DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/239,835, filed on 08/30/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/US2022/018241, filed on 03/01/2022, and which claims priority to provisional application number 63/154,964, filed on 03/01/2021.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 03/17/2026.
Status of Claims
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 03/172026 have been carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
The applicant’s reply related to the section 112 rejections are not sufficient at this time. No clarifying remarks are presented that resolve the scope of the terms “low-Z”, “high-Z”, or “mid-range energy photons”. Examples are offered but these do not make clear the metes and bounds of the terms and the claimed invention. The examiner requests further explanation from the applicant regarding enablement of each claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recite a “low-Z” and a “high-Z” material, but gives no direction or limitation to what does and does not qualify as either a low or high Z material. Although the specification mentions several carbon-based materials for the low-Z material, it is not at all clear how a skilled artisan would determine whether any particular material is a low- or high-Z material. The specification mentions “lead or polymer-matrix metal composites” as possible materials for the second wall having high-Z material. Lead is known to have a high atomic number, but not all metals have very high atomic numbers. The applicant also describes “low to moderate Z materials” and lists boron carbide. Boron has a smaller atomic number than carbon, and the applicant states that carbon is a low-Z material. It is not clear why boron carbide would be considered a moderate-Z material when carbon is a low-Z material. Other possibly moderate-Z materials listed by the applicant might be Mg(BH4)2 or TiH2. Is titanium a moderate- or high-Z material? There is insufficient context in the applicant’s disclosure to inform skilled artisans exactly what materials the claims do and not encompass.
The claim fails to define the metes and bounds of the invention because skilled artisans would not be able to articulate a clear meaning and interpretation of the recited terms. All dependent claims are similarly rejected as they each incorporate by reference the indefinite subject matter of independent claims 1 and 17.
Claims 1 and 17 also recite “low energy photons” but again there is no coherent distinction or known value that separates “low energy” photons from any other sort of photon. An identical issue presents itself in claim 11 with recitation of “mid-range energy photons” because there is no accepted or well-known meaning or values for this phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Enablement
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 1-20 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.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Wands Analysis: (Note MPEP 2164.01(a))
(A) Breadth of claims and (B) The nature of the invention:
The limitations of the claims broadly recite a cooling system for a [nuclear] reactor having two layers. The dependent claims separately recite “CNT bundles” functioning as “a plurality of pipes”. Claims 16 and 17 also recite a carbon nanotube cloth moveable/rotatable within an interior of a [nuclear fusion] reactor.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill:
One of ordinary skill in this art is considered to be a scientist or other highly educated and trained practitioner, skilled in the methods of nuclear reactor design and nuclear processes.
(E) The level of predictability in the art:
The level of predictability in the art is considered to be low, inasmuch as there are numerous variables known to affect nuclear reactor design and cooling systems for a reactor, and their construction and performance.
The art is generally unaware of successful or common implementations of carbon nanotube-comprising cooling systems for reactors, and therefore a more complete statement and explanation of how to construct and use the claimed cooling system must be supplied in the disclosure. The structural effects of radiation on carbon nanotubes is not a well-understood field of research.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the Applicant:
Applicant does not provide adequate direction as to how to construct a device which meets the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant does not disclose a cooling system for a reactor possessing all of the claimed limitations. One could not easily conceive, design, or construct a nuclear reactor having movable/replacement/rotatable carbon nanotube cloth within the reactor. Even in other reactor types referenced by the applicant, it is not at all readily apparent how the claimed cooling system would be implemented, without a substantial and undue level of experimentation.
(G) The existence of working examples:
There are no other examples commensurate with the scope of the invention claimed. There are conceptual illustrations of the recited cooling system in the figures, but they are entirely insufficient to instruct a skilled artisan to produce the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
Applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce and use the invention. Therefore, an undue level of experimentation would be required for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce the claimed cooling systems.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights