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 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the Objections to the Drawings, as no corrected drawing sheets were submitted.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the objection to claim 3.
Applicant’s amendments have created objections to claims 1 and 4.
Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the 112(b) rejections to claims 1, 5, 11, and 15-16.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejections to claims 2-4, and 13-14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 10th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below.
Examiner notes that the Applicant has amended the claim language of claim 1 from “the pool” to “the first water reservoir”. The Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 failed to resolve the functional term, “a take-off device” not defined in the specification. The applicant argues that “the specification gives several examples of how to realize a take-off device and “the take-off device is illustrated in the figures as evident from the specification”.
Examiner notes that the specification refers to “a take-off”, “the steam take-off”, “a direct take-off”, and “the steam take-off line”, as well as “an autonomous device”, “devices for decay heat removal”, “measuring devices”, and “cooling devices”, but does not specify “a take-off device”.
Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (see MPEP 2111.01 II).
Examiner notes the applicant’s response regarding the working fluid of claim 11 – “that the working fluid can be either the same or different from the working fluid of claim 1, as suggested by claim 13.”
Examiner explains that Claim 1 already introduces “a working fluid,” so claim 11 needs to introduce a second working fluid so as to differentiate the two different elements of the claimed apparatus. Furthermore, claim 13 is dependent on claim 11, therefore suggestions made in claim 13 are not considered in the examination of claim 14. Applicant’s argument that Claim 15 is clear as it gives an indication on the relative position of the injector with respect to the third pump: the pump being in a lower part and the third pump in an upper part, it is clear that the third pump is arranged physically above the injector does not overcome the 112(b) rejection. Examiner agrees that the claim does give an indication on the relative position of the injector with respect to the third pump. However as written, the claim does not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. As written, the position of the injector with respect to the third pump is clearly anticipated by Rennerfelt (Publication US 904449 A).
Examiner notes the amended claim language of claims 3 and 4 have necessitated a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the objection to the drawings, Applicant argues that the take-off device is illustrated in the figures as evident from the specification. However, this argument is unpersuasive because none of the drawings illustrate a take-off device with an assigned reference number.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10 as taught by Sato in view of Xie, The applicant argues, “Xie discloses an organic Rankine cycle, but in which the cold source is formed by a natural source,… thus able to provide a massive amount of water. Additionally, the ORC disclosed in Xie is used with an open loop.” The applicant continues to state that, “the skilled person would have never considered combing Sato and Xie and even if they had, they would have never achieved the claimed invention, as, at least the second water reservoir is not disclosed Xie, nor the use of an organic Rankine cycle as the cold source of a closed loop cooling circuit.”
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).
Sato teaches a heat exchanger submerged in a pool of water to withdraw heat from the reactor primary cooling loop. Xie teaches recovering heat from a heat exchanger to further dissipate heat via the organic Rankine cycle. Sato and Xie teach the features claimed. The size, amount of water, and source of the cooling water for the reservoirs is not relevant to the proposed combination.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been inclined to combine the suggestions of Sato and Xie for the purpose of converting waste heat into power to provide auxiliary power for the nuclear reactor system of Sato ([n0003]).
Additionally, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the rejection states one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the system of Xie with the reactor of Sato for the predictable purpose of converting waste heat into power to provide auxiliary power for the nuclear reactor system of Sato ([Xie Paragraph n0003]). The combination would result in arranging the evaporator of Xie in contact with the pool of Sato, so that the latter constitutes the heat source of the ORC.
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.
Claims 1 -16 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.
Claim 1 –“a take-off device” is a functional term that is not defined in the specification. A skilled artisan would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of the structure encompassed by this limitation. It is noted that this term is not defined in the specification nor is it depicted in the figures. “The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.” MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claim 5 –The phrase "on the one and" and "on the other hand" is indefinite because it lacks clarity and does not clearly define which element is being referred to.
Claim 11 - it is unclear if the recitation “a working fluid” is intended to refer to the “working fluid” of the fluidic circuit of claim 1 or whether this limitation is intended to introduce a second, different working fluid. That is, claim already introduces “a working fluid,” so claim 11 needs to introduce a second working fluid so as to differentiate the two different elements of the claimed apparatus.
Claim 15 - The phrase "in a lower part" and “in an upper part” is vague because it leaves "in a lower of the system and connected to the third pump arranged in an upper part of the system” open to varying interpretation. Examiner suggests rewriting the claim to specifically state the bounds of the claim, i.e., what is included in the claim and where the specific elements of the claim are to be located.
Claim 16 – There is no antecedent basis for “the electrical components”, because no “electrical components” have not been previously introduced.
For the above reasons, the claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement.
Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "take-off device" of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ORCE” is considered to be a typographical error in the amendment. “ORCE” should read “ORC”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because it contains the following informalities: it should have been amended in the manner claim 3 was amended to recite, “wherein the heat exchange device is a water condenser immersed in the first water reservoir and connected in a closed loop to the take-off device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20130259183 A1) in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B).
Regarding Claim 1, Sato discloses a light water nuclear reactor (Fig. 1: , [0002-3]) (LWR), comprising: a reactor core (1); a cooling circuit (81[Wingdings font/0xE0]80[Wingdings font/0xE0]32[Wingdings font/0xE0]61[Wingdings font/0xE0]65[Wingdings font/0xE0]6[Wingdings font/0xE0]3[Wingdings font/0xE0]4[Wingdings font/0xE0]2[Wingdings font/0xE0]5) comprising a heat exchange device (passive RHR heat exchanger (61) connected in a closed loop (see Fig. 1) to a take-off device (32) for taking off steam from a primary circuit of the reactor (32 is connected to the steam space (83) of pressurizer (80), which is part of the primary coolant loop) and a first pump (6) for supplying the take-off device of the primary circuit with water from the heat exchange device (the pump circulated the primary coolant through the primary loop and thus supplies the take-off device with the coolant); a system for removing at least a part of the decay heat [Fig.1] of the reactor core, the system comprising: a first water reservoir (8), arranged below [Fig.1] a steam generator (3), wherein the heat exchange device is immersed [Paragraph 0046], so that the water contained in the first water reservoir cools the steam coming from the take-off device. Sato does not disclose an organic Rankine cycle engine. Xie does.
Xie discloses a system for evacuation of at least some of the decay heat of the reactor core (6) [Paragraphs n0076-n0077] comprising an Organic Rankin Cycle (ORC) [Fig. 1] engine comprising an expander (13); a condenser (15); a second pump (10); an evaporator (8); and a fluidic circuit [Paragraph n0083] wherein a working fluid [Paragraph n0083] circulates in a closed loop [Paragraph n0082], the fluid circuit connecting the expander (13) to the condenser (15), the condenser (15) to the second pump (organic working fluid pump) (10), the second pump (organic working fluid pump) (10) to the evaporator (organic steam generator) (8), and the evaporator (organic steam generator) (8) to the expander (13); a second water reservoir (cooling water source) (1), separate from the pool, and a third pump (cooling water pump) (2) connected to the second water reservoir (cooling water source) (1) and to the condenser (15) of the ORC in order to supply the latter with water, as the heat sink of the ORC [Paragraph n0014].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to combine the system of Xie with the reactor of Sato for the predictable purpose of converting waste heat into power to provide auxiliary power for the nuclear reactor system of Sato ([n0003]). The combination would result in arranging the evaporator of Xie in contact with the pool of Sato, so that the latter constitutes the heat source of the ORC.
Regarding Claim 2, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Sato further discloses a cooling circuit (32) comprises the steam generator (3) and a water condenser (passive RHR heat exchanger) (61) immersed in the first water reservoir (8) and connected in a closed loop to the steam generator (3). [Fig.1, Paragraph 0047].
Regarding claim 6, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Sato discloses the first reservoir (8) is arranged on or in the ground (see the arrangement of pool 8 shown in Fig. 4]).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Xie further teaches a second water reservoir (cooling water source) (1) is arranged on or 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 reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC arrangement taught by Xie for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Xie discloses the evaporator (organic steam generator) (8) is immersed in the first water reservoir or outside from the of the first water reservoir. [Fig. 1]. The combination would result in arranging the evaporator of Xie in contact with the pool of Sato, so that the latter constitutes the heat source of the ORC. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to modify the reactor cooling system of Sato with the evaporator (organic steam generator) of Xie for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Xie further teaches the evaporator (organic steam generator) (8) is a plate exchanger. [Paragraph n0032]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to modify the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC arrangement taught by Xie for the reasons stated above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20130259183 A1) in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B), in further view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie renders claim 1 obvious. Sato further discloses the heat exchange device (61) is a water exchanger immersed [Paragraph 0046] in the first reservoir (8) so that the water contained in the first water reservoir cools the water of the primary circuit flowing in the liquid/liquid exchanger [0048]. Sato’s take-off device (32) is a steam line branching from a pressurizer. Sato does not disclose the take-off device for taking off steam present in the primary circuit is a liquid/liquid exchanger. Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) teaches this.
AAPA (Figure 2) teaches, a light water nuclear reactor comprising a cooling circuit connected in a closed loop to a take-off device for taking off steam from a primary circuit of the reactor, the take-off device being a liquid/liquid exchanger (see Fig. 2): the decay heat removal loop connects to the SG of the reactor system, making the take-off device a liquid/liquid exchanger. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to apply the liquid/liquid exchanger take-off device, as described in AAPA, to the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie for the purpose “transmitting the thermal energy of the steam generator to the water reservoir (see the description of AAPA Fig. 2 at [0033] of the published application).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20130259183 A1) in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B), in further view of Howard (US 4440719 A).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Sato further discloses a cooling circuit (Fig. 1) that comprises: a water condenser (61 condenses steam from the steam line 32) immersed in the first water reservoir (8) and connected in a closed loop to the take-off device. Sato does not disclose a take-off device for taking off steam from a supply line to a turbine of the reactor. Howard teaches this.
Howard teaches a light water reactor (Figure 1) comprising a reactor core (15), a cooling circuit comprising heat exchange device (88)(Figure 2), connected in a closed loop to a take-off device (30), for taking off steam from a primary circuit ([column 3, lines 49-50]) of the reactor, and a first pump (60) for supplying the take-off device with water from the heat exchange device, wherein the take-off device is for taking off steam from a supply line (26) to a turbine (24) of the reactor. In Howard, the heat exchanger (88) is equivalent to the HX (61) of Sato because in both systems, the heat exchanger functions to remove decay heat from the primary coolant circuit of the light water reactor (Howard, Column 5, lines 30-31; Sato, [0050])..
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to apply the system of Sato, having the decay heat removal heat exchanger submerged in a reservoir, as modified by Xie, which recovers the decay heat released by the heat exchanger to the reservoir, to the system of Howard for the purpose of converting waste heat into power to provide auxiliary power for the nuclear reactor system of Howard, as taught by Xie ([n0003]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Sato (US Publication 20130259183 A1) in view of view Xie (Publication CN109166637 B) and 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 5, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Sato discloses the take-off device (32) is a system for depressurizing (80) steam present [Fig. 1, Paragraph 0045-0046], and the heat exchange device (61) is a water exchanger immersed in the first water reservoir (8) or a directed take-off of the water of the first water reservoir on the one hand. Sato in view of Xie does not disclose, on the other hand a containment wall condenser in direct contact with the steam present in the containment building of the reactor. 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-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 have been motivated to modify the light water reactor cooling design described by Sato with the ORC of Xie and the containment pressure reduction system described by IAEA-TECDOC-1624 for the purpose of achieving chimney-like natural draft air cooled containment as part of the safety system 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).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Sato (US Publication 20130259183 A1) in view of Xie (CN 109166637 B) and in further view Singh (Publication US 20210225537 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Sato and in view of Xie do not disclose the immersed evaporator is a tube exchanger. Singh teaches a tube exchanger.
Singh teaches, “the evaporative heat exchanger (3110) is at least partially immersed in the liquid (3050) so that thermal energy from liquid (3050) can be transferred to the working fluid (3070)…” [Fig. 42, Paragraph 0282], and “the evaporative heat exchanger (3110) generally comprises a core tube (130) (which acts as a downcomer tube) and a plurality of heat exchange tubes (3114)…” [Fig.43, Paragraph 0283]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to modify the immersed heat exchanger of Xie, with the immersed tubular heat exchanger taught by Singh for the purpose of achieving an internal thermosiphon recirculation flow of the liquid phase working fluid within the evaporative heat exchanger for improved heat exchange. [Paragraph 0285].
Regarding claim 16, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Sato in view of Xie does not disclose batteries configured for electrical start-up of the pumps, of the electrical components of the ORC and optionally of a refrigeration cycle. Singh teaches batteries.
Singh teaches batteries (3202) configured for the electrical start-up of the pumps, of the electrical components (3200) of the ORC and other electrical components. [Paragraph 0290]. 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 reactor cooling system of Sato as modified by the ORC of Xie in order to establish a backup power source in a nuclear reactor heat removal system, for the purpose that the battery would provide a rechargeable electrical energy source coupled to a controller in order for electrical components to operate even when the turbogenerator (other power supply) is not running. [Paragraph 0290].
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Sato (Publication US 20130259183 A1) in view of Xie (Publication CN 109166637 B) in further view of Vinard (Publication US 20210156603 A1) and in further view of Fujie (Publication US 20020139738 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Sato in view of Xie does not disclose a refrigeration cycle comprising: a compressor; a condenser connected to the third pump in order to supply the condenser with water; a pressure reduction member; an air evaporator; and a fluidic circuit wherein a working fluid flows in a closed loop, the fluidic circuit connecting the compressor to the condenser, the condenser to the pressure reduction member, the pressure reduction member to the air evaporator, and the air evaporator to the compressor. Vinard does.
Vinard teaches a refrigeration cycle [Fig. 10] comprising: a compressor (32); a condenser (34) connected to the third pump (102) in order to supply the latter with water (18); a pressure reduction member (110); and a fluid circuit (5) wherein a working fluid flows in a closed loop [0075], the fluidic circuit (100) connecting the compressor (32) to the condenser (34), the condenser (34) to the pressure reduction member (110), the pressure reduction member (110) to the compressor (32). [Paragraphs 0122 and 0074-0075].
Vinard does not teach an air evaporator. Fujie teaches an air evaporator (77). Fujie teaches, “the power plant of this embodiment is equipped with a feedwater line (60) in which feedwater flows from a condenser (55) to an evaporator (77) through a condensate “demineralizer” equipment (56), a low pressure heater (57), a fuel economizer (78), and a high pressure heater (58). (Fig. 20, [Paragraph 0201]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to combine the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC arrangement taught by Xie and further combine the system with the refrigeration cycle of Vinard modified with the air evaporator of Fujie for the purpose of increasing overall reactor cooling while decreasing moisture content of the steam [Fujie, Paragraph 0193], therefore allowing the steam to be recycled back into the cooling system with greater pressure and less moisture [Vinard, Paragraphs 0017-0018], which can reduce erosion inside piping and improve heat transfer efficiency, and lengthen the lifespan of the cooling system components [Fujie, Paragraph 0199].
Regarding claim 12, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Sato and Xie do not disclose wherein the condenser of the refrigeration cycle is the condenser of the ORC. Xie discloses the condenser (15) of the ORC (Fig. 1, [Paragraph 0073]). Vinard teaches the condenser (34) of the refrigeration cycle (Fig. 10, [Paragraph 0124 and 0126]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to combine/couple the ORC condenser of Xie with condenser of Vinard to establish cooperation among heat exchangers of hydraulic circuits for cooling of a device. [Paragraph 0126].
Regarding claim 13, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Xie discloses wherein the working fluid [Paragraph n0083] of the ORC. Xie does not disclose the working fluid of the refrigeration cycle is the working fluid of the ORC. Vinard teaches a heat-transfer (working) fluid [Paragraph 0025] throughout the condenser (heat exchanger) of the refrigeration (cooling) cycle. [Paragraphs 0025-0026]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to modify the condenser of Xie by coupling the working fluid of Xie’s condenser with the working fluid of Vinard’s condenser for the predictable advantage of expanding the hydraulic circuit, which circulates liquid water present in the refrigeration cycle, to supply the circuit with additional cooled water [Paragraph 0124] and for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Sato and Xie do not disclose wherein a shaft of the ORC expander being coupled to the shaft of the compressor of the refrigeration cycle. Vinard teaches a transmission shaft to connect mechanical circuits in order to transmit energy and conduct mechanical work.
Vinard teaches, “The compressor (32) comprises a series of compression stages (130/132), 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.” [(see Fig. 10), Paragraph 0077]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to modify/couple the shaft of the ORC expander to the shaft of the refrigeration cycle compressor, as taught by Vinard, for reasons of facilitating energy transmission of the compressor [Paragraph 0077] or mechanical work between mechanical components.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Sato (Publication US 20130259183 A1) in view of Xie (Publication CN109166637 B) and in further view of Rennerfelt (Publication US 904449 A).
Regarding claim 15, the modification of the reactor cooling system of Sato with the ORC system of Xie, renders claim 1 obvious. Sato and Xie do not disclose an injector arranged in a lower part of the system and connected to the third pump arranged in an upper part of the system, wherein the injector is configured to prime the third pump. Rennerfelt does.
Rennerfelt teaches the injector (20) arranged in a lower part of the system and connected to the third pump (10) arranged in an upper part of the system, with the injector being configured to prime the third 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.” [Column 3, Lines 15-20].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have been motivated to combine the light water reactor cooling design and fluid dynamics elements described by Sato and Xie with the injector taught by Rennerfelt, arranged relative to a third pump such that it could prime the third pump in the event of a loss of suction and maintain reactor coolant flow. [Column 3, Lines 26-34].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 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.
/K.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3646 /JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights