DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1–12 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior art rejections of record; an updated search has been conducted, and the results are detailed herein.
Claim Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: some of the claims do not have periods. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification uses the numeral “16” as both “fuel tubes” and “fuel rods.” These terms must be standardized and done so in line with the claimed terms.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 7, and 9 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 2 recites the limitation "some other adjacent fuel tubes" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “interior” as introduced in the parent claim may be missing here.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a triangular packing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear why this term is introduced for a second time when it was already introduced in the previous phrase.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “fuel tubes with equal separation between pairs of the three adjacent fuel tubes.” It is unclear how “equal separation” is intended to be interpreted. Parent claim 1 uses the known-in-the-art term “pitch.” Instead, “separation between pairs of … fuel tubes” seems intentionally alternative to pitch. It is unclear where this separation is measured, if it is symmetric, how it is measured, et cetera. Additionally, it is unclear between which item(s) the “equal separation” occurs. The claim says “equal separation between pairs of three.” In a triangle, would this mean a first two points are equidistant from a second two points? Is there an overlap between said points? (Considering a triangle has three points.) It is unclear between which items the separation exists, and it is unclear how this relates to “pairs” of fuel tubes/rods.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if the phrasing “equally spaced horizontal rows and columns” should actually be “and/or” rows and columns. Does this limitation intend to recite that the horizontal rows and horizontal columns are equally spaced? If so, from what? From each other? What is a horizontal column? Isn’t a column vertical? Are vertical columns equally spaced from each other, and horizontal rows are equally spaced from each other? Or are vertical and horizontal items equally spaced from each other? Or something else entirely?
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner cannot find an interpretation of claim 9 that is reasonably shown by the Drawings or explained in the Specification. Examiner finds Figure 3 to be the best/only Figure showing the control rods’ relative arrangement to other claimed structures. At least some control rods 18 are at equally spaced horizontal rows and(/or?) columns. Because rows/columns are not positively recited, it is difficult to interpret where the boundaries of these might be. However, Examiner does not find that the disclosure supports claim 9’s recitations regarding lack of control rods at equally spaced rows/columns or at whole number divisions thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bupp (US 4,059,484).
Regarding claim 1, Bupp discloses a nuclear reactor comprising: a fuel assembly (Fig. 3; labeled 10 in Fig. 1) having: vertically oriented and horizontally spaced fuel tubes (small fuel rods 12 and large fuel rods 46) providing water passage therebetween, the fuel tubes including outermost fuel tubes (radially outermost row of fuel rods 12) and interior fuel tubes (radially interior small fuel rods 12 and large fuel rods 46) being fuel tubes other than the outermost fuel tubes, the fuel tubes having channels receiving nuclear fuel; vertically oriented control rod passageways (34) separating groups of the fuel tubes, the control rod passageways having channels receiving control rods (36); a pressure vessel (“pressurized water reactor,” abstract) surrounding the fuel assembly (Fig. 3; labeled 10 in Fig. 1); a control rod mechanism communicating through the pressure vessel to move control rods into and out of the control rod passageways (all PWR [pressurized water reactor] control rods necessarily have CDRMs [control rod drive mechanisms]); and wherein the fuel tubes further include adjacent fuel tubes not separated by control rod passageways and wherein the pitch of some adjacent interior fuel tubes is different from the pitch of some other adjacent interior fuel tubes (see the below Examiner-annotated figure: two interior “Ο” fuel rods 12 have a smaller pitch than the interior “X” fuel rods 46).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the some adjacent interior fuel tubes (“X”) are adjacent to control rod passageways (34) and the some other adjacent [interior] fuel tubes (“Ο”) are not adjacent to control rod passageways (34).
Regarding claim 3, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the fuel tubes are cylinders are of equal diameter (some of the outermost fuel tubes 12 and interior fuel tubes 12 are of equal diameter).
Regarding claim 4, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the nuclear reactor is a pressurized water reactor (“pressurized water reactor,” abstract) maintaining circulating water through the water passage and further providing a water circulation system for maintaining a water pressure and temperature preventing a boiling of cooling water (this is how all PWRs operate).
Regarding claim 5, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein all of the control rod channels (34) are positioned at intersections of a regular geometric grid having equal spacing in perpendicular directions (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the regular geometric grid provides 17 intersections along each of the perpendicular directions (in Fig. 3, there are at least 17 perpendicular intersections).
Regarding claim 7, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein a subset of the fuel tubes have triangular packing, a triangular packing of fuel tubes providing three adjacent fuel tubes with equal separation between pairs of the three adjacent fuel tubes along non-perpendicular axes: as best understood by the Examiner, one may take three adjacent fuel rods in Fig. 3 of Bupp whose “pairs” (i.e., in a triangle, any two points) are equally separated for which non-perpendicular axes may be drawn.
Regarding claim 8, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein a number of fuel tubes is greater than 300 (PWRs have tens of thousands of fuel rods).
Regarding claim 9, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses the control rod rods (36) are positioned at positions that do not lie on equally spaced horizontal rows and columns or at positions displaced from the equally spaced horizontal rows and columns by an integer division of the equal spacing of the horizontal rows and columns: as best understood by the Examiner, there are control rods 36 in at least Fig. 3 of Bupp that are not on equally spaced horizontal rows and columns (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the fuel tubes are cylinders (see Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bupp.
Regarding claim 10, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the fuel tubes (small fuel rods 12 and large fuel rods 46) have a diameter (implicit). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a diameter of greater than 6 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In this case, the skilled artisan would not have been surprised by the use of fuel tubes having a diameter greater than 6 mm. The behavior of such a fuel tube would have been easily modeled and predicted by widely used simulation software.
Regarding claim 12, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the nuclear reactor is a light water reactor (“pressurized water reactor,” abstract) maintaining circulating water through the water passage and further providing a water circulation system for maintaining a water pressure and temperature permitting heating of cooling water and wherein the fuel assembly (10) provides water circulation through a center of the fuel assembly (10) only within a volume surrounding and in contact with fuel tubes (all light water reactors function in this manner). Bupp does not explicitly suggest a BWR. However, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. The skilled artisan is not surprised by the extremely well-known differences between PWRs and BWRs.
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.
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.
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