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 1-9, 11-17, and 19-24 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments dated 12/26/25 are persuasive in view of the amended claim language.
3. However, the amendments have introduced new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Further, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made for claim 23 as amended and new claim 24.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the amendments fails to adhere to the grammatical structure set forth in the claim, includes extraneous and redundant phrases (“the plant further comprising”) and the claim is missing words such as wherein in multiple places.
5. Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble introduces a single fuel assembly and the claim refers to multiple fuel assemblies.
6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
9. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
10. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
11. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
12. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
13. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “station configured for…” and “area configured for…”
14. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
15. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19-24 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.
18. Regarding claim 1 and 23, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the a least one fuel rod inspection station(s).” Further there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the last inspection station.”
19. Regarding claim 7, the recitation “at least one fuel rod inspection station configured for inspection of the fuel rod” is unclear. Is this the same “the at least one fuel rod inspection station(s) not properly introduced in claim 1?
20. Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-17, and 19-22 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
21. Regarding claim 23, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the nuclear fuel assembly manufacturing plant” and it is unclear whether the subsequently recited “fuel assembly manufacturing unit” is referring to the same element.
22. Regarding claim 24, the phrase “said further fuel rods being inserted with the fuel rods into the skeleton” does not clearly indicate what structure is required of the claimed plant. This phrase merely recites an intended use of the further fuel rods r a step of operating the claimed plant. There is inadequate delineation of structure of any of the plant’s components associated with this phrase. Moreover, it is unclear what effect the phrase “received from the separated nuclear fuel assembly manufacturing plant being used during the insertion step together with the fuel rods manufactured in the fuel rod manufacturing unit,” which appears after a first period in the claim. This phrase is not clearly linked to any structure previously recited, seems redundant, and again is directed to a step of operating the plant rather than structure of the plant itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USNRC “Fuel Fabrication” (A18 cited on IDS dated 07/19/23) in view of Kushner “Nuclear fuel fabrication for commercial electric power generation” (A21 cited on IDS dated 07/19/23), in further view of DE-19960080-A1, referred to here as “Siemens.”
27. Regarding claim 23, USNRC discloses a plant configured for manufacturing a nuclear fuel assembly comprising nuclear fuel rods arranged in a bundle and a skeleton supporting the fuel rods, the plant comprising: a logistic area configured for shipping the fuel assemblies manufactured in the plant and for receiving fuel rods; a fuel rod manufacturing unit configured for manufacturing fuel rods using pellets (building unit labeled “Fuel Rod/Bundle Assembly/Quality Check).
USNRC is silent as to the structure within the Fuel Rod/Bundle Assembly/Quality check building unit. Kushner teaches that such a facility comprises a pellet receiving area configured for receiving nuclear fuel pellets (“Pellet Machining”); a fuel assembly manufacturing unit comprising an inserting station configured for insertion of the fuel rods into a skeleton to obtain the fuel assembly (“Final Assembly”); and a packaging station configured for packaging the fuel assembly into a fuel assembly container in view of transportation (“Package and Ship”).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have recognized that Kushner illustrates the internal structure of USNRC’s Fuel Rod/Bundle Assembly/Quality check building unit because Kushner states that it is “a walking tour through a typical nuclear fuel fabrication plant” (Abstract) and describes a “sound, integrated manufacturing process” (Conclusion). That is, a skilled artisan would understand that Kushner and USNRC are describing the same facility, with USNRC depicting a higher-level overview of such a facility and Kushner detailing the facility’s internal structure.
Kushner does not explicitly disclose that its pellet receiving area is “configured for receiving nuclear fuel pellets from a nuclear pellet manufacturing plant separated by a non-confined area from the nuclear fuel assembly manufacturing plant. The examiner believes that any “pellet receiving area” would be configured to receive nuclear fuel pellets from any source because there is no special structure required to achieve such a limitation. Nonetheless, Siemens (Fig. 1 and 2) teaches a fuel rod manufacturing unit comprising a pellet receiving area configured for receiving nuclear fuel pellets from a nuclear fuel manufacturing plant separated by a non-confined area from the nuclear fuel assembly manufacturing plant (Figs. 1 and 2) shows separate building for fuel pellet production, fuel rod fabrication, and fuel assembly manufacture. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply such an arrangement to achieve “flexible design of fuel assemblies” (see EPO translation at line 282), by using different types of fuel pellets produced by different facilities in a single fuel rod. Additionally, such an arrangement would predictably reduce the inventory of fuel pellets stored at the fuel rod fabrication unit.
Please also refer to Bailey cited on the attached PTO-892 at [0003-0007], indicating that pellet shipping from a pellet manufacturing facility to a fuel rod manufacturing facility is standard in the art.
28. Regarding claim 24, as best understood, Siemens teaches a fuel assembly manufacturing facility comprising a logistic area configured for receiving fuel rods from a variety of fuel rod manufacturing plants separated from the fuel assembly manufacturing unit by a non-confined area, all of the fuel rods from the various sources being inserted into the fuel assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2). Again, such a modification of Kushner would predictably result in “flexible design of fuel assemblies” as stated above.
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 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