DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 06/16/2025.
Applicant filed a response, and elected species (a-i), species (b-i), species (c-ii), claims 1-8, 10-15, 17, and 19-20, and withdrew claims 9, 16 and 18, without traverse on 10/14/2025.
Claim 9 is rejoined.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and claims 16 and 18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-15, 17, 19-20 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species (a-i), species (b-i), species (c-ii) in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9, 16 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
Claim 9 is rejoined, as claim 8, which is drawn to species (a-i) contains allowable subject matter.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The present abstract is less than 50 words. However, the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet preferably within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP 608.01(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, it is suggested to amend "each electrochemical cycle" to "each of the one or more electrochemical cycles" to be consistent with the phrase "one or more electrochemical cycles" recited in claim 1, line 7.
Claim 8, line 2, it is suggested to amend "each electrochemical cycle" to "each of the one or more electrochemical cycles" to be consistent with the phrase "one or more electrochemical cycles" recited in claim 1, line 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-9, 10-15, 17 and 19-20 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.
Claim 1, lines 8-9, recites a phrase "oxidising and reducing electric potential". However, it is unclear what the phrase refers to, as an electrical potential is either oxidizing or reducing, and cannot be both. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to "alternating oxidizing and reducing electric potential". Interpretation is speculated and correction is requested.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 10-15, 17 and 19-20, these claims does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 17, line 2, recites a phrase "e.g., by quantitative gas analysis". However, it is unclear if this phrase is a required limitation or merely optional. The examiner interprets that the phrase is a required limitation. If the interpretation is correct, applicants are suggested to amend to the claim to recite "the method is monitored by quantitative gas analysis".
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grebennikova, Molten salt treatment as a decontamination method for irradiated graphite, Jan. 8th, 2019 (Grebennikova).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 11-13 and 15, Grebennikova discloses molten salt treatment as a decontamination method for irradiated graphite (Grebennikova, Tittle);
electrochemical decontamination of graphite from fission products in LiCl-KCl (Grebennikova, page 145);
irradiated graphited fixed on the working electrode immersed in LiCl-KCl at 723 K (i.e., 500 C) (Grebennikova, page 147, Abstract);
decontamination procedure started with the application of a negative current to the system for two hours, followed by applying a positive current of the same absolute magnitude applied for three hours; the electrochemical treatment with the application of combined negative and positive currents for a total duration of five hours is herein referred to as one cycle (reading upon "subjecting the irradiated nuclear graphite to an electrochemical treatment comprising one or more electrochemical cycles, wherein each electrochemical cycle comprises exposing the irradiated nuclear graphite to an oxidising and reducing electric potential") (Grebennikova, page 152, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claims 2-4, as applied to claim 1, Grebennikova further discloses 0.217 g of graphite is used for electrochemical treatment at a current of 40 mA (Grebennikova, page 172, Table A.3.), and the average value (i.e., BET specific surface area) is 0.207 m2/g (Grebennikova, page 183, bottom paragraph), which would correspond to a current density of 40/(0.217*0.207*10^4)=0.08 mA/cm2.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 1, Grebennikova further discloses the average value (i.e., BET specific surface area) is 0.207 m2/g (Grebennikova, page 183, bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Grebennikova further discloses each analyzed current was repeated up to 10 cycles (Grebennikova, page 153, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, given that Grebennikova discloses each analyzed current was repeated up to 10 cycles (Grebennikova, page 153, 1st paragraph) and total duration of a cycle of 5 hours, therefore, it corresponds to a total treatment time of up to 50 hours.
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 1, Grebennikova further discloses the positive current was selected based on the required electrochemical reaction to provoke separation of the graphite contamination, most likely in oxide (i.e., metal oxide), from the bulk of the material (i.e., into the molten salt) (Grebennikova, page 153, bottom paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 1, Grebennikova further discloses measurement of release in off-gas phase for 3H and 12C as a function of current applied during electrochemical treatment (Grebennikova, p.208).
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 1, Grebennikova further discloses the cell was filled with argon (Grebennikova, page 149, 3rd paragraph).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebennikova.
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 1, Grebennikova further discloses after the treatment was concluded, cyclic voltammetry of the reamining salt was performed to detect any impurities following contamination transfer (Grebennikova, page 152, 2nd paragraph). Therefore, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that some impurities from the contamination transfer (i.e., radionuclides) can be present in the salt (i.e., molten salt) which would require removal to prevent nuclear waste contamination.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grebennikova as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright et al., Nuclear graphite components, 2019 (Wright).
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 1, Grebennikova does not explicitly disclose wherein the irradiated nuclear graphite has a density of at least 0.8 g/cm3.
With respect to the difference, Wright teaches nuclear graphite components (Wright, Title). Wright explicitly teaches the density is 1.7-1.9 g/cm3 (Wright, slide 5).
As Wright expressly teaches that graphite with higher density is stronger, and with lower density provide better irradiation performance.
In view of the motivation using graphite with appropriate density, such as a density of 1.7-1.9 g/cm3, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in that art that the irradiated nuclear graphite would have a density of 1.7-1.9 g/cm3, in order to achieve desired mechanical property and irradiation performance when the graphite is used for a given nuclear process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, neither Grebennikova or Wright teaches or suggests wherein the duration of each electrochemical cycle is from 0.1 ns to 10 s. On the contrary, Grebennikova discloses the duration of treatment was sufficient as two and three hours for negative and positive currents, respectively (Grebennikova, page 153, 2nd paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights