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 01/20/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application with claims 4-5 and 7 withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 6 are 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shielding part housed within the fuel part after it has been blocked” in claim 6 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “a heat conductive part is formed” should be amended to recite “a heat conductive part [[is]] formed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6, as currently presented, requires “a shielding part housed within the fuel part after it has been blocked”. There is insufficient support for this feature in the original disclosure. Applicant states that the amendments to the claims are supported in paragraphs [0023], [0025], [0036], [0039], and [0056] of the instant specification (Response, p. 4). As best understood by Examiner, only paragraph [0023] appears to be relevant to the above recited feature. However, paragraph [0023] discloses the opposite of the currently claimed arrangement: “The shielding part 2 houses the fuel layer 1A” (see also “[t]he shielding layer 2A is formed in a plate shape covering the periphery of the fuel layer 1A along a peripheral face 1Aa of the fuel layer 1A”). This arrangement of the shielding part (2) housing the fuel part (1) is also clearly shown in the original drawings. Figures 2-8 show the shielding part (2) surrounding an outside of the fuel part (1). Figure 9, which is a diagram of the fuel part (1), shows that there is no shielding part (2) within the fuel part (1). The feature of the “shielding part housed within the fuel part” is therefore new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-3 and 6 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 various “parts” (e.g., “a fuel part”, “a covering part”, “a heat conductive part”). It is unclear the scope of the structure associated with these features. While one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure associated with a “fuel”, “covering”, and “heat conductor”, the addition of the term “part” renders the scope of the structure unclear. For example, it is unclear if the “fuel part” is intending to refer to a “fuel” and additional structures, to only a fuel, to only a portion of a fuel, etc. Claim 1 recites “a fuel part ... formed by sintering into a plate shape”. The claim therefore appears to suggest the “fuel part” refers to, for example, a single “fuel layer 1A” in Figures 1 and 5 (see [0022]). Similarly, claim 1 recites “a heat conductive part is formed in a plate shape”, therefore suggesting the “heat conductive part” refers to a single “heat conductive layer 3A” in Figures 1 and 5 (see [0025]). However, the specification appears to suggest that the “part[s]” are intended to refer to a plurality of layers. Do each of the “part[s]” refer to a single distinct structure, a collection of multiple structures, a portion of a whole structure, or something else? Additionally, it is unclear from the claim what these features are a “part” (or portion) of. This further renders claim 2 unclear. Claim 2 recites “wherein the heat conductive part and the fuel part are provided stacked on each other facing the covering part”. If the “covering part” is a “part” of the “fuel part” it is unclear how the “fuel part” can face itself. This further renders unclear the relationship between the “heat conductive part”, “fuel part”, and “covering part”. Claim 6, which recites “a shielding part”, is similarly indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “a fuel part comprising a nuclear fuel formed by sintering into a plate shape and a covering part on an entire surface of the nuclear fuel”. It is unclear what feature is “formed by sintering into a plate shape”. For example, it is unclear if the “nuclear fuel” is formed in this manner and shape, if the “fuel part” as a whole is formed in this manner or shape, or another feature. This further renders unclear in claim 3 the relationship between the “nuclear fuel” and the “plurality of block-shaped nuclear fuel components”.
Claim 1 recites “a heat conductive part is formed in a plate shape that contacts the surface opposite the surface of the covering part in contact with the nuclear fuel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the “surface” (each recitation) in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear the surface of what structure “the surface opposite” is intending to refer to in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the block-shaped nuclear fuel components are arranged on a plane, and the covering part covers a surface of the block-shaped nuclear fuel components arranged on a plane put together”. This phrase is unclear. For example, it is unclear if the “surface” is referring to the same surface as one of the previously recited “surface[s]” in parent claim 1. It is further unclear if the “plane[s]” are referring to the same or different planes. The phrase “on a plane put together” is also unclear.
Claim 6 recites “a shielding part housed within the fuel part after it has been blocked”. There is no prior recitation of “block[ing]” a feature. It is therefore unclear what feature is “blocked” and what is meant by “block[ing]”. The phrase “after it has been blocked” further renders unclear if the claim is intending to recite a specific structure of the nuclear reactor, or an intended use of the reactor (e.g., operating the reactor and, “after it has been blocked”, adding a “shielding part”).
Claim 6 recites “the outside of the shielding part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2022/0399135 (“Morris”).
Regarding claim 1, Morris (previously cited) (see FIGS. 2-3) discloses a nuclear reactor (100) comprising:
a fuel (210) comprising a nuclear fuel material, the nuclear fuel material formed into a plate shape ([0055]);
a covering (212) on an entire surface of the nuclear fuel material ([0057]); and
a heat conductor (106, 206, 208) formed in a plate shape that contacts a surface of the covering and transfers heat from the covering ([0055]), wherein
the covering is formed of metal (e.g., steel) ([0057]).
Morris appears to be silent as to the method of forming the nuclear fuel material. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product (e.g., Morris’s nuclear fuel material) in the product-by-process claim is the same as the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Morris discloses the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses the heat conductor and the fuel are provided stacked on each other (FIG. 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Morris discloses the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses the nuclear fuel material is formed as a plurality of block-shaped nuclear fuel components and the plurality of block-shaped nuclear fuel components are arranged on a plane, and the covering covers a surface of the block-shaped nuclear fuel components (FIGS. 2-3, [0055]-[0057]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris in view of KR Patent No. 10-1183237 (“Lee”).
Citations to Lee refer to the machine translation provided with Applicant-submitted IDS dated 12/04/2025.
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, Morris (see FIGS. 2-3) discloses a nuclear reactor (100) comprising:
a fuel (210) comprising a nuclear fuel material, the nuclear fuel material formed into a plate shape ([0055]); and
a heat conductor (106, 206, 208) formed in a plate shape that contacts a surface of the fuel and transfers heat from the fuel ([0055]).
Lee (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIG. 2) is similarly directed towards a nuclear reactor comprising a fuel (100) comprising a nuclear fuel material (120) formed by sintering into a plate shape ([0001], [0023], [0025]). Lee teaches the fuel comprises a covering (110, 130) on an entire surface of the nuclear fuel material ([0023], [0025]), the covering formed of metal (e.g., zirconium alloy, aluminum alloy) ([0026]-[0027]). Lee further teaches this fuel provides the advantages of minimizing the release of fission products (p. 5: “the easy and secure compartmentation of uranium oxide can minimize the release of fission products even if nuclear fuel damage occurs, and nuclear fuel safety can be further enhanced by reducing peak fuel power”; see also Morris, [0059]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include the fuel as taught by Lee in Morris’s reactor for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Morris in order to enhance safety, as suggested by Lee, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 2, Morris in view of Lee teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses the heat conductor and the fuel are provided stacked on each other (FIG. 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Morris in view of Lee teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Lee teaches the nuclear fuel material is formed as a plurality of block-shaped nuclear fuel components and the plurality of block-shaped nuclear fuel components are arranged on a plane (FIGS. 2-3, [0023]-[0024]), and the covering covers a surface of the block-shaped nuclear fuel components (FIGS. 2-3, [0025]). Thus, Morris, modified to include a fuel part as taught by Lee, would have resulted in the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Morris in view of Lee teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses a shield (212), wherein the heat conductor passes through the shield and conducts heat of the fuel to an outside of the shield by solid heat conduction (FIG. 2, [0055]-[0056], [0058]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP 2159. See MPEP 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1). For a reply to a Non-Final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP 706.07(e), 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, as best understood by Examiner, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 21-22, and 24-26 of copending Application No. 17/424,543 (“reference application”). Claim 1 of the reference application recites a fuel part comprising a nuclear fuel formed into a plate shape (lines 2-3) and a covering part on an entire surface of the nuclear fuel (lines 4-7); and a heat conductive part formed in a plate shape that contacts the surface opposite the surface of the covering part in contact with the nuclear fuel, and transfers heat from the covering part (lines 8-12). Claim 1 of the reference application does not recite the covering part is formed of metal or a carbon compound. However, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use metal or a carbon compound for the material of the covering part 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. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-2, as best understood by Examiner, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/026,007 (“reference application”). Claim 1 of the reference application recites a fuel part comprising a nuclear fuel formed into a plate shape (lines 2-3) and a covering part on an entire surface of the nuclear fuel (lines 7-8); and a heat conductive part formed in a plate shape that contacts the surface opposite the surface of the covering part in contact with the nuclear fuel, and transfers heat from the covering part (lines 4-6, 9-11). Claim 1 of the reference application does not recite the covering part is formed of metal or a carbon compound. However, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use metal or a carbon compound for the material of the covering part 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. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but 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