DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “primary circuit)” which should be –primary circuit--.
Claim 6 recites “the surrounding ambient or heat sink” which should be –a surrounding ambient or heat sink--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purdy et al. (US 3,245,879).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. (Currently amended) A nuclear reactor module comprising: a containment vessel (84); a reactor vessel (12) contained in (fig. 1) the containment vessel (84), the reactor vessel (12) comprising a primary circuit) (e.g., col. 3, lines 15-30) with a primary fluid (primary coolant, col. 2, lines 27-28), and a reactor core (reactor core, col. 2, lines 23-25, 33-39) contained in the reactor vessel (12) and being cooled by the primary fluid, wherein an intermediate volume (86) is formed between the containment vessel (84) and the reactor vessel (12), which intermediate volume is partially filled (94) with an intermediate fluid, which is water (water, col. 3, lines 53-55) and which is in direct heat conducting contact with the reactor vessel (fig. 1 shows the claimed configuration), and wherein the circulation of the primary fluid is permanently separated from the intermediate volume (fig. 1 clearly shows the claimed configuration, where primary coolant is disclosed as flowing in a closed circuit).
4. (Currently amended) The nuclear reactor module according to claim 1, wherein the passive removal of decay heat is not reliant on forced circulation of the primary fluid or circulation mechanical components (the structure of the prior art meets the claimed functional limitation inosmuch as heat transfer via conduction is driven by temperature differences between areas; plainly, while the overall efficiency of conduction depends upon circulation, the presence or absence of conduction is a function of the relative temperatures and orientations of materials).
The limitations of claims 2 and 6-7 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art, above, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2), and are omitted for brevity.
The limitations of claim 4 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art, above, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2), and are omitted for brevity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickson (US 3,309,278), in view of Purdy et al. (US 3,245,879).
Regarding the claims, the prior art discloses the following:
1. (Currently amended) A nuclear reactor module comprising: a containment vessel (102); a reactor vessel (10) contained in (fig. 1) the containment vessel (102), the reactor vessel (10) comprising a primary circuit) (via 25, 26) with a primary fluid (col. 4, lines 34-39), and a reactor core (12) contained in the reactor vessel (10) and being cooled by the primary fluid, wherein an intermediate volume (fig. 1 shows fluid-filled volume between 10, 102) is formed between the containment vessel (102) and the reactor vessel (10), which intermediate volume [contains] an intermediate fluid (101), and which is in direct heat conducting contact with the reactor vessel (fig. 1 shows the claimed configuration), and wherein the circulation of the primary fluid is permanently separated from the intermediate volume (fig. 1 clearly shows the claimed configuration).
However, although Dickson shows the structure mapped above in the figures, the disclosure of Dickson lacks explicit detail to the material and/or volumes, and therefore cannot be said to disclose that the intermediate volume is partially filled with an intermediate fluid, which is water.
Purdy teaches an intermediate volume is partially filled (94) with an intermediate fluid, which is water (water, col. 3, lines 53-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the explicit details provided by Purdy, to include the partially-filled arrangement and/or the water, in order to bring light to the disclosure of Dickson, for the expected benefit of allowing the use of common, ordinary, cheap, and/or efficient materials; and/or to provide for the expansion of liquid within a sealed environment to prevent explosion, damage, or rupture.
Regarding the materials of claims 3 and 14, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the reactor vessel is made out of steel and/or austentic steel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to form the reactor vessel out of steel and/or austentic steel for the predictable result of optimizing the structural integrity of the components while minimizing spacing and costs and/or allowing the use of materials common to the art, since it has been held to be well-within the general skill of a worker in the art to select from known materials on the basis of their suitability for the intended use.1
Regarding the materials of claim 5, the prior art is silent regarding the composition of the primary cooling fluid, and therefore cannot be said to disclose that the primary fluid is water. However, the use of water as a primary coolant in nuclear reactor modules was old and well-known, as evidenced by the background discussion of Dickson (e.g., col. 1, lines 26-32). Therefore, the use of water as the primary fluid in the prior art would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of elements which were old and well-known, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.2 However, even in absence of the known state-of-the-art as evidenced by Dickson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use water for the primary fluid, since it has been held to be well-within the general skill of a worker in the art to select from known materials on the basis of their suitability for the intended use,3 as such an arrangement provides the predictable result of optimizing the heat transfer capability of the system while minimizing spacing and costs.
The limitations of claims 2, 4, and 6-7 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art, above, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2), and are omitted for brevity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See discussions of MPEP 2144.07 regarding Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
2 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
3 See discussions of MPEP 2144.07 regarding Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Prosecution Insights