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 .
Status of Claims
Amended claims 1-16 and new claims 17-18 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejections to claims 1, 3-14, and 16, which are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the 112(b) rejection to claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below. The applicant argues that the combination of AAPA, Fribourg and Xie fail to describe all the features recited in amended independent claim 1:
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Additionally, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Fribourg, the proposed combination with AAPA places Fribourg’s heat exchanger 240 in AAPA reservoir 5. In Fribourg alone, the heat exchanger 240 receives heat from the secondary fluid leaving heat exchanger 105. But in the combination with AAPA, this evaporator will receive the heat released from heat exchanger 4 into the reservoir of water 5. Therefore, the relative position of Fribourg’s reservoir and the presence of a thermal shield arounf the heat exchanger 240 are not relevant to the proposed combination. Fribourg is applied to AAPA to teach a means for recovering the nuclear reactor decay heat released to reservoir 5. The proposed rejection does not bodily incorporate all of Fribourg’s Fig. 3 into AAPA.
The evaporator of Xie in the proposed combination is Fribourg’s evaporator in the pool of AAPA. Xie is applied to provide an ORC to recover the heat from Fribourg’s heat exchanger 240 in the reservoir 5 of AAPA. Xie was not applied to teach an evaporator in thermal contact with a reservoir of water because such structure is obvious over AAPA in view of Fribourg, so the argument that Xie individually fails to teach a claim element is not persuasive.
Accordingly, the prior art rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 failed to resolve the indefiniteness of the descriptions, "an injector arranged in a lower part of the system" and "second pump arranged in a higher part of the system" are indefinite and do not define the limitations of the claim. It is unclear what arrangement the injector would need to possess to meet (or not meet) the scope of the claim. The rejection is maintained because the amended claim language does not distinctly clearly articulate the boundaries of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Fribourg (Publication US 20150016581 A1), and in further view in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B).
Regarding Claim 1, AAPA (see Fig. 2 and [0012], [0033] of the published application) discloses a light water nuclear reactor ([0033] “pressurized water reactor”)), comprising: a reactor core (1); a system for evacuation of at least some of the 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 the steam intake device of a primary or secondary circuit of the reactor.
AAPA does not disclose an evaporator arranged in contact with the first reservoir of water. Fribourg does. Fribourg [Fig. 3] teaches a system for evacuation of at least some of the decay heat ([0001]) from a reactor core (115), comprising a reservoir of water arranged above [0104] the reactor core (102/103) and an evaporator (240) in contact with the reservoir (102). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to combine Fribourg’s evaporator with the system of AAPA for the predictable advantage of dissipating residual power from the reactor [0046-48]).
Fribourg is silent as to the structure of the heat exchange loop connected to its evaporator.
Xie teaches a system for evacuation of at least some of the decay heat ([0001-5]) from a reactor core (6), comprising an organic Rankine cycle machine (see Fig. 1) including an expander (13), a condenser (15), a first pump (10), an evaporator (organic steam generator (8)) in contact with source of heat (4) that constitutes the hot source of the organic Rankine cycle [n0016], and a fluidic circuit wherein a working fluid [0012] circulates in a closed loop, the fluidic circuit connecting the expander to the condenser, the condenser to the first pump, the first pump to the evaporator (organic steam generator), and the evaporator (organic steam generator) to the expander [n0012-n0016]; a second reservoir of water (1), and a second pump (2) to feed the ORC condenser (15) with water as the cold source of the organic Rankine cycle. (Figure 1, [n0015] and [n0023]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to modify the system of AAPA and Fribourg with the ORC arrangement taught by Xie, because Xie teaches that the ORC circulation loop uses reactor waste heat to power the cooling water pump and converts excess energy into electrical energy to provide auxiliary power for the power equipment dispersed in the safety system, thereby providing an additional guarantee for nuclear safety. [n0004].
Regarding Claim 2, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. AAPA further discloses a cooling circuit including a steam generator (2) and a water condenser (4) submerged in the first reservoir of water (5) and connected to the steam generator in a closed loop (see Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 3, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. AAPA further discloses a reactor wherein the steam intake device present in the primary circuit is a liquid/liquid exchanger (2) and the heat exchange device (4) is 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 and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 6, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Xie further teaches a second reservoir of water (1) arranged in the ground (see Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to modify the system of AAPA and Fribourg with the ORC arrangement taught by Xie for the reasons stated above.
Regarding Claim 7, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Fribourg further teaches the evaporator (240) being submerged in or located remotely from the pool (102). ([Fig. 3, [0070]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to combine Fribourg’s evaporator with the system of AAPA for the reasons stated above.
Regarding Claim 8, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Fribourg further teaches the submerged evaporator (heat exchanger) being a tubular exchanger. [00106]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to combine Fribourg’s evaporator with the system of AAPA for the reasons stated above.
Regarding Claim 9, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Fribourg further teaches the submerged evaporator (heat exchanger) is tubular ([00106]). Singh teaches that a submerged heat exchanger could be “any type” including both tubular and plate([0041]).
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to modify the heat exchanger of Fribourg with the plate exchanger taught by Singh because Singh teaches that such heat exchangers are functionally equivalent. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) and MPEP §2144.06.
Regarding Claim 11, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Xie discloses the cooling cycle condenser (15) being the organic Rankine cycle condenser. [Paragraph n0010-n0011].
Regarding Claim 12, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Xie discloses the working fluid of the cooling cycle being that of the organic Rankine cycle. [Paragraph n0079]
Claims 4-5, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Fribourg (Publication US 20150016581 A1) and Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B), further in view of “Passive Safety Systems and Natural Circulation in Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants,” IAEA-TECDOC-1624, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as IAEA-TECDOC-1624).
Regarding Claim 4, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. AAPA discloses a cooling circuit including: a water condenser (4) submerged in the first reservoir (5) of water and connected to the steam intake in a closed loop. AAPA does not disclose an intake of primary steam on a line feeding a turbine of the reactor. IAEA-TECDOC-1624 teaches this.
IAEA-TECDOC-1624 teaches a boiling water reactor (LSBWR)(pg. 68; Section VII-1) with an intake of primary steam on a line feeding a turbine of the reactor (Fig. VII-4. LSVWR Safety system concept). One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to apply the LSBWR steam line feeding the turbine of the LSBWR to the cooling system of AAPA to, for the purpose of transporting steam generated in the reactor to the turbine (pg. 90).
Regarding Claim 5, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious.
APPA does not teach a steam intake device is a system for depressurization of the steam present in the containment vessel of the reactor and the heat exchange device comprises a water exchanger submerged in the first reservoir or a direct intake of water from the first reservoir of water and a containment wall condenser in direct contact with the steam present in the containment vessel of the reactor.
IAEA-TECDOC-1624, Figure 12, “Containment pressure reduction and heat removal following a LOCA using an external steam condenser heat exchanger” along with
IAEA-TECDOC-1624, Figure 13, “Containment pressure reduction and heat removal following a LOCA using a passive containment spray and natural draft air” does.
IAEA-TEACDOC-1624, Figure 12, “Containment pressure reduction and heat removal following a LOCA using an external steam condenser heat exchanger” shows a steam intake device present in the containment vessel of the reactor and the exchange device (e.g., condenser) submerged in the reservoir of water.
IAEA-TECDOC-1624, Figure 13, “Containment pressure reduction and heat removal following a LOCA using a passive containment spray and natural draft air,” provides a diagram of a design that implements a natural draft air-cooled containment where steam, in contact with the inside surface of the steel containment, is condensed and containment pressure is reduced. (Fig. 13, “Section 3.3, “Passive containment spray systems”, Page 10).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the invention/effective filing date would be motivated to modify the light water reactor cooling design described by Fribourg with the containment pressure reduction systems as described by IAEA-TECDOC-1624 Figures 12 and13 for the purpose of achieving chimney-like natural draft air cooled containment as part of the safety systems for removing decay heat from the core of a reactor and depressurization of the steam present in the containment enclosure (“Section 3.3, “Passive containment spray systems”, Page 10).
Regarding Claim 14, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. While Xie teaches an Organic Rankine cycle (machine), Xie does not teach the organic Rankine cycle machine is arranged below the first reservoir of water. Fribourg states [paragraph 0104], “the water reserve is shown on the side of containment, but obviously it may be placed all around or above the containment.” Furthermore, IAEA-TECDOC-1624, Section V-2.7, “Containment and passive containment cooling system (PCCS)” discloses, a PCCS Gravity Drain Water Tank that is elevated above the cooling cycle such that, “in a LOCA, cold water is sprayed by gravity draining onto the containment vessel head to enhance containment cooling. A large tank of water, located at the top of the containment structure, serves as the source of water for this operation.” (Figure V-6, “Containment and passive containment cooling system (PCCS),” Page 57). In order for the gravity drain water tank to feed the cooling sprayers by the force of gravity, the tank must be located above the system of the cooling cycle. Subsequently, the cooing cycle is arranged in a lower part of the system, below the reservoir.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would have been motivated to combine the light water reactor cooling design described by Fribourg and the organic Rankine cycle taught by Xie with organic Rankine cycle machine positioned lower than the reservoir as taught by IAEA-TECDOC-1624 in order to take advantage of fluid dynamics and gravity driven fluid flow (Page 47).
Regarding Claim 17, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. While Xie teaches an Organic Rankine cycle (machine), Xie does not teach the organic Rankine cycle machine and the cooling cycle are arranged below the first reservoir of water. IAEA-TECDOC-1624 teaches the cooling cycle being arranged in a lower part of the system below the pool.
IAEA-TECDOC-1624, Section V-2.7, “Containment and passive containment cooling system (PCCS)” discloses, a PCCS Gravity Drain Water Tank that is elevated above the cooling cycle such that, “in a LOCA, cold water is sprayed by gravity draining onto the containment vessel head to enhance containment cooling. A large tank of water, located at the top of the containment structure, serves as the source of water for this operation.” (Figure V-6, “Containment and passive containment cooling system (PCCS),” Page 57). In order for the gravity drain water tank to feed the cooling sprayers by the force of gravity, the tank must be located above the system of the cooling cycle. Subsequently, the cooing cycle is arranged in a lower part of the system, below the pool.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would have been motivated to combine the light water reactor cooling design described by Fribourg and the organic Rankine cycle taught by Xie with the organic Rankine cycle machine and cooling cycle positioned lower than the pool as taught by IAEA-TECDOC-1624 in order to take advantage of fluid dynamics and gravity driven fluid flow (Page 47).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Fribourg (Publication US 20150016581 A1), in view in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B), and in further view of Singh (Publication US 20120294737 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Xie does not teach batteries in its ORC device and the second pump. Singh teaches a system (Fig. 1; [0040]) comprising batteries (202) for electrically starting various electrical components of a decay heat removal system ([0002]).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would have been motivated to apply the battery taught by Singh to the system of AAPA as modified by Fribourg and Xie in order to establish a backup power source in a nuclear reactor heat removal system, so that the battery would provide power to start operation of the system when there is no other power supply ([0040]).
Regarding Claim 18, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. AAPA, in view of Fribourg, in further view of Xie does not teach batteries for electrically starting the first pump, electric components of the organic Rankine cycle, electric components of the cooling cycle, and the second pump. Singh teaches a system (Fig. 1; [0040]) comprising batteries (202) for electrically starting various electrical components of a decay heat removal system ([0002]).
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would have been motivated to apply the battery taught by Singh to the system of AAPA as modified by Fribourg and Xie in order to establish a backup power source in a nuclear reactor heat removal system, so that the battery would provide power to start operation of components of the system when there is no other power supply ([0040]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Fribourg (Publication US 20150016581 A1 in further view in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B) in further view of Fujie (Publication US 20020139738 A1) and in further view of Vinard (Publication US 20210156603 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Xie discloses a cooling cycle including:
A condenser (15) connected to the second pump (10) to feed the condenser with water (Fig. 1, [n0045]).
An expansion member (13) (Fig.1, [0073])
A fluidic circuit wherein a working fluid circulates in a closed loop [n0080-n0082], the fluidic circuit connecting the condenser (15), the condenser (15) to the expansion member (11/13), the expansion member (11) to the air evaporator (8), and the air evaporator (8)[n0080 – n0082]
AAPA, Fribourg and Xie do not teach not teach an air evaporator. Fujie teaches an air evaporator. Fujie teaches, “a moisture separator drain filtering apparatus (77) of any of the above-mentioned first through ninth embodiments is installed on the moisture separator drain line (75) on the moisture separator drain line (76) from the moisture separator (75) and the air evaporator (73).” [Paragraph 0198] Fujie also teaches a, “suspended solid contained in the heater drain can be reduced and it makes possible to reduce erosion inside of piping...” [Paragraph 0199].
AAPA, Fribourg, Xie, and Fujie and do not teach a cooling system that uses a compressor. Vinard teaches a compressor. Vinard teaches a cooling system that uses a compressor (32), condenser (34), a regulator and an evaporator [Paragraph 0008] for the purpose of receiving water vapor at low pressure and supplying compressed water vapor [0071] to the subsequent component of the system.
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would have been motivated to combine the light water reactor mechanical and cooling cycle design elements described by AAPA, Fribourg and Xie, with the air evaporator of Fujie and the compressor of Vinard according for the purpose of increasing pressure of low-pressure steam and decreasing moisture content of the steam, therefore allowing the steam to be recycled back into the system with greater pressure and less moisture, which can improve efficiency and lengthen the lifespan of the cooling system components.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA, in view of Fribourg (Publication US 20150016581 A1), in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B), and in further view of Vinard (Publication US 20210156603 A1)
Regarding Claim 13, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Vinard teaches a shaft coupled to another shaft to connect mechanical circuits in order to conduct mechanical work.
Vinard teaches, “The compressor (32) comprises a series of compression stages, each stage comprising a rotor and a stator. The rotor comprises blades driven in rotation by a transmission shaft. The rotor accelerates the gas flow thanks to the energy transmitted by the transmission shaft of the compressor.” [0077]
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would have been motivated to couple the shaft of the organic Rankine cycle expander to the shaft of the cooling cycle compressor, as taught by Vinard, for reasons of facilitating power transmission or mechanical work between mechanical components.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Fribourg (Publication US 20150016581 A1), in view in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B), and in further view of Rennerfelt (Publication US 904449 A).
Regarding Claim 15, the modification of AAPA with Fribourg’s heat recovery unit and with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Rennerfelt teaches the injector arranged in a lower part of the system and connected to the second pump arranged in a higher part of the system, with the injector priming the second pump.
Rennerfelt teaches an improvement to steam driven pumps to increase efficiency. The pump (10) is above the injector (20), which is connected to the steam inlet (23) and pump (12) at a lower level. Rennerfelt teaches, "It is thus apparent that as long as the amount of air contained in the steam or in the water is not excessive, any tendency of such air to cause the loss of suction of the pump will be automatically counteracted by the injector (20); acting so as to prime the pump.”
One of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date would be motivated to combine the light water reactor cooling design and fluid dynamics elements described by AAPA, Fribourg, and Xie with the injector taught by Rennerfelt, arranged relative to a second pump such that it could prime the second pump in the event of a loss of suction and maintain reactor coolant flow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY D GAMBONE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5108. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5pm.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (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.
/K.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights