DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 5 February 2026. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 4 and 10-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are further examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (“Fabrication of yttrium hydride for high-temperature moderator application”, 2020).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 6 November 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. Hu teaches a moderator comprising a yttrium hydride article, which has predetermined pores. For example, note the hexagonal sample having four interior pores shown in Figure 6. The article (which is not completely 100% solid) will inherently be porous. Regardless, some pores render the article porous. Said hexagonal sample is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
67
81
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barringer (US 2022/0115149).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 6 November 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. Barringer teaches a nuclear reactor comprising a neutron moderator region (210), a fuel region (200), a heat transfer region (structure adjacent/exterior of core), control drums (330), and a control rod [0098]. Note Figure 6. The neutron moderator region (210) comprises a porous metal hydride article [0066] comprising pores (235, 215). A cladding (340, 320, 325) surrounds the article. Barringer’s metal hydride article would inherently be porous, as evidenced by Hu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barringer (US 2022/0115149) in combination with Hu ("Thermomechanical properties and microstructures of yttrium hydride", Journal of Alloys and Compounds 867 (2021): 158992).
Barringer discloses a nuclear reactor comprising a neutron moderator region (210), a fuel region (200), a heat transfer region (structure adjacent/exterior of core), control drums (330), and a control rod [0098]. For example, note Figure 6. The neutron moderator region (210) comprises a porous metal hydride article [0066] comprising pores (235, 215). A cladding (340, 320, 325) surrounds the article.
Hu discloses fabricating yttrium dihydride {YH) moderators with a porosity between 1% and 20% by a direct hydriding method. The porosity pores contribute to the hydriding. The method involves control of hydrogen partial pressure, temperature, and gas flow rate to produce the articles. The measured densities of the fabricated samples are provided and correlated to the H/Y atomic ratio. The results show that the addition of hydrogen causes a 4.5–5.0% volume expansion, resulting in a decrease in density with increasing hydrogen content in the range of {x} = 1.50 to 1.90. The densities are in the range of approximately 4.2 to 4.3 g/cm3 for these compositions. The theoretical density of Yttrium metal is approximately 4.47 g/cm3. Thus, the reported densities correspond to a porosity range of approximately 1% to 6% (or 94-99% of theoretical density), which falls within the claimed range. Particularly note section 3.1.
Hu shows that Barringer’s metal hydride article would inherently be porous. Hu also shows that it is well known in the art to employ a porous metal hydride with a porosity of from 0.01% by volume to 20% by volume. Particularly note section 3.1.
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a porous metal hydride can be implemented with various porosity ranges, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain porosity range in light of the specific reactor design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Barringer to have employed a porous metal hydride with a porosity of from 0.01% by volume to 20% by volume, as suggest by Hu, to meet a particular nuclear reactor design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it includes extraneous subject matter. The following Title is suggested: “Neutron Moderator Comprising A Metal Hydride Article That Has Interconnected Manufactured Pores Therein For Gas Flow Therethrough”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks at page 11) that in Hu (2020) the four interior channels (pores) (Figure 6) are not an “interconnected network of pores”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant views the term ““interconnected” too narrow, especially when claim wording is to broadest reasonable interpretation. For example, ““interconnected” is met because Hu’s interior pores (channels) have links or connections between each other. Hu’s interior pores are structurally capable of having gas flow therethrough. Regardless, every part of Hu’s hydride article is structurally interconnected to every other part. Furthermore, every component in a nuclear reactor is interconnected (whether directly or indirectly) to every other component.
Likewise, the “interconnected” wording is also met in Barringer because the pores (235, 215) have links or connections between each other. Regardless, every part of Barringer’s hydride article is structurally interconnected to every other part. Furthermore, every component in a nuclear reactor is interconnected (whether directly or indirectly) to every other component.
Applicant's concern regarding the drawings is noted. If there was a drawing objection then Applicant would be notified.
Additional Comments
Claim 1 is so broad as to allow for separated vertically straight pores that do not open to any other pores. As a result, the claim allows for gas to travel in one vertical pore in an upward direction through the entire hydride article, then exit the article, then enter another vertical pore to travel in a downward direction through the entire article. It is noted that “gas” is not positively recited in claim 1. The applied references are structurally capable of being used in the manner mentioned.
As best understood, Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to a completely different (non recited) claim, like the below claim:
A neutron moderator, comprising:
a porous metal hydride comprising an interconnected network of manufactured pores within the porous metal hydride,
wherein the pores are configured to permit a gas to flow therethrough,
wherein the interconnected network enables a same gas portion while remaining in the hydride to flow through a first pore in a first flow direction and then flow in a second pore in a second flow direction,
wherein the second pore is adjacent to and in fluid communication in the hydride with the first pore, and
wherein the second flow direction differs from the first flow direction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
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