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 .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-13 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Weinzierl fails to disclose the “moderator adapted to…irradiate the neutron beam by side scattering…” as newly recited in claim 1. This limitation is indefinite for the reasons explained below.
3. Nonetheless, Applicant’s arguments misapprehend the disclosure of Weinzierl. The embodiment of Weinzierl applied by the examiner to previously presented claim is depicted in Fig. 6. It is important to note that the sample being interrogated the generated neutrons is depicted at 35 and the detector analyzing the neutrons passing through the sample is depicted at 37. The detector 39 that Applicant’s arguments reference is not the detector mapped to the detector of the claim (see paragraph 17 of the office action dated 10/17/25). Detector 39 is employed for timing purposes; it does not collect the neutrons that are employed in interrogating the sample. Comparing Weinzierl’s Fig. 6 with Applicant’s Fig. 1 in the same orientation (see annotation below), it is clear that both systems function in exactly the same manner. Ions are generated and directed to a converter, where a neutron-producing reaction takes place. The produced neutrons pass through the moderator, that in both cases surrounds the converter, where the energy of the neutrons is reduced. Because of the orientation of the sample with respect to the converter, the side-scattered neutrons emerging from the converter and the moderator are directed to the sample. The neutrons that pass through the sample are then collected at the detector. It is noted that this was explained in the interview of 17 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
6. Regarding claims 1 and 10, the limitation “wherein the moderator is adapted to slow down the neutrons and to irradiate the neutron beam by side scattering in an angular range of 30°to 150° to filter X-rays” is unclear. A moderator, by definition is “a material, such as ordinary water, heavy water, or graphite, that is used in a reactor to slow down high-velocity neutrons, thus increasing the likelihood of fission.”1 It is unclear what structure such a material would need to possess to make it “adapted to irradiate the neutron beam by side-scattering in an angular range of 30°to 150°.” An "adapted to" clause may limit a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning (MPEP 2111.04(I). In this case, the specification, indicates that the moderator does not possess any particular structure to achieve this limitation. Rather, it is the arrangement of the sample with respect to the converter that enables the sample to be irradiate with the side scattered neutrons. The specification states “[i]t is understood that neutrons may be emitted in all direction, but embodiments use the lateral scattered neutrons” ([0050]). Thus, the moderator, as disclosed, possesses no special structure to achieve the functional limitation of the claim. Finally, this limitation is indefinite because it is not clear from what the recited angle is measured.
7. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
10. 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.
16. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weinzierl, US 3,496,357.
17. Regarding claim 13, Weinzierl discloses a method (see Fig. 6) for detecting fissile material in a nuclear reactor (the device is capable of this; see column 1, lines 18-46) comprising: generating a particle beam (column 4, line 73-75); generating a neutron beam based on the generated particle beam (column 5, lines 1-4); slowing down neutrons by a moderator (column 5, lines 5-7); irradiating the neutron beam by side scattering in an angular range of 30° to 150° from the moderator (Fig. 6: neutrons emitted at an angle of 90° relative to the incident ion beam are transmitted through the collimator to the sample; column 5, lines 9-11); transmitting the neutron beam through the fissile material of the nuclear reactor (column 5, lines 11-13); and determining a spectrum of the received neutrons in the neutron beam after passing through the fissile material (column 5, lines 55-67) to enable a monitoring of the concentration of the fissile material in the nuclear reactor (column 6, lines 30-39).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
20. 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.
21. Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinzierl, US 3,496,357 in view of Roth, et al., “Assessment of laser-driven pulsed neutron sources for poolside neutron-based advanced NDE–a pathway to LANSCE-like characterization at INL.”
22. Regarding claim 1, Weinzierl discloses a sensor device (see Fig. 6) for detecting fissile material in a nuclear reactor (the device is capable of this; see column 1, lines 18-46), the sensor device comprising: an particle source adapted to generate an ion beam (31; column 4 line 73-75); a converter (32) with a coupled moderator (33) for receiving the generated ion or electron beam, wherein the converter is adapted to utilize ions of the ion beam to generate a neutron beam and to emit the neutron beam (column 5, lines 1-4); and a detector (37) adapted to receive the neutron beam after the neutron beam has passed the fissile material (35) and to provide a spectrum of neutrons of the received neutron beam (the detector is capable of such a use; see column 5, lines 30-39), wherein the moderator is adapted to slow down the neutrons (column 5, lines 5-7) and to irradiated the neutron beam by side scattering in an angular range of 30° to 150° (Fig. 6: neutrons emitted at an angle of 90° relative to the incident ion beam are transmitted through the collimator to the sample; column 5, lines 9-11) to filter X-rays (the device of Weinzierl is capable of achieving this desired result).
Weinzierl fails to disclose a laser-driven particle source. Roth teaches a neutron source (Fig. 8) for fissile material analysis (section 8.3), the neutron source comprising a laser source configured to irradiate a laser beam; and a laser target configured to receive the laser beam and to release the ion beam (Fig. 8). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to replace the accelerator-driven neutron source of Weinzierl with the laser-driven neutron source taught by Roth because Roth teaches that its neutron source is suited to neutron resonance spectroscopy (section 5.3) and has high efficiency (section 6).
23. Regarding claim 3, Weinzierl as modified by Roth makes claim 1 obvious. Roth further teaches the laser target including a deuterated material to provide deuterium nuclei (Fig. 8). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to replace the accelerator-driven neutron source of Weinzierl with the laser-driven neutron source taught by Roth for the reasons stated above.
24. Regarding claim 4, Weinzierl as modified by Roth makes claim 1 obvious. Weinzierl fails to explicitly disclose a detector configured to provide an energy resolution for the neutrons in the neutron beam by adjusting a distance between the converter and the detector. Weinzierl’s detector provides energy resolution by adjusting the time during which the detector measures neutrons (see column 5, lines 30-50). That is, to measure neutrons of lower energy, a higher time interval is applied because the lower energy neutrons travel more slowly than higher energy neutrons. The same effect would be achieved by adjusting the distance between the detector and the sample. Accordingly, claim 4 would have been an obvious modification of Weinzierl.
25. Regarding claim 5, Weinzierl as modified by Roth makes claim 1 obvious. Weinzierl further discloses a device wherein: the converter comprises a conversion material adapted to trigger a reaction that releases, upon an ion absorption, neutrons (see column 4, line 73 through column 5, line 4); and the moderator is adapted to reduce an energy of the released neutrons to a predetermined energy range and to emit the energy reduced neutrons as the neutron beam (this is the literal definition of a moderator, so the “moderator ball” of Weinzierl meets this limitation).
26. Regarding claim 6, Weinzierl as modified by Roth makes claim 1 obvious. Weinzierl fails to disclose the material of its neutron producing target 32. The examiner believes that it is within the skill of an artisan in the area of neutron production to select an appropriate material from materials known to interact with a deuteron beam to produce neutrons.2 Nonetheless, Roth teaches that lithium and beryllium are such materials (see Fig 8). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to replace the accelerator-driven neutron source of Weinzierl with the laser-driven neutron source taught by Roth for the reasons stated above.
27. Regarding claim 7, Weinzierl as modified by Roth makes claim 1 obvious. Weinzierl further discloses a device further comprising a processing unit (38), which is adapted to process the spectrum to detect absorption lines of isotopes of plutonium and/or uranium as fissile material (column 5, lines 55-67 and column 6, lines 30-39).
28. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinzierl, US 3,496,357 in view of Roth, et al., “Assessment of laser-driven pulsed neutron sources for poolside neutron-based advanced NDE–a pathway to LANSCE-like characterization at INL” in further view of Klein, et al. "Neutron-resonance transmission analysis with a compact deuterium-tritium neutron generator" in further view of Schoenig, et al., US 4,515,749.
29. Regarding claim 8, Weinzierl as modified by Roth makes claim 1 obvious. Weinzierl fails to explicitly disclose a processing unit is configured to determine a concentration of the fissile material based on a depth of at least one spectral line in the spectrum provided by the detector. However, Weinzierl’s detector collects the data necessary to perform this analysis (see column 5, lines 30-67 and column 6, lines 30-39). Klein teaches such data analysis (see Fig. 2 and Section IV). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to configure Weinzierl’s processor to conduct the data analysis taught by Klein because such a combination would predictably allow for “performing isotopic identification in under an hour” (see section V). While Weinzierl and Klein are silent as to issuing a warning, such an activity is ubiquitous in the art of nuclear technology where monitoring critical values is essential to performance and safety. Nonetheless, Shoenig explicitly teaches issuing a warning when a fissile material concentration determined by neutron counting leaves a predetermined range (see column 4, lines 11-25). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply such a determination to the processing unit of Weinzierl for the predictable purpose of “enhancing safety” (column 2, lines 43-48).
30. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negri, US 2020/0243208 in view of Weinzierl, US 3,496,357 357 in further view of Roth, et al., “Assessment of laser-driven pulsed neutron sources for poolside neutron-based advanced NDE–a pathway to LANSCE-like characterization at INL.”
31. Regarding claims 10-12, Negri discloses a molten salt reactor (Fig.. 1; [0065]), comprising at least one reactor chamber (2) and a heat exchanger (4), wherein the reactor is configured to circulate fuel salt ([0065) and a sensor device (22) arranged along a flow path of the fuel salt between the reactor chamber and the heat exchanger (see Fig. 1: this claim language does not require that the sensor be between the core chamber and the HX but that it be arranged along a flow path, the flow path including a portion that extends between the core and the HX) and configured to transmit sensed values to a remote server (21; [0078-9]). Negri suggests that the sensor device could be a neutron detector. Weinzierl as modified by Roth teaches the sensor device of claim 1 (see above in paragraph 22), wherein the sensor device is configured to detect a fissile material, measure a transmission spectrum of neutrons transmitting the fissile material and monitor the concentration of the fissile material (see Fig. 6 and column 6, lines 30-39). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the sensor of Weinzierl as modified by Roth in the nuclear reactor of Negri for the predictable purpose of determining “the proportion of fissionable material in samples of core-fuel without destruction thereof” (column 1, lines 33-35).
Finality
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/full-text
2 For example, see “Light ion accelerators” in “Neutron Source” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_source.