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 and Claim Status
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 and B1 in the reply filed on 08/12/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “these species are obvious variants of each other” and “the pending set of claims is directed to only one invention which aims at improving heat removal from light water nuclear reactor.”
2. The traversal is persuasive and the election of species requirement is withdrawn. Pursuant to the office action dated 06/12/26, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species (see paragraph 8). It is noted that this admission will be applicable to continuing applications of the present application now that the election of species requirement has been withdrawn.
3. The examiner wishes to address Applicant’s statement that “the Species A3 cited by the requirement at paragraph [0089] appears to be erroneous. Indeed Claim 1 covers only PWE and BWR reactors, not the containment building that receives such reactors.” This is incorrect. In the claim set to which the election of species requirement was directed (that of 03/30/26), claim 1 was generic to Species A1, A2, and A3. Claims 2 and 3 were specific to species A1, claim 4 (now cancelled) was specific to species A2 and claim 5 is specific to species A3. Applicant should also refer to paragraph 3 of the office action dated 06/12/26, which makes it extremely clear that species A3 is recited separately in the claims.
4. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 19 are pending and examined herein.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, the “steam intake device” recited in claim 1 and the “liquid/liquid exchanger” recited in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig. 3 merely illustrates a closed loop connecting steam generator 2 of a nuclear reactor circuit to heat exchanger 4 in a closed loop. There is no illustration of a steam intake device nor of a liquid-liquid exchanger other than the steam generator itself.
Therefore, the “second pump connected to the second reservoir of water and to the organic Rankine cycle condenser”/”condenser connected to the second pump to feed the condenser with water” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig. 3 shows the pump 8 fluidly connected to the reservoir 7 but there is no further fluid connection between the pump 8 and the condenser 61. The pump is connected via a dotted line electrical connection to batteries 10.
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
6. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 19 objected to because of the following informalities: their preambles (the water nuclear reactor” are inconsistent with the preamble of claim 1 (a light water nuclear reactor”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
8. Regarding claims 1 and 3, the recitation “a steam intake device” is unclear. It is not illustrated in the drawings nor is it defined in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the scope of the structure encompassed by this claim term. The term is further unclear as recited in claim 3, because it is unclear how a “liquid/liquid” exchanger could be reasonably construed to be a “steam intake device.”
9. Further regarding claim 1 and additionally regarding claim 11, the claim first introduces “a second pump connected to the second reservoir of water and to the organic Rankine cycle condenser to feed the organic Rankine cycle condenser with water as a cold source of the organic Rankine cycle” and subsequently recites “a condenser connected to the second pump to the feed the condenser with water.” Consequently, it is unclear how many condensers are present in the system as claimed. As recited, the claim requires two different condensers separately connected to the second pump, however, the specification disclose only a single condenser 61 (see Fig. 1). Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite because it is inconsistent with the specification (MPEP 2173.03). Claim 11 is unclear because it is not known how the two separately recited condensers of claim 1 meet the additional limitation recited in claim 11. If indeed, there is only one condenser as disclosed in Fig. 3, then claim 1 should not introduce a second condenser but should merely recite the additional structure of “the cooling cycle” and its cooling circuit connecting to the previously introduced condenser. Such am amendment would require cancellation of claim 11.
10. Further regarding claim 1, the recitations “a cooling cycle” and “an air evaporator” are unclear in view of the specification. The claim recites that water from the second reservoir is “the cold source of the organic Rankine cycle,” so it us unclear what the “cooling cycle is cooling.” Further, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the cooling cycle fluidic circuit arrows indicate flow in the same direction through condenser 61 as the fluidic circuit of the ORC 6. Thus, it seems that the fluidic circuit is heated by and thus cooling the unillustrated fluid line from second reservoir 7 through condenser 61. The term air evaporator is unclear too. What is evaporating? Air is already a gas, so it cannot be evaporated. As shown in Fig. 3, it appears to be heating fluid of the cooling cycle after it exits condenser 61. But if the fluid in this circuit is in fact “a cooling cycle” then it has already been heated by a fluid in condenser 61 so, why is it heated more in the air evaporator?
The claim does not make sense in view of the technical aspects of heat exchange. If the “cooling cycle” is connected to the PRC cycle via condenser 61, it should be counter circulating, entering condenser 61 from the bottom, receiving heat from the ORC fluid, entering compressor 90 as a heated fluid, generating power, being cooled in the “air evaporator” and reentering the condenser 61 as a cooled fluid to again receive heat from the PRC circuit. Yet, the opposite is illustrated, leading one to question the meaning of the terms “cooling cycle” and “air evaporator.”
11. Finally regarding claim 1 and regarding claim 12, the recitation “a working fluid” is unclear because the claim appears to introduce two different working fluids; a first working fluid in the closed loop ORC fluidic circuit and a second fluid in the closed loop cooling cycle circuit. If it is the same working fluid that circulates through both “closed loops” then neither loop as recited is actually closed. If it is two different working fluids, then using the same term to refer to them is unclear and makes claim 12 non-sensical. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the claimed system appears to contain a first working fluid in the ORC circuit and a second working fluid in the cooling cycle circuit. Thus, it seems claim 12 is intended to recite that both the first and second working fluids are the same substance, i.e., that they are both the same organic fluid.
12. Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how the recitations of claim 2 further limit the recitations of claim 1. Is the cooling circuit recited in claim 2 the primary or secondary circuit of the reactor? Does claim 2 require that there be a water condenser, in addition to the “heat exchange device” of claim 1, submerged in the water reservoir or is claim 2 further limiting the previously recited “heat exchange device” to be a water condenser. If so, such a recitation is inconsistent with Fig. 3. It is further unclear how the “steam intake device” recited in claim 1, which connects to the primary or secondary circuit of the reactor. How does this relate structurally to the steam generator of claim 2, which also connects to the primary and secondary circuits of the reactor?
13. Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the steam intake device present in the primary circuit.” Claim 1 merely introduces “a steam intake device of a primary or secondary circuit.” Moreover, in a PWR, the primary circuit does not include steam, so it is unclear how a “liquid/liquid exchanger,” which also by definition does not include steam would be considered a “steam intake device.”
14. Regarding claim 5, it is unclear how the recitations of claim 5 further limit the recitations of claim 1. How can a “steam intake device” reasonably be considered to be “a system for depressurization of steam present in a containment vessel”? How can a “heat exchange device” reasonably be defined as “a direct intake of water from the first reservoir.” Finally, the final phrase of the claim is unclear because it is disconnected in logic from all the previous recitations of the claim. That is, the first two recitations of the claim appear to be attempting to further limit structure introduced in claim 1, but it is unclear how the structure recited in the “and a containment wall condenser…” pertains to the structure previously recited. Is it part of the steam intake device? The heat exchange device? Is it just further additional structure required that is not connected to anything previously recited?
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.
For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
15. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)1 in view of Singh et al., US 2012/0294737, in further view of Muldoon, US 2017/0306807.
16. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, AAPA discloses a light water nuclear reactor (LWR), comprising: a reactor core (1); and a system for evacuation of at least some of a decay heat from the reactor core, the system including: a first reservoir of water (5) arranged above the reactor core (see Fig. 2); a heat exchange device (4) submerged in the first reservoir of water so that the water contained in the first reservoir of water cools steam coming from a steam intake device (line 3) of a primary or secondary circuit of the reactor.
AAPA does not teach an organic Rankine cycle machine. Singh teaches an ORC (Fig. 1; [0023]) comprising:
an expander (130), a condenser (150), a first pump (190) and an evaporator (110) arranged in contact with a water reservoir so that the water reservoir constitutes a heat source of the ORC ([0024]); and
a fluidic circuit wherein a first working fluid flows in a closed loop, the fluidic circuit connecting the expander to the condenser, the condenser to the first pump, and the evaporator to the expander (see Fig. 1 and [0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the ORC taught by Singh with the decay heat removal system of AAPA because Singh states that its ORC “can be used to cool any body of liquid in need of cooling” ([0020]) and because it provides the predictable advantage of autonomous and self-powered cooling ([0006]).
Although Singh’s disclosed condenser (150) is air-cooled ([0041]), Singh states that it “can be any type of heat exchanger that can remove thermal energy from the…working fluid ([0041]). Muldoon teaches a system for improving the efficiency of a power plant (Abs.) including a Rankine cycle that is applicable to a nuclear heat source ([0005]), the system comprising (see Fig. 3) a reservoir of water (18) and a pump ([0035]) connected to the second reservoir of water and to an organic Rankine cycle condenser (12) to feed the organic Rankine cycle condenser with water as a cold source of the organic Rankine cycle ([0034]); and a cooling cycle including: a compressor (24); a condenser (12) connected to the second pump to feed the condenser with water (see Fig. 3); an expansion member (26); an air evaporator (22); and a fluidic circuit wherein a working fluid circulates in a closed loop, the fluidic circuit connecting the compressor to the condenser, the condenser to the expansion member, the expansion member to the air evaporator, and the air evaporator to the compressor (see Fig. 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the system taught by Muldoon to the system of Singh in combination with AAPA because Muldooon teaches that such a combination would predictably “increase the efficiency of a power plant” ([0003]).
17. Regarding claims 2 and 3, as best understood, the modification of AAPA as taught by Singh and Muldoon makes claim 1 obvious. AAPA further discloses a further comprising a cooling circuit including a steam generator and a water condenser submerged in the first reservoir of water and connected to the steam generator in a closed loop (see Fig. 2) and the steam intake device present in the primary circuit being a liquid/liquid exchanger (SG 2) and the heat exchange device being a water exchanger submerged in the first reservoir of water so that the water contained in the first reservoir of water cools the water of the primary circuit circulating in the liquid/liquid exchanger (see Fig. 2).
18. Regarding claim 5, the modification of AAPA as taught by Singh and Muldoon makes claim 1 obvious. Claims 2-3 are directed to elected species A1 (Fig. 3; [0077]) Claim 5 is directed to non-elected species A3 (Figs. 9 and 10 and [0089]). Applicant admitted in the arguments dated 06/12/26 that “these species are obvious variants of each other” and “the pending set of claims is directed to only one invention which aims at improving heat removal from light water nuclear reactor.” Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected as obvious over the modification of AAPA as taught by Singh and Muldoon as applied to claims 1-3, based on Applicant’s admission.
19. Regarding claims 7 and 8, the modification of AAPA as taught by Singh and Muldoon makes claim 1 obvious. Singh further teaches a system wherein the evaporator (110) is a tubular exchanger submerged in the first reservoir of water (see Fig. 1 and [0032-3]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the ORC taught by Singh with the decay heat removal system of AAPA for the reason stated above.
20. Regarding claim 11, the modification of AAPA as taught by Singh and Muldoon makes claim 1 obvious. Muldoon further teaches a system wherein the cooling cycle condenser is the organic Rankine cycle condenser (see Fig. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the system taught by Muldoon to the system of Singh in combination with AAPA for the reason stated above.
21. Regarding claim 12, the modification of AAPA as taught by Singh and Muldoon makes claim 1 obvious. Muldoon further teaches a system wherein the working fluid of the cooling cycle is the fluid of the organic Rankine cycle (see Muldoon at [0039] and Singh at [0025], where both disclose ammonia. ). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the system taught by Muldoon to the system of Singh in combination with AAPA for the reason stated above.
22. Regarding claim 19, the modification of AAPA as taught by Singh and Muldoon makes claim 1 obvious. Singh further teaches a system further comprising batteries (202; [0040]) for electrically starting the first pump, electric components of the organic Rankine cycle, electric components of the cooling cycle, and the second pump (the batteries of Singh are capable of this intended use).
23. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants Admitted Prior Art (AAPA)2 in view of Singh et al., US 2012/0294737, and Muldoon, US 2017/0306807, in further view of Gautier et al., US 6,269,873.
24. Regarding claim 9, the modification of AAPA as taught by Singh and Muldoon makes claim 1 obvious. Singh dies not disclose a plate immersed evaporator. Gautier teaches a nuclear reactor decay heat removal system having an immersed heat exchanger (12) and equates tube and plate heat exchangers for this use (see column 3, liens 46-52). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to substitute a plate heat exchanger for the tube heat exchanger of Singh in the system of AAPA.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Fig. 2 and [0012], [0033] of the instant PGPub 2023/0230711
2 Fig. 2 and [0012], [0033] of the instant PGPub 2023/0230711
Prosecution Insights