship between this term and the previous similar/identical terms is unclear.
Claim 3 recites “the neutron that flows” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No singular neutron has yet been identified, and it is further unclear why one would want to single out one neutron. The remainder of claim 3 repeats this language within different phrases. Please review these phrases. Additionally, lines 9-10 recite “neutrons that are produced from fuel rod neutron production and neutrons produced from another fuel rod due to a fission reaction that has been induced by the neutrons that are produced from the fuel rod.” This limitation has numerous antecedent basis issues. Please review claim 3 and make it clear which neutron OR neutrons are explicitly being referred to.
Claim 4 repeatedly refers to “the neutron.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No singular neutron has yet been identified, and it is further unclear why one would want to single out one neutron. Looking at claims 3–5 in particular, Examiner would like to make it clear that isolating/referring to a single neutron is extremely unusual and likely practicably impossible. The ordinary skilled artisan has no mechanism to isolate a single neutron. Examiner suggests the claims be amended to not identify/isolate/refer to a single neutron.
Claim 4 repeatedly refers to “macroscopic cross sections.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Said cross sections have not yet been identified. As is known in the art, cross sections are specific to the species involved1. It is entirely unclear which cross sections are being referred to here. Additionally, it is unclear why “cross sections” is plural. Typically, this term is used in the singular, even when used to describe a plurality of species. Cross section refers to probability2 in this case. It is not a geometric term.
Claim 4 recites in lines 12+ a calculation of the neutron effective multiplication factor. This calculation was already performed in parent claim 1. It is unclear how this ostensibly second calculation is related to the first.
Claim 4 recites “the fuel rod” multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the same fuel rod is being referred to as previous recitations, or if an attempt is being made to refer to all the fuel rods in a fuel assembly all together. Examiner notes the following: a nuclear reactor comprises a reactor core, which comprises fuel assemblies, each which comprises fuel rods.
Claim 5: The same rejections made for claims 3 and 4 generally apply to claim 5. Examiner does not find it efficient to repeat them all here. Please also amend/update claim 5 as described above.
It is possible that the above indefiniteness rejections are not exhaustive. Examiner asks for Applicant’s assistance in identifying and correcting any indefiniteness issues in the claims that were missed by the Examiner.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishii (JP2000162364A3).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii discloses a core performance calculation apparatus (fig. 1) comprising: a nuclear constant storage device (4; “nuclear constant storage device 4,” page 3) configured to store nuclear constants that have been evaluated in advance from analysis of a fuel assembly; and a three-dimensional core nuclear thermal-hydraulic characteristics analysis device (8; “three-dimensional core nuclear thermal-hydraulic characteristic analysis device 8,” page 3) configured to obtain core characteristics including a power of the fuel assembly, wherein the nuclear constant storage device is configured to store, as the nuclear constants, information indicating a plurality of response relationships, including a first response relationship between neutrons that flow into the fuel assembly cell (“a neutron detector actual measurement value,” abstract) and fuel assembly nuclear characteristics (“an analysis result,” abstract), and a second response relationship between neutrons that are produced from fuel rod neutron production (“the neutron detector actual measurement value at the moment,” abstract) and the fuel assembly nuclear characteristics (“an analysis result,” abstract), and wherein the three-dimensional core nuclear thermal-hydraulic characteristics analysis device (8) is configured to: calculate a neutron effective multiplication factor (“neutron infinite multiplication factor,” claim 1, page 8) by using at least the first response relationship and the second response relationship stored in the nuclear constant storage device (in order to calculate the neutron multiplication factor, you must necessarily incorporate the neutron measurements cited above), and calculate the power of the fuel assembly (“the dimensional power distribution is calculated,” top of page 4) by using the neutron effective multiplication factor (implicit).
Regarding claim 2, Ishii anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the three-dimensional core nuclear thermal-hydraulic characteristics analysis device (8) is configured to: calculate out-going neutron current by using the first response relationship between the neutrons that flow into the fuel assembly cell (“a neutron detector actual measurement value,” abstract) and the fuel assembly nuclear characteristics (“an analysis result,” abstract), the second response relationship between the neutrons that are produced from fuel rod neutron production (“the neutron detector actual measurement value at the moment,” abstract) and the fuel assembly nuclear characteristics (“an analysis result,” abstract), an in-coming neutron current (“neutron flux distribution,” mid-page 5), a fuel rod neutron production rate (this parameter must be known in order to calculate the “neutron infinite multiplication factor,” claim 1, page 8), and the neutron effective multiplication factor (“neutron infinite multiplication factor,” claim 1, page 8), and update the fuel rod neutron production rate (“nuclear constant corrector 7,” page 5, which corrects, i.e., updates, the nuclear constant), set the in-coming neutron current of each node to the out-going neutron current of an adjacent node (page 5, lines 7-19); and repeat the calculating of the out-going neutron current and the updating of the fuel rod neutron production rate, until the in-coming neutron current, the out-going neutron current, and the fuel rod neutron production rate have converged (“The neutron flux distribution is converted into an output distribution (reference numeral 18), convergence is determined (reference numeral 19), and if the convergence is achieved, a thermal evaluation calculation is performed (reference numeral 20), and the process is terminated. If not converged, the process returns to the flow distribution calculation,” mid-page 5).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 5:
Due to the considerable indefiniteness of the claims, there is a great deal of speculation required by the Examiner to interpret said claims. Therefore, no art rejections are being presented in this action. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in /n re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. In this case, because no reasonable interpretation can be made about the structural or functional arrangement of the claimed features, any assumption on the part of the Examiner would be extraordinarily and inappropriately speculative.
Please refer to the 112(b) rejections made above. Specifically, the reference in claims 3+ of a single neutron is inconsistent with the art (rarely is a single neutron isolated in a fission reactor). It is unclear if this singling-out is intentional.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Is this the cross section meant? “Neutron capture: The reaction that occurs when a nucleus captures a neutron. The probability that a given material will capture a neutron is proportional to its neutron capture cross section and depends on the energy of the neutrons and the nature of the material.” <www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/neutron-capture>
2 e.g., as a basic intro, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_cross_section
3 see attached Examiner-highlighted 15-page foreign reference.