DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are pending and under consideration in this 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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080045769 (“Tombs”) in view of US8502179 (“Zolli”) and US20230279743 (“Schneider”).
Regarding claim 1, Tombs teaches a method for treating radioactive waste (see e.g. paragraph [0001]). The waste can include uranium material and cladding, such as would make up a spent nuclear fuel assembly (see e.g. paragraph [0015]). Tombs teaches compacting the waste material into pucks (see e.g. paragraph [0017]). The pucks are then loaded into waste capsules for storage or disposal (see e.g. paragraph [0020]).
Tombs teaches that the waste material prior to crushing can be in a sacrificial can, which when used with spent fuel assemblies would likely require cutting, but does not teach how the waste is placed into the can (see e.g. paragraph [0017]). Zolli teaches a method for treating spent nuclear fuel assemblies (see e.g. col. 7, lines 7-8). Zolli teaches that the spent nuclear fuel assemblies can be chopped and crushed to provide smaller pieces using a cutter (see e.g. col. 7, lines 8-10 and col. 11, lines 5-18). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a cutter as taught by Zolli in order to obtain the smaller pieces needed to perform the method of Tombs so that the spent nuclear fuel assemblies can be placed in a small sacrificial can as required by Tombs.
Tombs teaches that after compacting, the pucks are loaded into waste capsules for storage or disposal, but does not specifically teach that the storage or disposal is in a section of a deeply located wellbore (see e.g. paragraph [0020]). Schneider teaches a method for disposal of nuclear waste (see e.g. paragraph [0003]). Schneider teaches that waste capsules, such as those produced by the method of Tombs are placed in a deeply located horizontal wellbore (see e.g. paragraph [0014]). Schneider teaches that the wellbore can be in a deeply located geological formation (see e.g. paragraph [0022]). Schneider teaches that using a deep wellbore in a geological formation allows for a safe long-term repository of radioactive material that can be retrieved if necessary (see e.g. paragraph [0023]). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to store the waste capsules produced by the method of Tombs in a wellbore that is deeply located in a geological formation as taught by Schneider in order to safely store the waste long-term until retrieval is necessary.
Regarding claim 2, the method of Tombs does not appear to utilize chemical treatment prior to compacting the material (see e.g. paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claims 3-4, the method of Tombs does not appear to use any acidic chemical treatment prior to compacting (see e.g. paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Tombs teaches determining the amount of radioactive material in the compacted waste, which implies that non-radioactive components are not separated out (see e.g. paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 6, Zolli teaches that the machine used to cut the radioactive material can be a cutting tool that creates chips, and as such, is considered a chipping machine (see e.g. col. 11, lines 15-18). Tombs teaches that the material can include uranium oxide (see e.g. Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, step (a) necessarily occurs at one or more sites where the materials are collected.
Regarding claim 8, Tombs specifically suggests that the material may be obtained from underwater storage, which would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to be from a cooling pond (see e.g. paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Tombs specifically suggests that the material may be obtained from underwater storage, which would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to be from a cooling pond (see e.g. paragraph [0015]). As cooling ponds are generally located at nuclear power plants, it would have been obvious to perform the method at the nuclear power plant.
Regarding claim 11, Tombs teaches compacting the material into pucks with a compactor, which is considered to be a compactor machine (see e.g. paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 12, Tombs does not specifically teach using a feeder to automatically or semiautomatically feed the chips into the compactor. However, Zolli teaches that a system can be used to feed the material into the machines automatically (see e.g. col. 8, lines 3-6). Zolli teaches that use of an automated feeder system is necessary to minimize exposure to workers operating the equipment (see e.g. col. 7, line 66 to col. 8, line 3). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a feeder to automatically feed the material into the compactor in order to minimize exposure to the workers as taught by Zolli.
Regarding claim 15, Schneider teaches that the waste capsule for storage is an elongate cylinder of fixed and finite length with opposing terminal ends (see e.g. capsule 101 in FIG. 1 and paragraph [0101]). The waste capsule is hollow, meaning that the interior includes a void space into which the waste will be placed (see e.g. paragraph [0101]). Schneider teaches that the opposing ends are plugged, meaning that they are configured to be closed (Id.).
Regarding claim 16, Tombs teaches that multiple pucks can be loaded into a single waste capsule, which would involve adding the pucks serially and resulting in one puck on top of another puck with the bottom puck against a first terminal end (see e.g. paragraph [0020]). Schneider teaches that the capsule is sized and shaped based on the size and shape of the material being loaded (see e.g. paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 17, Schneider teaches that each of the two opposing terminal ends is connectable to link to a different waste capsule such that two or more waste capsules are mechanically and physically linked together into a string of waste capsules (see e.g. paragraph [0161]).
Regarding claim 18, Schneider teaches that the section of the wellbore is horizontal, which would be orthogonal to a gravitational vector along the section of the wellbore (see e.g. paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 19, Schneider teaches that the horizontal portion of the wellbore is operatively linked to a vertical section of the wellbore that runs vertically to a wellhead at the surface (see e.g. paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 20, Schneider teaches that the wellbore comprises a vertical section and a horizontal section, which would necessarily be substantially orthogonal to each other (see e.g. paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 21, Schneider describes the wellbore containing the waste material as closed, which implies that the wellbore has been sealed shut (see e.g. paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 22, Schneider teaches the step of retrieving the capsules after storing them in the wellbore, which would require unsealing and opening of the wellbore (see e.g. paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 23, Schneider teaches retrieving the capsules from the wellbore (see e.g. paragraph [0003]).
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tombs in view of Zolli and Schneider as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US4772430A (“Sauda”).
Regarding claim 10, Tombs in view of Zolli and Schneider teach the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Tombs does not specifically teach a volume reduction factor after compacting the material. Sauda teaches a system for compacting and solidifying various solid waste, including radioactive waste (see e.g. col. 1, lines 28-35). Sauda teaches that, depending on the type of waste, enough force can be applied during compacting to reduce the volume of the waste by as much as 80% (see e.g. Table 3). Accordingly, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to compact the waste of Tombs as much as possible, including over 30% reduction in volume, in order to minimize the resulting volume of radioactive material.
Regarding claim 13, Tombs does not specifically teach that the formed pucks are shaped by extrusion. Sauda teaches that thermoplastic material can be added to radioactive waste prior to compacting, and the resulting mixture extruded to shape the material (see e.g. col. 4, lines 11-19). Sauda teaches that using an extruder allows for the formation of rod-like masses or pellets for easier storage or disposal in containers (see e.g. col. 5, lines 8-14). Accordingly, prior to the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to use an extruder as taught by Sauda to obtain the compressed material from Tombs in order to more easily store or dispose of the material.
Regarding claim 14, Tombs teaches that the material is compressed into pucks, which implies a solid cylindrical disc shape (see e.g. paragraph [0017]). Further, Sauda teaches extruding the material into a rod-shaped mass, which, similar to a puck, is a solid cylindrical shape (see e.g. col. 5, lines 8-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736