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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 3/16/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed on 3/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5, 6, 14 and 15 under 103 over Lebedev in view of Hunt have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Official Notice
In the first Office action on the merits, the Examiner took Official Notice regarding the limitations claimed in claims 9 and 18. In his subsequent reply to this Office action, the Applicant did not traverse Examiner's assertion of Official Notice with regard to these elements. Therefore, the Official Notice statements by the Examiner regarding these elements are now taken as admitted prior art by the Applicant. See MPEP § 2144.03 (C).
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 (or as subject to pre-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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RU 2148219 to Lebedev et al. (Lebedev).
In reference to claim 1, Lebedev teaches a method of cooling a component in a 100-megawatt thermal or greater commercial power plant (par 0001 and 0005), the method comprising connecting a thermoelectric cooler (6, FIG. 1-7) to the component (8, 15 and 17, FIG. 1-7) in the power plant (par 0001), wherein the connecting places a first side of the thermoelectric cooler in thermal communication with the component (the cold side of 6; par 0005, 0009 and 0010) and a second side of the thermoelectric cooler in thermal communication with a heat sink (5, FIG. 1-7) for the power plant; and connecting the thermoelectric cooler (6, FIG. 1-7) to an electrical power source (inherent in the structure of Peltier device 6, FIG. 1-7).
In reference to claim 2, Lebedev teaches the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lebedev additionally teaches applying a voltage to cells of the thermoelectric cooler to cool the first side and heat the second side (inherent in the structure of Peltier device 6 in FIG. 1-7).
In reference to claim 3, Lebedev teaches the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lebedev additionally teaches wherein the component (8, FIG. 1-7) is a coolant structural component for the plant (cooling block; par 0009).
In reference to claim 4, Lebedev teaches the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lebedev additionally teaches wherein the plant is a nuclear power plant (par 0001 and 0005), and wherein the thermoelectric cooler uses only radiation-resilient materials (inherent in the structure of Peltier device used in a nuclear power plant and depicted in FIG. 1-7).
In reference to claim 10, Lebedev teaches the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and also implicitly teaches wherein the power source is at least one of an electrical supply for the plant (inherent in the structure of thermoelectric cooler described in FIG. 1-7; as a part of the electrical circuit 12).
In reference to claims 11-12, they claim the same limitations as claimed in claims 1 and 3; thus, said claims 11-12 are rejected in the same manner, as described in detail above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebedev in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0006052 to Hunt et al. (Hunt).
In reference to claim 8, Lebedev teaches the method as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above, but does not teach wherein the heat sink is environment surrounding the nuclear power plant. Hunt teaches isolation condenser systems for very simplified boiling water reactors (FIG. 2-4) wherein the heat sink is environment surrounding the nuclear power plant (natural circulation as a part of the passive safety feature for emergency heat removal; par 0024 and FIG. 2) in order to decrease loss of coolant probability, enable responsive and flexible power generation, reduce plant footprint and above-ground strike target, and simplify nuclear plant construction and operation (par 0024, first sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lebedev, to have the heat sink as environment surrounding the nuclear power plant, as taught by Hunt, in order to decrease loss of coolant probability, enable responsive and flexible power generation, reduce plant footprint and above-ground strike target, and simplify nuclear plant construction and operation.
In reference to claims 13 and 17, they claim the limitations as claimed in claims 4 and 8 above; thus, said claims 13 and 17 are rejected in the similar manner, as described in detail above.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebedev in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
In reference to claim 9, Lebedev teaches the method as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not teach wherein the thermoelectric cooler operates on 1-10 amps and less than 200 watts electric power.
However, as noted above in addressing the applicants’ arguments, the well-known nature of the use of various thermoelectric device operating on 1-10 amps and less than 200 watts electric power is taken to be admitted prior art, and thus its use in fabricating the system of Lebedev would have been obvious in order to provide a thermoelectric cooler for a specific requirement, in this case a gas coolant for a nuclear power plant.
In reference to claim 18, they claim the same limitations as claimed in claim 9; thus, said claim 18 is rejected in the same manner, as described in detail above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 5-7, 14-16 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights