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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 16-30) and Species A2 (the light beam is bi-dimensional) and B1 (determining a position of a median transverse plane) in the reply filed on 10/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP 818.01(a).
Status of Claims
Claims 16-31 are pending in the application with claims 23, 27, and 31 withdrawn. Claims 16-22, 24-26, and 28-30 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16: “the measurement module” should be amended to recite “the measuring module”
Claim 18: “45°°” should be amended to recite “45°” (i.e., the duplicate “°” should be removed)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 16-22, 24-26, and 28-30 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 16 recites “determining at least one axial dimension at a predefined radial distance from the pellet axis”. It is unclear what feature the “at least one axial dimension” is a dimension of. For example, it is unclear if the claim is referring to an axial dimension of each fuel pellet, the shadow, or another feature.
This further renders unclear the relationship between the “at least one geometrical parameter of the shadow” in claim 17 and the “at least one axial dimension” recited in claim 16. As best understood by Examiner in view of the disclosure ([0055]-[0056]), an “axial dimension” is a “geometrical parameter”. In the event the “at least one axial dimension” in claim 16 is referring to an axial dimension of the shadow, it is unclear how claim 17 is intending to further limit the method of parent claim 16.
This further renders unclear the relationship between the “at least one axial distance between the transverse plane and a side of a contour of the shadow” in claim 25 and the “at least one axial dimension” recited in claim 16.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the measuring module is configured for analyzing the shadow generated by each fuel pellet with determining a position of a transverse plane of the fuel pellet and determining at least one axial distance between the transverse plane and a side of a contour of the shadow corresponding to an end face”. The use of the phrase “with” in the above phrase is unclear. For example, it is unclear if the “analyzing” step occurs at the same time as the “determining” steps, if the claim is intending to recite the “analyzing” step comprises the “determining” steps, or something else. It is further unclear if the “end face” is referring to one of the previously recited “two end faces” in parent claim 16 or another feature.
Claim 26 recites “determine a position of a median transverse plane of the fuel pellet and to determine a length of the shadow generated by each fuel pellet between the median plane and a side of a contour of the shadow for determining a corresponding length of the fuel pellet”. It is unclear the relationship between the features recited in claim 26 and the features recited in parent claim 25. For example, it is unclear if the “position of a median transverse plane of the fuel pellet” is referring to the same position and plane as the “position of a transverse plane of the fuel pellet” recited in parent claim 25. Similarly, it is unclear if the “length of the shadow generated by each fuel pellet” is referring to the same feature as the “at least one axial distance” previously recited in parent claim 25 and if the “side of a contour of the shadow” is referring to the same feature as the “side of a contour of the shadow” previously recited in parent claim 25.
Claim 29 recites “wherein the measuring module is configured for generating a 3D image file corresponding to the 3D map and coding a 3D image representing the end face and/or for generating a 2D image file coding a 2D image corresponding to the 3D map”. It is unclear what feature “cod[es] a 3D image”. It is further unclear if the “end face” is referring to the “at least one of the end faces” previously recited in parent claim 28 or another end face.
Claim 30 recites “detecting a surface loss of an end face of each fuel pellet and/or a protrusion on an end face of each fuel pellet and/or an end-capping between one of the end faces and the lateral face of each fuel pellet”. It is unclear the relationship between the “surface loss”, “protrusion”, and/or “end-capping” and the “possible defects” previously recited in parent claim 16.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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.
Claims 16-21, 24-25, and 28-30, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Automated In-Line Measurement of Nuclear Fuel Pellets” (“McLemore”).
Regarding claim 16, McLemore (newly cited) (see FIGS. 5-6) discloses an inspection system (“pellet gaging system”, “mechanized fuel pellet inspection system”) for inspecting a nuclear fuel pellet (“pellet”) that is rotationally symmetrical about a pellet axis and has a lateral face and two end faces or a plurality of such nuclear fuel pellets arranged in a column (p. 342: “The mechanical portion consists of a pellet handling system; inspection stations for measuring length, diameter, weight, and surface flaws”), the inspection system comprising:
a supporting device (“rollers”) for supporting the fuel pellet or fuel pellets such that the pellet axis of each fuel pellet coincides with a reference axis (p. 349: “The pellet is cradled upon precisely parallel cylindrical and horizontal rollers”); and
an optical measuring device (“laser optical system”) arranged for optically measuring the fuel pellet or fuel pellets (p. 342: “The length, diameter, and surface flaw inspections utilize laser optical systems with solid-state detection devices”), the optical measuring device comprising a light emitter (“laser”) configured for emitting a light beam (“laser beam”) propagating along an optical axis and a light detector (“photosensor array”) arranged for receiving the light beam, wherein each fuel pellet interrupts the light beam and generates a shadow projected on the light detector (p. 349: “The laser beam is expanded along one direction so as to form a rectangular beam of collimated light.... [T]he beam passes over the pellet ends and orthogonally intersects the extended pellet axis. The pellet’s shadow is then brought to focus upon a linear photosensor array”), the optical measuring device comprising a measuring module (“control system”, “minicomputer”) configured for analyzing the shadow for detecting possible defects on the end faces and/or the lateral face of each fuel pellet (p. 349: “The pellet length information is then evaluated to determine if the length is within the specified limits”; p. 355: “This area becomes equal to defect area when combined with the length measurement”; p. 356: “The control system is designed to monitor and control the pellet handling system, obtain data from each of the inspection stations, process all collected data, determine the pellet accept/reject disposition and format data to be transferred to the supervisory computer”; p. 359: “A dedicated minicomputer is used to process the collected data, make calculations and determine the inspection disposition of each pellet”);
the measurement module being configured to analyze the shadow generated by each pellet by determining at least one axial dimension (“length”) at a predefined radial distance from the pellet axis (p. 349: “The motor driven rollers continuously spin the pellet during the length inspection so that all possible shadows of the pellet length are sampled. This technique determines the mean length of the spinning pellet’s shadow.... As the pellet is rotated, its shadow, cast upon the linear photosensor array, will change according to the angularity of the ends”).
Regarding claim 17, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. McLemore discloses the measuring module is configured for measuring at least one geometrical parameter (“length”) of the shadow for detecting possible defects on the end faces and/or the lateral face of each fuel pellet (p. 349: “The motor driven rollers continuously spin the pellet during the length inspection so that all possible shadows of the pellet length are sampled. This technique determines the mean length of the spinning pellet’s shadow.... As the pellet is rotated, its shadow, cast upon the linear photosensor array, will change according to the angularity of the ends”, “The pellet length information is then evaluated to determine if the length is within the specified limits”; p. 355: “This area becomes equal to defect area when combined with the length measurement”).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. McLemore discloses the optical axis defines with a plane perpendicular to the reference axis an angle that is comprised between 0° and 25° (FIGS. 5-6).
Regarding claim 20, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. McLemore discloses the supporting device is configured for rotating each fuel pellet about its pellet axis (p. 349: “The motor driven rollers continuously spin the pellet during the length inspection so that all possible shadows of the pellet length are sampled”).
Regarding claim 21, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 20. McLemore discloses the measuring device is configured for analyzing the shadow during at least one full rotation of each fuel pellet to analyze an entire circumference of each end face and/or an entire circumference of the lateral face of each fuel pellet (p. 349: “The motor driven rollers continuously spin the pellet during the length inspection so that all possible shadows of the pellet length are sampled”).
Regarding claim 24, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. McLemore discloses the light beam is bi-dimensional and the shadow generated by each fuel pellet is bi-dimensional (FIGS. 5-6, p. 349: “The laser beam is expanded along one direction so as to form a rectangular beam of collimated light”).
Regarding claim 25, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. McLemore discloses the measuring module is configured for analyzing the shadow generated by each fuel pellet with determining a position of a transverse plane of the fuel pellet and determining at least one axial distance between the transverse plane and a side of a contour of the shadow corresponding to an end face (FIG. 6, p. 342: “The mechanical portion consists of a pellet handling system; inspection stations for measuring length, diameter, weight, and surface flaws”; p. 345: “The length of the fuel pellets measured at the length station is defined as the distance along the pellet axis between planes held flush with the ends”; p. 349: “As the pellet is rotated, its shadow, cast upon the linear photosensor array, will change according to the angularity of the ends.... The light-dark boundary resembles a rectified sinusoid. This occurs because the greatest extensions of the pellet’s length block the beam twice per revolution. The mean length of the pellet is then taken as the length detected between line segments k and l”).
Regarding claim 28, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. McLemore discloses the measuring module is configured for determining a 3D map of at least a portion of at least one of the end faces of each fuel pellet from the analysis of the shadow generated by the fuel pellet or fuel pellets (p. 355: “Given sufficient information to determine beam position and the light level of the reflected beam, one can construct a surface map of a pellet in the memory of a digital data processor. Decisions to accept or reject pellets are based on a combination of flaw area, flaw perimeter and flaw location”, “Total ‘dark’ area can be accumulated in a counter as the data are loaded in real time. This area becomes equal to defect area when combined with the length measurement”).
Regarding claim 29, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 28. McLemore discloses the measuring module is configured for generating a 3D image file corresponding to the 3D map and coding a 3D image representing the end face and/or for generating a 2D image file coding a 2D image corresponding to the 3D map (FIG. 9, p. 355: “Given sufficient information to determine beam position and the light level of the reflected beam, one can construct a surface map of a pellet in the memory of a digital data processor”, “Detection of individual surface features requires a scan of the stored image and an accumulation of related properties”).
Regarding claim 30, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. McLemore discloses the measuring module is configured for detecting a surface loss of an end face of each fuel pellet and/or a protrusion on an end face of each fuel pellet and/or an end-capping between one of the end faces and the lateral face of each fuel pellet (FIG. 9, p. 353: “The system will detect chips and cracks”; p. 355: “This area becomes equal to defect area when combined with the length measurement”, “The scan begins with a test for end chips”; p. 356: “The control system is designed to monitor and control the pellet handling system, obtain data from each of the inspection stations, process all collected data, determine the pellet accept/reject disposition and format data to be transferred to the supervisory computer”; p. 359: “A dedicated minicomputer is used to process the collected data, make calculations and determine the inspection disposition of each pellet”).
Claims 16-22, 24-25, 28, and 30, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,532,723 (“Kellie”).
Regarding claim 16, Kellie (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 10-12) discloses an inspection system for inspecting a nuclear fuel pellet (53, 54, 55, 57) that is rotationally symmetrical about a pellet axis and has a lateral face and two end faces or a plurality of such nuclear fuel pellets arranged in a column (51) (6:1-4), the inspection system comprising:
a supporting device (56, 59) for supporting the fuel pellet or fuel pellets such that the pellet axis of each fuel pellet coincides with a reference axis (1:6-7); and
an optical measuring device arranged for optically measuring the fuel pellet or fuel pellets (1:4-11, 8:27-33), the optical measuring device comprising a light emitter (130) configured for emitting a light beam (131) propagating along an optical axis and a light detector (174) arranged for receiving the light beam (8:31-33, 9:4-5), wherein each fuel pellet interrupts the light beam and generates a shadow (180) projected on the light detector (8:52-54, 9:15-18, 9:59-61), the optical measuring device comprising a measuring module (“data processing circuitry”) configured for analyzing the shadow for detecting possible defects on the end faces and/or the lateral face of each fuel pellet (9:15-27, 9:66-68);
the measurement module being configured to analyze the shadow generated by each pellet by determining at least one axial dimension (“pellet length”) at a predefined radial distance from the pellet axis (10:6-19).
Regarding claim 17, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. Kellie discloses the measuring module is configured for measuring at least one geometrical parameter (“pellet diameter”, “pellet length”) of the shadow for detecting possible defects on the end faces and/or the lateral face of each fuel pellet (9:13-27, 10:6-19).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. Kellie discloses the optical axis defines with a plane perpendicular to the reference axis an angle that is comprised between 0° and 25° (FIGS. 10-11).
Regarding claim 20, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. Kellie discloses the supporting device is configured for rotating each fuel pellet about its pellet axis (FIG. 11, 6:10-13, 9:21-27).
Regarding claim 21, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 20. Kellie discloses the measuring device is configured for analyzing the shadow during at least one full rotation of each fuel pellet to analyze an entire circumference of each end face and/or an entire circumference of the lateral face of each fuel pellet (FIG. 11, 6:10-13, 9:21-27, 9:66-68).
Regarding claim 22, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. Kellie discloses the inspection system is configured for conveying the fuel pellet or fuel pellets axially along the reference axis (6:8-13).
Regarding claim 24, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. Kellie discloses the light beam is bi-dimensional and the shadow generated by each fuel pellet is bi-dimensional (FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 25, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. Kellie discloses the measuring module is configured for analyzing the shadow generated by each fuel pellet with determining a position of a transverse plane of the fuel pellet and determining at least one axial distance between the transverse plane and a side of a contour of the shadow corresponding to an end face (10:6-19).
Regarding claim 28, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. Kellie discloses the measuring module is configured for determining a 3D map of at least a portion of at least one of the end faces of each fuel pellet from the analysis of the shadow generated by the fuel pellet or fuel pellets (8:14-26).
Regarding claim 30, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 16. Kellie discloses the measuring module is configured for detecting a surface loss of an end face of each fuel pellet and/or a protrusion on an end face of each fuel pellet and/or an end-capping between one of the end faces and the lateral face of each fuel pellet (9:21-27, 10:6-19).
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.
Claim 26, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLemore in view of US Patent No. 5,007,739 (“Shimano”).
Regarding claim 26, McLemore discloses the inspection system according to claim 25. As discussed above, McLemore discloses the measuring module is configured to determine a position of a transverse plane of the fuel pellet and to determine a length of the shadow generated by each fuel pellet between the transverse plane and a side contour of the shadow for determining a corresponding length of the fuel pellet (FIG. 6, p. 342: “The mechanical portion consists of a pellet handling system; inspection stations for measuring length, diameter, weight, and surface flaws”; p. 345: “The length of the fuel pellets measured at the length station is defined as the distance along the pellet axis between planes held flush with the ends”; p. 349: “As the pellet is rotated, its shadow, cast upon the linear photosensor array, will change according to the angularity of the ends.... The light-dark boundary resembles a rectified sinusoid. This occurs because the greatest extensions of the pellet’s length block the beam twice per revolution. The mean length of the pellet is then taken as the length detected between line segments k and l”). However, McLemore does not appear to disclose the transverse plane is a median transverse plane.
Shimano (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1, 4) is similarly directed towards an optical inspection system for inspecting an object (12), the system comprising a light emitter (13, 14) for emitting a light beam which is received by a light detector (18, 19) (2:66-3:10), wherein the object interrupts the light beam and generates a shadow projected on the light detector (2:66-3:10, 3:35-50) and the system is configured to determine a length of the object based on a position of a transverse plane (“CL”) of the object (1:5-7, 5:61-6:2). Shimano teaches the transverse plane may be a median transverse plane of the object and the system is configured to determine a length of the shadow generated by the object between the median transverse plane and a side of a contour of the shadow to determine a corresponding length of the object (5:64-6:2, 6:10-64). Shimano further teaches using the median transverse plane allows for accurately determining the length of the object even if the object is at an angle (2:11-19). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to use the position of the median transverse plane to determine the length of McLemore’s fuel pellet for the predictable benefit of accurately measuring the length of the fuel pellets which are at an angle, as taught by Shimano.
Claim 26, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellie in view of Shimano.
Regarding claim 26, Kellie discloses the inspection system according to claim 25. As discussed above, Kellie discloses the measuring module is configured to determine a position of a transverse plane of the fuel pellet and to determine a length of the shadow generated by each fuel pellet between the transverse plane and a side contour of the shadow for determining a corresponding length of the fuel pellet (10:6-19). However, Kellie does not appear to disclose the transverse plane is a median transverse plane.
Shimano (see FIGS. 1, 4) is similarly directed towards an optical inspection system for inspecting an object (12), the system comprising a light emitter (13, 14) for emitting a light beam which is received by a light detector (18, 19) (2:66-3:10), wherein the object interrupts the light beam and generates a shadow projected on the light detector (2:66-3:10, 3:35-50) and the system is configured to determine a length of the object based on a position of a transverse plane (“CL”) of the object (1:5-7, 5:61-6:2). Shimano teaches the transverse plane may be a median transverse plane of the object and the system is configured to determine a length of the shadow generated by the object between the median transverse plane and a side of a contour of the shadow to determine a corresponding length of the object (5:64-6:2, 6:10-64). Shimano further teaches using the median transverse plane allows for accurately determining the length of the object even if the object is at an angle (2:11-19). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use the position of the median transverse plane to determine the length of Kellie’s fuel pellet for the predictable benefit of accurately measuring the length of the fuel pellets which are at an angle, as taught by Shimano.
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).
Application Status Information
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
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