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
Newly submitted claim 14 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-13, drawn to an apparatus, classified in G21C 1/22.
II. Claim 14, drawn to a method, classified in G21C 3/54.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to produce medical radioisotopes.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
b. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
c. The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
d. The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
e. The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–13 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 8/29/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below.
Applicant argues that the limitation “100% non-radioactive Thorium fuel” (previous claim 1, now “radioactive-free thorium” in New claim 1) is definite. This limitation cannot be definite because there is no such thing as thorium that is not radioactive. There is no isotope of thorium that is stable. It is impossible to have non-radioactive thorium. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because the skilled artisan cannot create, possess, or use “radioactive-free thorium molten salt fuel.” Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
The remainder of the arguments are directed towards limitations that no longer exist in the claims. As such, these arguments are moot.
Specification
The amendment filed 9/25/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
compact neutron generators, e.g., page 4, l. 11 of the marked-up Specification
electrical power in the kW-MW range, e.g., page 4, l. 16
fuel sensor to detector fuel-salt flow rate, e.g., page 11, l. 12
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. Please review the Specification for other occurrences of the above-identified new matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 11, An should not be capitalized
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.
Claims 6–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 6 recites “a radioactive-free thorium molten fuel.” As stated by the Environmental Protection Agency1 (EPA), all forms of thorium are radioactive: “There are natural and man-made forms of thorium, all of which are radioactive.” The skilled artisan is therefore not able to make or use the invention because the invention of non-radioactive thorium is not possible.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
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 6–13 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.
The claims are 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.
Claim 1 recites “100% non-radioactive Thorium fuel.” There is no isotope of thorium that is stable. Therefore, it is impossible to have non-radioactive thorium. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined.
Claim 1 recites “the thorium molten salt fuel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the fuel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the thorium fuel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the returned thorium molten salt fuel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the tank”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of fuel tubes configured to transport the thorium molten salt fuel.” This limitation is indefinite because it suggests that the fuel tubes are moving.
Claim 1 recites “the fission residue”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the returned working fluid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the RF excitation voltage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the power demand”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the sensors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Because the claims repeatedly recite “radioactive-free thorium molten salt fuel,” which does not, and cannot, exist, there is a great deal of speculation required by the Examiner to interpret said claims. Therefore, no art rejections are being presented in this action. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in in re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. In this case, because no reasonable interpretation can be made about the structural or functional arrangement of the claimed features, any assumption on the part of the Examiner would be extraordinarily and inappropriately speculative.
However, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 6, Massie (US 2013/0083878) discloses a nuclear power-generating system comprising: a fuel reservoir (102) for storing a
Massie does not detail how the neutron sensors work, but Choi (US 2022/0093282) teaches that it was known in the art for a controller to control the amount of the neutron flux emission based on collecting data from the sensors by adjusting the RF excitation voltage supplied to the neutron generators based on the power demand, as described in ¶ 18.
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 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.
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
1 https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-thorium