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 12/18/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-11 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a bottom of the closed water tank” should be amended to recite “[[a]] the bottom of the closed water tank” (see parent claim 1 which recites: “a bottom of the closed water tank”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 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 “wherein the containment vessel is tiltable relative to seawater level between a non-swing state and a swing state, wherein when the containment vessel is in the swing state, an elevation of a lowest point at a bottom of the closed water tank relative to the seawater level is higher than an elevation of a highest point at a top of the steam generator relative to the seawater level”. It is unclear what is encompassed by the terms “a non-swing state” and “a swing state”. These terms do not appear to be known and/or conventional terms in the art and the specification does not appear to define these terms. It is further unclear what the “lowest point” and “highest point” are points of in the claim. For example, is the claim intending to recite “a lowest point of a bottom of the closed water tank” and “a highest point of a top of the steam generator”? This further renders unclear the relationship between the “elevation”, “lowest point”, “bottom”, and “seawater level” and the “elevation”, “highest point”, “top”, and “seawater level”.
Claim 8 recites “wherein a bottom elevation of the closed water tank is higher than a top elevation of the steam generator”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “an elevation of a lowest point at a bottom of the closed water tank relative to the seawater level is higher than an elevation of a highest point at a top of the steam generator relative to the seawater level”. It is unclear the relationship between the “elevation[s]” recited in claim 8 and the “elevation[s]” recited in parent claim 1. This further renders unclear how claim 8 is intending to further limit parent claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “wherein a top elevation of the closed water tank is lower than a water surface elevation of the seawater”. It is unclear the relationship between the “water surface elevation” and the “seawater level” previously recited in parent claim 1. Perhaps the claim should be amended to recite “is lower than level”.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN Publication No. 107464590 (“Peng”)1 in view of US Publication No. 2019/0139657 (“Ganesan”).
Regarding claim 1, Peng (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) discloses a marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system (p. 1: “a secondary passive residual heat removal system for a marine pressurized water reactor”), wherein the system comprises:
a containment vessel (5) having an inner wall surface (e.g., left-side surface in FIG. 1) and an outer wall surface (e.g., right-side surface in FIG. 1), the outer wall surface being partially or completely immersed in seawater (“B”);
a closed water tank (6) which is provided on the inner wall surface of the containment vessel and has a water tank inlet (e.g., water flows into the closed water tank through 21, 24, 26) and a water tank outlet (e.g., water flows out of the closed water tank through 29, 31), wherein the closed water tank is provided on the inner wall surface of the containment vessel by the inner wall surface of the containment vessel forming the side plate of the closed water tank (p. 4: “The high water tank 6 is located in the compartment in the wall 5 of the outer hull of the containment vessel 4”; p. 5: “The steam of the secondary side of the steam generator 2 enters the passive residual heat via the steam pipe (21, 24, 26) and exits the condenser 3 side. After condensing, the steam is returned to the secondary side of the steam generator 2 through the condensing pipe (29, 31)”); and
a steam generator (2) which is disposed in the containment vessel and has a steam outlet (e.g., through 21, 24, 26) and a feedwater inlet (e.g., through 29, 31) (p. 5: “The steam of the secondary side of the steam generator 2 enters the passive residual heat via the steam pipe (21, 24, 26) and exits the condenser 3 side. After condensing, the steam is returned to the secondary side of the steam generator 2 through the condensing pipe (29, 31)”);
wherein the water tank inlet of the closed water tank is communicated with the steam outlet of the steam generator through a first pipe (21, 24, 26), and the water tank outlet of the closed water tank is communicated with the feedwater inlet of the steam generator through a second pipe (29, 31) (p. 5: “The steam of the secondary side of the steam generator 2 enters the passive residual heat via the steam pipe (21, 24, 26) and exits the condenser 3 side. After condensing, the steam is returned to the secondary side of the steam generator 2 through the condensing pipe (29, 31)”),
wherein the containment vessel is tiltable relative to seawater level between a non-swing state and a swing state (p. 1: “the ship will be rocked by environmental impacts such as waves”), wherein when the containment vessel is in the swing state, an elevation of a lowest point at a bottom of the closed water tank relative to the seawater level is higher than an elevation of a highest point at a top of the steam generator relative to the seawater level (see annotated FIG. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peng, FIG. 1 (annotated) (see Remarks, p. 15 for comparison)
All physical materials have a non-zero thermal conductivity2. Thus, while Peng is silent as to the material of the containment vessel, as Peng’s containment vessel is a physical material, Peng’s containment vessel would have some capability of conducting heat of fluid in the closed water tank through the inner wall surface of the containment vessel to the outer wall surface thereof exposed to the seawater such that the heat of the fluid is exchanged with the seawater through the inner wall surface and the outer wall surface of the containment vessel. Nevertheless, it was well-known in the art to utilize containment vessels made of heat conducting materials such as steel. For example, Ganesan (previously cited) (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a marine type nuclear reactor comprising a containment vessel (60) ([0001], [0038]). Ganesan teaches the containment vessel may be a steel containment vessel ([0038]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to form Peng’s containment vessel of steel because Ganesan teaches this is a suitable material for containment vessels of marine type nuclear reactors ([0038]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use steel for the material of containment vessel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Stainless steel3, such as the steel material of the containment vessel as taught by Ganesan, has a thermal conductivity of approximately 16-24 W/mK and, therefore, would be capable of conducting heat of fluid in the closed water tank through the inner wall surface of the containment vessel to the outer wall surface thereof exposed to the seawater such that the heat of the fluid is exchanged with the seawater through the inner wall surface and the outer wall surface of the containment vessel. Further, as best understood by Examiner, the present specification discloses that forming the containment vessel of a material such as steel allows the containment vessel to perform the claimed function of conducting heat in the manner recited in claim 1 (see 12:3-7).
