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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 01/14/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-12 are pending in this application. Claims 7-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/14/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amended claim language. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
6. 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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bilovsky, US 2014/0133619.
8. Regarding claim 1, Bilovsky discloses a nuclear reactor ([0010]), comprising:
plural fuel rods (23) containing fissile material, the fuel rods held in plural, individually extractable and replaceable, fuel assemblies (20; see [0023] and Figs. 2 and 3),
at least one fuel assembly of the fuel assemblies simultaneously including (see Fig. 3 and [0029]):
plural control rods (442), each made of a first neutron-absorbing material PWR control rods are well-known in the art to use AgInSn and/or B4C1, which are insertable between the fuel rods to reduce a rate of a fission reaction of fissile material contained within the fuel rods to put the reactor in a shutdown state, and operable to move in and out of the reactor to vary the rate of the fission reaction when the reactor is critical and generating useful power ([0024]);
plural of the fuel rods (1) containing fissile material; and
at least one refuelling rod (3), made of a second neutron-absorbing material different to the first material ([0029]: Al2O3-B4C), the at least one refuelling rod being inserted and immobilized between the fuel rods to further reduce the rate of the fission reaction and maintain the shutdown state ([0030]: although the intent of the burnable poison rods is to provide reactivity control during operation, they are also capable of this recited intended use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
11. 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.
12. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilovsky, US 2014/0133619 in view of Snell, US 2,815,319.
13. Regarding claims 3 and 4, Bilovsky discloses the nuclear reactor of claim 1. Bilovsky’s refuelling rods contain B4C. Snell teaches a nuclear reactor comprising control rods made of boron steel, noting that both B4C and boron steel both strongly absorb fast neutrons (column 6, lines 70-75) . Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to substitute the B4C disclosed by Bilovsky for the equivalent boron steel taught by Snell. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) and MPEP §2144.06. Additionally, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 See “LWR Control Assembly Designs: A Historical Perspective” and “Advances in control assembly materials for water reactors” attached previously.