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
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 RCE submission filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 05/11/2026. 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 Claims 1-7 are pending in the application with claims 4-5 and 7 withdrawn.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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because “of each the heat conductive layers” should be amended to recite “of each of the heat conductive layers”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 “each of the fuel layers comprising a nuclear fuel configured as a plate shape” and “a covering part provided around an entire surface of the nuclear fuel with an inner surface of the covering part contacting the plate shape surface of the nuclear fuel”. It is unclear what the “covering part” is a “part” (e.g., a portion or a feature) of. It is unclear what distinguishes a “covering part” from a “covering” or a “cover”. Additionally, the claim recites each of the “fuel layers” comprises the “nuclear fuel”. Thus, the claimed “nuclear reactor” would appear to have multiple “nuclear fuel[s]”. It is therefore unclear which “nuclear fuel” the phrase “a covering part provided around an entire surface of the nuclear fuel” is intending to refer to in the claim. For example, does the “nuclear reactor” comprise a plurality of “covering part[s]”, with each “covering part” provided around an entire surface of a respective “nuclear fuel”? Alternatively, does the “nuclear reactor” comprise a single “covering part”, with the “covering part” provided around an entire surface of all of the “nuclear fuel[s]”? Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the plate shape surface” in the claim. It is unclear the relationship between the “entire surface of the nuclear fuel” and the “plate shape surface of the nuclear fuel”.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the covering part is formed of metal or a carbon compound and holds fission products discharged by a fission of the nuclear fuel so as to prevent their discharge”. The claim would therefore appear to require that the fission products be “discharged” in order for the “covering part” to “hold[]” the fission products. However, the claim later recites “prevent[ing] their discharge”. As best understood by Examiner, the phrase “their” would appear to be referring to the fission products. It is therefore unclear how the fission products can both be “discharged” and “prevent[ed from] discharg[ing]”.
Claim 2 recites “wherein in a direction perpendicular to the plate shape surface of each the heat conductive layers, the plurality of heat conductive layers and the plurality of fuel layers are provided alternating stacked on each other facing the covering part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the plate shape surface of each the heat conductive layers”. Additionally, the phrase “provided alternating stacked on each other facing the covering part” is unclear. For example, it is unclear what is “stacked on each other” (e.g., one of the heat conductive layers is stacked on one of the fuel layers, one of the heat conductive layers is stacked on another one of the heat conductive layers and one of the fuel layers is stacked on another one of the fuel layers, or something else) and what it means for a feature to be “facing the covering part”.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the nuclear fuel is formed as a plurality of block-shaped nuclear fuel components and the block-shaped nuclear fuel components are arranged on a plane, the plane becomes a plate shape surface of the nuclear fuel, and the covering part covers a surface of the block-shaped nuclear fuel components arranged on a plane put together”. It is unclear the relationship between the “plate shape surface of the nuclear fuel”, “a surface of the block-shaped nuclear fuel components”, “entire surface of the nuclear fuel” (previously recited in parent claim 1), and “the plate shape surface of the nuclear fuel” (previously recited in parent claim 1). It is further unclear how a “plane” can “become[]” a “surface”. It is further unclear the relationship between the “plane[s]” recited in the claim. This further renders unclear the relationship between the “covering part” and the “nuclear fuel” and “block-shaped nuclear fuel components”.
Claim 6 recites “a shielding part that encloses the plurality of fuel layers and establishes an interior by sealing off the nuclear fuel layers”. It is unclear the scope of the structure associated with the “shielding part”. While one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure associated with a “shield”, the addition of the term “part” renders the scope of the structure unclear. For example, it is unclear if the “shielding part” is intending to refer to a “shield” and additional structures, to only a shield, to only a portion of a shield, etc. It is further unclear what the “interior” is an “interior” (e.g., inside) of. It is further unclear if the “nuclear fuel layers” is intending to refer to the previously recited “nuclear fuel”, “plurality of fuel layers”, or something else.
Claim 6 recites “the heat conductive part passes through the shielding part and conducts heat of the fuel part to the outside of the shielding part by solid heat conduction”. It is unclear if the “heat conductive part” is intending to refer to the previously recited “plurality of heat conductive layers”, one or a portion of the previously recited “plurality of heat conductive layers”, or something else. Similarly, it is unclear if the “fuel part” is intending to refer to the previously recited “plurality of fuel layers”, one or a portion of the previously recited “plurality of fuel layers”, “nuclear fuel”, or something else. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the outside of the shielding part” 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 plurality of fuel layers (210), each of the fuel layers comprising a nuclear fuel configured as a plate shape ([0055]);
a cover (212) provided around an entire surface (e.g., an entire outer circumferential surface and/or a top-most surface and/or a bottom-most surface) of the nuclear fuel with an inner surface of the cover contacting the surface of the nuclear fuel ([0057]); and
a plurality of heat conductive layers (106, 206, 208), each of the heat conductive layers configured as a plate shape that contacts an outer surface of the cover, and transfers heat from the cover ([0055]-[0056]), wherein
the cover is formed of metal (e.g., steel) and contains fission products ([0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Morris discloses the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses the plurality of heat conductive layers and the plurality of fuel layers are provided alternatingly stacked on each other in a direction perpendicular to a surface of each of the heat conductive layers (FIG. 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Morris discloses the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Morris discloses the nuclear fuel is formed as a plurality of block-shaped nuclear fuel components arranged on a plane, and the cover covers a surface of the block-shaped nuclear fuel components (FIGS. 2-3, [0055]-[0057]).
Claims 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2019/0096536 (“Arafat”).
Regarding claim 1, Arafat (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1, 3-4, 6-7) discloses a nuclear reactor (10) comprising:
a plurality of fuel layers (26), each of the fuel layers comprising a nuclear fuel (26) configured as a plate shape ([0023]); and
a cover (e.g., elements 16 forming element 20) provided around an entire surface (e.g., an outer surface) of the nuclear fuel with an inner surface of the cover contacting the surface of the nuclear fuel ([0021]-[0022]);
a plurality of heat conductive layers (22), each of the heat conductive layers configured as a plate shape that contacts an outer surface of the cover, and transfers heat from the cover ([0024]),
wherein the cover is formed of metal and contains fission products ([0021], [0023], [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Arafat discloses the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Arafat discloses the plurality of heat conductive layers and the plurality of fuel layers are provided alternatingly stacked on each other in a direction perpendicular to a surface of each of the heat conductive layers (FIGS. 6-7, [0021], [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Arafat discloses the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Arafat discloses the nuclear fuel is formed as a plurality of block-shaped nuclear fuel components arranged on a plane, and the cover covers a surface of the block-shaped nuclear fuel components (FIGS. 3, 6, [0023]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 plurality of fuel layers (210), each of the fuel layers comprising a nuclear fuel configured as a plate shape ([0055]); and
a plurality of heat conductive layers (106, 206, 208), each of the heat conductive layers configured as a plate shape that contacts an outer surface of the nuclear fuel, and transfers heat from the fuel ([0055]-[0056]).
Lee (previously cited) (see FIGS. 2-3) is similarly directed towards a nuclear reactor comprising a fuel layer (100) comprising a nuclear fuel (120) configured as a plate shape ([0001], [0023], [0025]). Lee teaches a cover (110, 130) is provided around an entire surface (e.g., outer surfaces) of the nuclear fuel with an inner surface of the cover contacting the surface of the nuclear fuel ([0023], [0025]), wherein the cover is formed of metal (e.g., zirconium alloy, aluminum alloy) and contains fission products ([0019], [0026]-[0027]). Lee further teaches this fuel layer configuration 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 layer configuration (including the cover) 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 plurality of heat conductive layers and the plurality of fuel layers are provided alternatingly stacked on each other in a direction perpendicular to a surface of each of the heat conductive layers (FIG. 2, [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Morris in view of Lee teaches the nuclear reactor according to claim 1. Lee teaches the nuclear fuel 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 cover covers a surface of the block-shaped nuclear fuel components (FIGS. 2-3, [0025]). Thus, Morris, modified to include a fuel layer configuration 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) that encloses the plurality of fuel layers and establishes an interior by sealing off the nuclear fuel layers ([0057]), 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 plurality of fuel layers (“fuel units”) each comprising a nuclear fuel (“nuclear fuel”) formed into a plate (“disk”) shape (lines 2-3, 18-19), a covering part (“shield units”) provided around an entire surface of the nuclear fuel (lines 4-7); and a plurality of heat conductive layers (“heat conductors”) each formed in a plate shape that contacts an outer surface of the covering part in contact 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.
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 argues Morris does not disclose the covering (212) is “provided around an entire surface of the nuclear fuel” as currently required by claim 1 (Remarks, p. 5). However, as discussed above, Morris’s feature (212) covers at least an entirety of the outer circumferential surface of all of the nuclear fuel materials (210) (FIG. 3), an entirety of a top surface of at least one of the nuclear fuel materials (e.g., the top nuclear fuel material) (210) (FIG. 2), and an entirety of bottom surface of at least one of the nuclear fuel materials (e.g., the bottom nuclear fuel material) (210) (FIG. 2). Thus, Morris discloses the feature of “a covering part provided around an entire surface of the nuclear fuel” as recited in claim 1.
Applicant further argues Morris does not disclose “a plurality of heat conductive layers, each of the heat conductive layers configured as a plate shape that contacts an outer surface of the covering part, and transfers heat from the covering part” as currently required by claim 1 (Remarks, p. 6). Morris discloses multiple (i.e., “a plurality) of “heat conductive layers” (106, 206, 208) each of which has a plate shape (FIG. 2). Each of Morris’s (106, 206, 208) further contacts an outer surface (e.g., an outer circumferential surface) of Morris’s (212) (FIG. 3). Thus, Morris discloses the feature of “a plurality of heat conductive layers, each of the heat conductive layers configured as a plate shape that contacts an outer surface of the covering part, and transfers heat from the covering part” as recited in claim 1.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
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) 270-5217, 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
Prosecution Insights