Regarding claim 2, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 1. Peng discloses the first pipe is provided with a first isolation valve (25) and the second pipe is provided with a second isolation valve (30) (FIG. 1, p. 4: “A first isolation valve 25 is provided on the second section of the pipeline 24”, “a second isolation valve 30 is provided at the position of the first condensing line 29”).
Regarding claim 4, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 2. Peng discloses the first isolation valve and the second isolation valve may be remotely controlled (p. 5: “the first isolation valve 25 on the steam line and the second isolation valve 30 on the condensation line may be remotely controlled to isolate the system”). Thus, the modified Peng’s isolation valves would he capable of being opened simultaneously after receiving an opening signal as recited in claim 6.
Regarding claim 5, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 2. Peng discloses before the first isolation valve is opened, the closed water tank is in a non-full water state (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 1. Peng discloses the closed water tank is provided with a safety valve (28) (FIG. 1, p. 4: “A parallel electromagnetic valve 27 and a manual valve 28 are provided”, p. 5: “When the solenoid 27 fails to open, the manual valve 28 in parallel with it can be manually opened to put the system into operation”).
Regarding claim 7, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 1. Peng discloses the water tank inlet is arranged at a top of the closed water tank, and the water tank outlet is arranged at a bottom of the closed water tank (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 1. Peng discloses a bottom elevation of the closed water tank is higher than a top elevation of the steam generator in the “swing state” (see FIG. 1, annotated above). Additionally, in the event the claim is intending to require that a bottom elevation of the closed water tank is higher than a top elevation of the steam generator in the “non-swing state”, it would have been obvious to a POSA to have such an arrangement of the closed water tank and the steam generator since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Peng discloses a bottom of the heat exchanger (3) must be higher than a liquid level of the steam generator (2) in order to allow for residual heat removal through natural circulation (pp. 1-2: “The bottom of the discharge condenser is higher than the liquid level in the steam generator”; p. 3: “Relying on difference in equipment position and medium density, the circuit between the reactor pressure vessel and the primary side of the steam generator, the secondary side of the steam generator and passive residual heat discharge condenser tube side loop, passive residual heat discharge condenser shell side and high position in the tank circuit, core residual heat is extracted through a natural circulation”). The skilled artisan would recognize that arranging the modified Peng’s closed water tank such that a bottom elevation of the closed water tank is higher than a top elevation of the steam generator in a “non-swing state” would yield the predictable result of ensuring that Peng’s heat exchanger (3) is higher than the steam generator (2) to allow for natural circulation.
Regarding claim 11, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 1. Ganesan teaches the containment vessel is a steel containment vessel ([0038]). Thus, Peng, modified to have a steel containment vessel as taught by Ganesan, would have resulted in the features of claim 11.
Claims 3 and 10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Ganesan, further in view of CN Publication No. 207489487 (“Wei”).
Regarding claim 3, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 2. Peng discloses the first isolation valve and the second isolation valve are electric isolation valves (p. 4: “The first isolation valve 25 and the second isolation valve 30 are provided as electric ball valves”), but does not appear to disclose the valves are normally closed. However, Peng discloses that, during normal operation, the passive residual heat removal system is in a “standby state” (p. 4).
Wei (newly cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a secondary side passive residual heat removal system for a marine type reactor (2) operating by natural circulation and comprising a closed water tank (1) and an isolation valve (315) ([0002], [0009], [0037]). Wei teaches the passive residual heat removal system is not in use during normal operation, and, therefore, the isolation valve is a normally closed isolation valve ([0037]). The skilled artisan would recognize that, as the modified Peng’s secondary side passive residual heat removal system is in a “standby state” during normal operation, the passive residual heat removal system is not in operation during normal operation. It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the modified Peng’s isolation valves be normally closed isolation valves, as taught by Wei, for the predictable advantage of preventing undesirable wear or use of the passive residual heat removal system during normal operation (i.e., when the passive residual heat removal system is not in operation).
Regarding claim 10, Peng in view of Ganesan teaches the marine type reactor secondary side passive residual heat removal system according to claim 1, but does not appear to teach a top elevation of the closed water tank is lower than a water surface elevation of the seawater.
Wei (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a secondary side passive residual heat removal system for a marine type reactor (2) comprising a closed water tank (1) ([0002], [0009]). Wei teaches a top elevation of the closed water tank is lower than a water surface elevation of seawater ([0011]). Wei further teaches this arrangement of the closed water tank allows for sufficient cooling water supply (e.g., seawater) for cooling the closed water tank in the event of over-pressurization in the closed water tank ([0023]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to employ Wei’s closed water tank cooling mechanism, including having a top elevation of the closed water tank lower than a water surface elevation of the seawater, as taught by Wei, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Peng in order to enhance safety and reliability, as suggested by Wei, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the rejections above.
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 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Citations to Peng refer to the machine translation attached to the previously provided PTO-892 dated 09/10/2024
2 https://periodictable.com/
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities