DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 27 January 2026. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 9-10 and 12-20 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-8 and 11 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-8 and 11 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “comprised of” (thrice) is unclear and confusing. It is unclear whether the phrase means “consisting of”, “comprising”, or something else.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is directed to the apparatus structure of a “cladding”. The cladding is structurally capable of housing nuclear fuel. However, nuclear fuel is not positively recited. That is, the mentioned nuclear fuel is outside the scope of the recited cladding. As a result, the added description of the nuclear fuel in the claim does not further limit the structure of the cladding. Hence, the previous prior art rejections remain.
Even if the claim was amended to positively recite the nuclear fuel, other factors would need to be considered. As best understood, the mentioned fuel cycle length and burnup rate would appear to depend on factors not mentioned, such as cladding dimensions, different enrichments of other fuel rods, reactor down time (delayed neutron emissions), etc. Also, 235U enrichment less than 5% is conventional in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lahoda (US 2018/0254114).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 27 October 2025 are herein incorporated by reference.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lahoda (WO 2021/216875 A1).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 27 October 2025 are herein incorporated by reference.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bischoff (US 2025/0349444).
Claims 1-2
Bischoff teaches the recited cladding. A base layer (14) comprises zirconium alloy [0051], with a wall thickness of less than 1 millimeter [0073]. A primary coating layer (18) comprises chromium or a chromium alloy [0059-0060], and has a thickness in the range of about 5 to 50 microns [0075].
Claims 4 and 6
Bischoff also teaches base layer (14), an interlayer (18), and a primary layer (20).
Claims 7 and 11
Bischoff also teaches a base layer (14), a primary layer (18), and a top layer (20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahoda (US 2018/0254114) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Le Flem (US 2015/0050521).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 27 October 2025 are herein incorporated by reference.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because it is directed to nuclear fuel features that are not part of the recited invention. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, they are mostly directed to features that are not positively recited.
The Amended Title
The submitted Title has been accepted as: “Fuel Rod Cladding Comprising A Base Layer, An Interlayer, A Chromium-Containing Primary Layer, And A Top Layer”. Clarification is requested.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing 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 and/or the specification.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646