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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 (PWR) and B1 (Fig. 4) in the reply filed on is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “[n]o statement is made regarding the patentable distinctness of the species. This is incorrect. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the office action dated 04/23/26 clearly state the “mutually exclusive characteristics” of the species with exemplary claim language directed to the particular species. Further, Applicant argues that there is no serious search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the species require a different field of search because the mutually exclusive characteristics of the species necessitate employing different search queries and because prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another. It is noted that in the previous officer action different art needed to be applied to claim 4 (the BWR species), so it is plain that a serious search and examination burden exists. This was made explicit in paragraph 5 of the office action dated 04/23/26.
3. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
4. Claims 4 (Species A2), 5 (Species A3), 11-14, and 16 (Species B2) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/23/26.
5. Accordingly, claims 1-16 are pending with claims 4, 5, 11-14, and 16 withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 15 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
6. This application has been transferred to a new examiner. New grounds of rejection are presented below. The arguments dated 02/09/26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new rejections below.
Drawings
7. 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 following claim features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
1. means for taking off steam from a primary or secondary circuit of the reactor (claim 1)
2. the electrical components of the ORC (claim 1)
3. an injector (claim 15)
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
9. Claim 1 introduces the term “means for taking off steam from a primary or secondary circuit of the reactor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
10. Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
11. Claim 1 recites the 112(f) limitation “means for taking off steam from a primary or secondary circuit of the reactor.” The disclosure does not illustrate the claims take off means and there is no “corresponding structure” disclosed in the specification as filed.
12. According to MEPEP 2181(II), 35 U.S.C. 112(f) states that a claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language:
"shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof." "If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA section 112 ]." In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Further, such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph (MPEP 2181(IV)).
13. Claim 1 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation “an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) engine having electrical components” is new matter because the specification as filed does not contain an adequate description of such electrical components, including the identity thereof and how they are arranged in the ORC system.
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.
14. Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 15 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.
15. Claim 1 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Proper antecedent basis should be provided for each recitation.
Examples of unclear narrative language include:
“wherein the heat exchange device is immersed so that the water contained in the first water reservoir cools the steam coming from the means for taking off steam” (
“a system for removing at least a part of the decay heat of the reactor core” (no decay heat previously introduced”
“so that the first water reservoir constitutes the heat source of the ORC”
Applicant should amend the claim to properly and positively introduce each required element of the claimed system. For example: a light water reactor comprising: a reactor core producing decay heat; a primary cooling circuit or a secondary cooling circuit containing steam and comprising a steam generator, a heat exchange device, and a first pump connected in a closed loop…a first reservoir containing water…the heat exchange device immersed in the water of the first reservoir…
16. Regarding claim 1, limitation “means for taking off steam from a primary or secondary circuit of the reactor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not illustrate the claims take off means and there is no “corresponding structure” disclosed in the specification as filed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
17. Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “a first reservoir, arranged below a steam generator” is indefinite because it is not clear whether a steam generator is a required element of the claimed system.
18. Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the water condenser is the same “heat exchange device” previously introduced. Is the closed loop the same closed loop already introduced?
19. Regarding claim 3, the recitation “the means for taking off steam present in the primary circuit” is unclear because claim 1 introduces “means for taking odd steam from a primary or a secondary circuit.” Does claim 3 introduce a second means for taking off? Is it further limiting the previously introduced means? It is further unclear what is meant by “a water exchanger.” How is that different form a “liquid/liquid exchanger”? Finally, it is unclear how a “liquid/liquid exchanged” can be considered a means for taking off steam present in the primary circuit. Wouldn’t such an exchanger necessarily be a gas/liquid exchanger so that it transfers heat from the gaseous steam removed from the primary circuit to a liquid secondary coolant?
20. Regarding claim 15, the recitation “an injector” is so vague as to preclude a reasonable interpretation of its scope. What does it inject? What structure is required to achieve this function? Further, the phrase “connected to the third pump arranged above the injector” seems to be self-referential. The injector is connected above itself?
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.
21. Claims 1-2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, KR 2016-0118537 (translation attached) in view of Singh, et al,. US 2012/0294737, in further view of Xie CN 109166637 (translation attached).
22. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kim discloses a light water nuclear reactor (see Fig. 2 and [0023]), comprising:
a reactor core (implicit to the disclosed “nuclear power generation system” of [0029]);
a cooling circuit comprising a steam generator (100 [0034]), a heat exchange device (220), means for taking of steam from a secondary circuit of the reactor (line 110) and a first pump (222) for supplying the means for taking off steam with water from the heat exchange device (see Fig. 2);
a system for removing at least a part of the decay heat of the reactor core, the system comprising:
a first water reservoir (200), arranged below the steam generator ([0048]), wherein the heat exchange device is immersed so that the water contained in the first water reservoir cools the steam coming from the means for taking off steam (see Fig. 2).
Kim does not discloses an organic Rankine cycle engine. Singh teaches an ORC (Fig. 1; [0023] having electrical components ([0040]) and comprising:
an expander (130), a condenser (150), a second 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 second 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 Kim 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]).
Singh’s condenser (150) is air cooled ([0041]) but Singh states that it “can be any type of heat exchanger that can remove thermal energy from the…working fluid ([0041]). Xie teaches an ORC for decay heat removal in a nuclear power plant (Fig. 1; lines 33-40), comprising a condenser (15), a second reservoir (1), and a third pump (2) connected between the second reservoir and the condenser of the ORC in order to supply the condenser of the ORC with water, as the heat sink of the ORC (see Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the water-cooling reservoir taught by Xie to the condenser of Singh for the predictable advantage of providing more effective heat dissipation from the working fluid of the ORC because the heat capacity and thermal conductivity of water are greater for water than for air.
22. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Singh’s ORCE as modified by XIE with the system of Kim makes claim 1 obvious. Kim further discloses a system wherein the cooling circuit comprises the steam generator and a water condenser immersed in the first water reservoir and connected in a closed loop to the steam generator (see Fig. 2 and the above mapping of the claim 1 limitations to Kim).
23. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Singh’s ORCE as modified by XIE with the system of Kim makes claim 1 obvious. Kim further discloses a system wherein the first water reservoir is arranged on the ground (see [0048]).
24. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Singh’s ORCE as modified by XIE with the system of Kim makes claim 1 obvious. Xie further teaches a system wherein the second reservoir is arranged in the ground (see lines 275-276). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply Xie’s cooling water source and the ORC of Singh to the system of Kim for the reasons stated above.
25. Regarding claims 8 and 9, the combination of Singh’s ORCE as modified by XIE with the system of Kim makes claim 1 obvious. Singh further teaches the evaporator being immersed in the first water reservoir (see Fig. 1 and [0032]) and the evaporator being a tube exchanger ([0033]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply Singh’s evaporator to the system of Kim for the reasons stated above.
26. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, KR 2016-0118537 (translation attached) in view of Singh, et al,. US 2012/0294737 and Xie CN 109166637 (translation attached), in further view of Cronje et al., US 2013/0336441.
27. Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Singh’s ORCE as modified by XIE with the system of Kim makes claim 1 obvious. Kim does not discloses a liquid/liquid exchanger. Cronje teaches a decay heat removal system for a PWR ([0003]; Fig. 4; [0029]) comprising a means for taking off stem present in the primary circuit that is a liquid/liquid exchanger (40) connected to a heat exchange device (72) immersed in a water reservoir (70). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the takeoff means taught by Cronje to the system of Kim because Cronje teaches that its system advantageously provides a passive safety system for a small modular reactor ([0010]).
28. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, KR 2016-0118537 (translation attached) in view of Singh, et al,. US 2012/0294737 and Xie CN 109166637 (translation attached), in further view of Gautier et al., US 6,269,873.
29. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Singh’s ORCE as modified by XIE with the system of Kim makes claim 8 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 Kim.
30. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, KR 2016-0118537 (translation attached) in view of Singh, et al,. US 2012/0294737 and Xie CN 109166637 (translation attached), in further view of Ventre US 4,035,231.
31. Regarding claim 15, the combination of Singh’s ORCE as modified by XIE with the system of Kim makes claim 1 obvious. Xie does not disclose an injector coupled to the third pump. Ventre teaches (see Figs.1, 2) an injector connected to a pump arranged above the injector, wherein the injector is configured to prime the third pump (see column 3, lines 30-42). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the injector taught by Ventre with the pump of Xie for the predictable purpose of providing high reliability coolant circulation at a sufficient flow rate to ensure removal of residual power of a [nuclear] reactor module (column 1, lines 54-62)
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
Prosecution Insights