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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and Species 2A-2G and Species 1A-1H in the reply filed on 09/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14 and 16-34 are herein withdrawn. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the Groups encompass at least three disparate classification groups, as shown on page 2 of the 08/20/2025 Restriction/Election Requirement, and because the large number of claims (34) presents an additional burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are examined herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the upper and lower modular stacked structures for the reactor support structure, the divider wall, and the collector cylinder in a manner that reasonably coincides with parent claim 1.
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 1–13 and 15 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship among the reactor support assembly, the seismically isolated assembly, the collector cylinder, and the reactor enclosure system. Claim 1 recites that the collector cylinder is a subcomponent of the reactor support assembly. However, then claim 11 recites a chamber that is interior of the reactor support assembly but exterior to the collector cylinder. It is unclear how the chamber can be exterior to a cylinder that is part of an assembly the same chamber is simultaneously interior to. Similarly, looking at line 7 coupled with lines 10-13 of claim 1, the reactor support assembly is defined by itself (“reactor support assembly,” line 7 and “reactor support assembly,” line 10). And, more specifically in lines 10-13, it is recited that the reactor support assembly “defines” a seismically isolated assembly which “includes the reactor enclosure system,” but the reactor enclosure system is offered in line 2 as a distinct element. Therefore, it would appear that the reactor enclosure system is simultaneously a distinct element from the reactor support assembly (they are recited separately and given the same level of indentation), but also that the reactor support assembly includes the reactor enclosure system as a subcomponent.
Claim 7 recites that the reactor support assembly “is a Modular Isolated Reactor Support System (MIRSS) assembly that includes a plurality of MIRSS modules.” This limitation appears to simply be giving an official name (somewhat like a trademark) to an already-recited feature (the reactor support assembly). It is unclear how Applicant intends this re-naming to be interpreted. Is this limitation intended as a 112(f)-type limitation where the reader is supposed to read all of the structure and function from the Specification for “MIRSS” into the claim? Or is this limitation intending some other structure/function to be read into the difference between the “reactor support assembly” and the “MIRSS”? What are the differences between these, if anything?
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunsbedt (US 5,406,602).
Regarding claim 1, Hunsbedt discloses a nuclear plant (Fig. 1), comprising: a reactor enclosure system (2) including a nuclear reactor (1); a reactor building (8), the reactor building (8) configured to structurally support the reactor enclosure system (2) on a foundation and to enclose the reactor enclosure system (2) within an interior of the reactor building (8); a plurality of seismic isolators (18) coupled to the reactor building (8); and a reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) that includes a cylindrical reactor support structure (16) that is configured to structurally support the reactor enclosure system (2) on the plurality of seismic isolators (18) such that the reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) at least partially defines a seismically isolated assembly within the nuclear plant that includes the reactor enclosure system (2) and is seismically isolated from the reactor building (8) (“The reactor and containment vessels are supported or suspended vertically downward from an upper frame 16, which in turn is supported on the concrete silo 8 by a plurality of conventional seismic isolators 18 to maintain the structural integrity of the containment and reactor vessels during earthquakes and allow uncoupled movement between those vessels and the surrounding silo,” col. 1, ll. 37-44), a collector cylinder (5) configured to at least partially receive the reactor enclosure system (2) based on the reactor enclosure system (2) being structurally supported by the cylindrical reactor support structure (16), such that the collector cylinder (5) is configured to at least partially define a riser annulus (4) between an inner cylindrical surface of the collector cylinder (5) and an outer sidewall surface of the reactor enclosure system (2), a divider wall (5a) configured to at least partially define a downcomer annulus (7) between an outer cylindrical surface of the divider wall (5a) and the reactor building (8), wherein a bottom opening of the downcomer annulus (7) is in fluid communication with a bottom opening of the riser annulus (4), and a plurality of exhaust ducts (9) extending through an interior of the cylindrical reactor support structure (16) from the collector cylinder (5).
Regarding claim 2, Hunsbedt anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) is configured to direct a working fluid (see arrows, Fig. 1) to flow downwards through the downcomer annulus (7) to the bottom opening of the downcomer annulus, from the bottom opening of the downcomer annulus (7) to the bottom opening of the riser annulus (4), upwards through the riser annulus (4) to a top of the riser annulus according to a change in air density based on the working fluid absorbing heat from both the reactor enclosure system (2) and the collector cylinder (5) (heat rises), and through one or more exhaust ducts (9) of the plurality of exhaust ducts, from the top of the riser annulus (4) and through the interior of the reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) to be discharged from the seismically isolated assembly (see arrows).
Regarding claim 3, Hunsbedt anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses (Fig. 3) wherein the reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) is configured to couple the one or more exhaust ducts with an opening of a seismically non-isolated exhaust portion (e.g., 37/28/34) of a reactor cooling system that is configured to direct the working fluid to an ambient environment (“The hot air is discharged to the atmosphere,” col. 5, l. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Hunsbedt anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) is a Modular Isolated Reactor Support System (MIRSS) assembly (the official title given to this assembly is arbitrary) that includes a plurality of MIRSS modules that are coupled together to collectively define the cylindrical reactor support structure (16), the collector cylinder (5), the divider wall (5a), and the plurality of exhaust ducts (9) (any combination of 16, 5, 5a, and 9 may be considered a module, e.g., 5 and 5a is a first module and 16 and 9 is a second module).
Regarding claim 8, Hunsbedt anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein each MIRSS module of the plurality of MIRSS modules defines a separate azimuthal segment of the cylindrical reactor support structure, a separate azimuthal segment of the collector cylinder, and a separate azimuthal segment of the divider wall (as the term “segment” is arbitrary, one could draw lines corresponding to portions of the claimed structures corresponding to azimuthal “segments”).
Regarding claim 11, Hunsbedt anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) is configured to define at least one shielding chamber (13) within an interior of the reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) and radially outward in relation to the collector cylinder (5), the at least one shielding chamber configured to hold at least one shielding material (“the lower portion of the silo liner tank 13 consists of an inner steel liner 20 and an outer steel liner 21 containing a nonreactive granular insulating material 22 such as BeO,” col. 4, ll. 22-25).
Regarding claim 12, Hunsbedt anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the reactor support assembly (16, 5, 5a, 9) is configured to direct the working fluid (see the arrows) to flow to the downcomer annulus (7) via a heat transfer path passing at least one seismic isolator (18) of the plurality of seismic isolators, such that the reactor support assembly is configured to cause the working fluid to remove heat from the at least one seismic isolator (as shown in Fig. 1, the cool fluid enters at 6 and passes by the isolators 18, where it can absorb heat from 18 indirectly via the wall of 16).
Regarding claim 13, Hunsbedt anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses: a heater (23, Fig. 3) configured to heat the at least one seismic isolator (isolators 18 are heated when the hot fluid passes through them: col. 4, l. 63 – col. 5, l. 5).
Regarding claim 15, discloses wherein the seismically isolated assembly defines a floor structure (Fig. 3: the lower portion of where the left reference numeral 6 is pointing) of a head access area (HAA) (see unlabeled head above 16, Fig. 3) which is enclosed above the floor structure by an upper building structure (see rectangular structure surrounding the head area) of the reactor building, such that the floor structure is seismically isolated in relation to the upper building structure that encloses the HAA above the floor structure (as shown in Fig. 3 relative to isolators 18), and the reactor support assembly further includes an HAA seal (31, 32) configured to establish a seal between the floor structure and the upper building structure.
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 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, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunsbedt in view of Clifford (US 3,255,085).
Regarding claims 4–6, Hunsbedt anticipates all the elements of the parent claim including the exhaust ducts, as cited above, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed flexible duct.
Clifford does. Clifford is also in the art area of coolant flow for nuclear reactors and teaches (Figs. 2 and 3) wherein a reactor support assembly includes a flexible duct (107) that is coupled between the one or more exhaust ducts (93a-d) and an opening of an exhaust portion of a reactor cooling system, the flexible duct (107) configured to establish fluid communication between a first and a second portion of the cooling system (“The flexible conduits 105 and 107 are suitably connected to a suitable source of coolant [not shown] mounted externally of the tank, which source may include coolant pumping means, a demineralizer, and a heat exchange means [not shown],” col. 4, ll. 31-35), and wherein the reactor support assembly includes an exhaust manifold structure (53), the exhaust manifold structure at least partially defining the one or more exhaust ducts (93a-d) and an outlet duct (103) coupled to the one or more exhaust ducts (93a-d), the outlet duct (103) configured to be coupled between the one or more exhaust ducts (93a-d) and the flexible duct (107), and
wherein the exhaust manifold structure (53) at least partially defines at least two exhaust ducts (e.g., 93a, 93b) coupled in parallel to the outlet duct (103).
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the manifold design with flexible portions of Clifford in the exhaust system of Hunsbedt, prior to the effective filing date of the invention in order to, as explained by Clifford (col. 5, ll. 42-48 and col. 4, ll. 25-35), provide an efficient and spaced-apart mechanism for removing heated coolant to an external heat transfer means utilizing flexible conduits so that “operating efficiency” is improved via permitting the nearby components to be moved around without having to disconnect them from the mechanism responsible for keeping them cool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646