DETAILED ACTION
Elections
Applicant’s elections of Invention I and Species A without traverse in the Reply filed 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention/Species encompasses claims 1-7 and 10-12. Claims 8-9 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Inventions/Species. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “the detector element is configured to be responsive to a neutron flux upon an angular displacement of the first angular portion” is unclear. It is unclear how the detector is responsive to a neutron flux. It would appear that any structure would inherently be “responsive to” a neutron flux (e.g., be affected by neutron flux radiation). Also, it would appear that a (neutron) detector would inherently always be “responsive to” a neutron flux since it can detect a neutron in a neutron flux.
It is unclear what the phrase wording “upon an angular displacement” contributes. It is unclear whether the term “upon” relates to when the detector is positioned to detect a neutron flux. For example, it is unclear whether the detector (which is positioned in the first angular portion) cannot detect a neutron in the neutron flux unless the first angular portion is rotated into a first angular sector of the rotational range, where the first angular sector is in alignment with an incident neutron flux.
Claim 2
The recited subject matter is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function (e.g., remain within a cavity) does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Furthermore, in the claim a “planned lifetime” of a fuel assembly of a nuclear reactor core is unknown. Thus, the scope of the claim is unknown and unclear.
Claim 3
The term “microreactor” is unclear. It is an expression in which the criteria or degree of comparison is unclear. The dividing boundary between a “microreactor” and a non-microreactor is unknown and unclear. The term usage is not defined by the claim, the specification does not appear to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the term and thus the scope of the claim.
Claim 4
The recited subject matter is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function (e.g., remain within a cavity) does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Furthermore, it is unclear what constitutes “about 8 years or longer”. Thus, the scope of the claim is unknown and unclear.
Claim 7
It is unclear what constitutes a “neutron absorber” in the claim. It would appear that any physical structure is capable of absorbing at least one neutron. Thus, it would appear that any structure inherently constitutes a “neutron absorber”. It follows that it is unclear how the claim further limits the structure of the measurement device of claim 1.
Claim 11
Claim 1 implies that the detector is associated with a rotatable housing. Thus, any rotation of the housing away from the first angular sector of the rotational range would result in the detector rotating away from the neutron flux. Thus, the detector would be inherently more shielded from the neutron flux upon said (away) rotation of the housing. It follows that it is unclear how the claim further limits the structure of the measurement device of claim 1.
Claim 12
A “control drum of the nuclear reactor” is not positively recited. Nor is a specific size of a control drum being positively recited. Thus, the claim is dependent on a feature which is not positively recited. It follows that it is unclear how the claim further limits the structure of the measurement device of claim 1.
Regardless, it would appear that any detector housing can be (directly or indirectly) rotated by a drive. For example, a detector housing can be positioned on a rotatable support. Thus, said housing is inherently “configured” to be rotated by a drive.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heimbach ("NIST calibration of a neutron spectrometer ROSPEC", Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 111, no. 6 (2006): 419).
Heimbach teaches rotatable neutron detectors elements. Each detector is inside a respective structural outer housing. Heimbach also teaches having all detectors within a single housing (e.g., cover; Figure 2). Housing structure inherently constitutes a neutron absorber. The housing is inherently configured to be rotated by a drive.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they lack the reference numeral “1104b” mentioned in the specification.
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. 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.
The Applied Reference
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Application Status Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights