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 and 5-11 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because they are directed to newly added claim language. The new ground of rejection below does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 1-3 and 5-11 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.
5. Regarding claims 1-3, claim 1 introduces “a plurality of nuclear fuel rods configured to contain a nuclear fuel” and subsequently “nuclear fuel pellets comprising a fissile material,” which is nuclear fuel. Further claims 2 and 3 recite “further comprising the nuclear fuel.” How many nuclear fuels are in this fuel assembly? Are the fuel pellets the nuclear fuel or does the fuel assembly contain both a nuclear fuel and fuel pellets? The fuel rods contain both fuel pellets and nuclear fuel? What form does the nuclear fuel take in the fuel rod if it is not the nuclear fuel pellets? Further claim 1 recites “wherein the fissile material comprises at least two different 235U enrichments,” whereas claims 2 and 3 pertain to the enrichment of the nuclear fuel. Applicant should select one terminology and use it consistently, for example:
(claim 1) a plurality of nuclear fuel rods configured to contain nuclear fuel pellets comprising a fissile material
(claim 1) wherein the fissile material comprises at least two different enrichments
(claim 2) wherein the two different enrichments are both less than 20% by weight 235U
(claim 3) wherein the two different enrichments are both in a range of 5-20% by weight 235U
6. Claims 5-11 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camden, Jr. et al., US 4,637,915 in view of Beard, Jr. et al. US 4,493,814, in further view of Hattori et al., US 2012/0033776.
11. Regarding claims 1 and 8 (as best understood), Camden discloses a nuclear fuel assembly for a pressurized water reactor (column 1, lines 7-11), the nuclear fuel assembly comprising (see Figs. 1 and 2): a plurality of nuclear fuel rods (100/102) configured to contain nuclear fuel pellets (104) comprising a fissile material (column 4, lines 17-18), wherein the nuclear fuel pellets are located within the nuclear fuel rods (column 4, lines 22-29), wherein the fissile material comprises at least two different 235U enrichments (column 3, lines 8-24), noting that such an arrangement is for “higher fuel utilization” (column 7, lines 3-11).
Camden discloses neither annular nuclear fuel pellets nor burnable absorber fuel pellets. Beard teaches fuel rods also for a fuel assembly that is intended to achieve “high uranium utilization” (see column 1, lines 52-60), the fuel rods comprising nuclear fuel pellets containing fissile material, wherein the fissile material comprises at least two different 235U enrichments, wherein at least a portion of the nuclear fuel pellets are annular nuclear fuel pellets and wherein at least some of the fuel rods contain fuel pellets with a burnable absorber (see Table I), noting that such fuel rods predictably “favorably redistributes the neutron flux and burnup of fuel” (column 1, lines 38-43). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the fuel rods taught by Beard in the fuel assembly of Camden.
Camden further establishes that the H/U ratio in its fuel assembly is result-effective and is directly proportional to fuel utilization and fission power output (see, e.g., column 3, lines 8-24), but it silent as to the H/U of its fuel assembly. Hattori teaches a PWR ([0029]) fuel assembly ([0031]),wherein the nuclear fuel assembly is configured such that a hydrogen to uranium ratio for the nuclear fuel assembly, when coolant and the nuclear fuel are present under operating conditions, is >4.1, preferably >4.5 ([0052]+[0073]), which is a range that overlaps the claimed range. Accordingly, Hattori makes obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Hattori teaches that increasing H/U is advantageous because the “moderator density coefficient does not become a positive value at the BOC and HZP (Hot Zero Power),” and because “it is possible to reduce the number of control rods required for realizing cold shutdown, and to simplify facilities” ([0074]), providing motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to apply its teaching to the fuel assembly of Camden as modified by the fuel rods of Beard.
12. Regarding claim 2, the modification of Camden with Beard’s fuel rods and the H/U taught by Hattori makes claim 1 obvious. Beard further teaches fuel rods wherein the fissile material in the fuel pellets has an enrichment level of up to 20% by weight 235U (see Tables I and II). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the fuel rods taught by Beard in the fuel assembly of Camden for the reason stated above.
13. Regarding claim 6, the modification of Camden with Beard’s fuel rods and the H/U taught by Hattori makes claim 1 obvious. Camden is silent as to the outer diameter to pitch ratio of its fuel assembly. Hattori, however, establishes that both fuel rod diameter and fuel rod pitch are result-effective variables that determine the fuel assembly’s H/U value (see [0074]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to find an optimal value or workable range for the outer diameter to pitch ratio of the fuel assembly of Camden that achieves the desired H/U ratio of >4.5 ([0073]). See MPEP 2144.05(II)
13. Claims 3, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camden, Jr. et al. US 4,637,915 in view of Beard, Jr. et al. US 4,493,814 and Hattori et al., US 2012/0033776, in further view of Heraltova, “Possibility of implementation of 6-year fuel cycle at NPP with VVER-440 reactor.”
14. Regarding claim 3, the modification of Camden with Beard’s fuel rods and the H/U taught by Hattori makes claim 1 obvious. Neither Camden nor beard disclose fuel pellets having a fissile material enrichment of 5-20 wt% 235U. Heraltova teaches that increasing fuel enrichment to above 5% provides the benefit of “prolongation of the fuel cycle together with extension of fuel batches to 18 or 24 months” (p. 41, the sentence preceding Table 1). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to increase the enrichment of the fuel in Camden’s fuel assembly to achieve such an advantage.
15. Regarding claims 9-11, the modification of Camden with Beard’s fuel rods and the H/U taught by Hattori makes claim 1 obvious. Camden is silent as to its fuel assembly’s refueling interval. Heraltova teaches refueling a pressurized water nuclear reactor on a 24-month periodic cycle interval and achieving a fuel burnup of greater than 70 GWd/tU (see p. 45: “reached 80,000 MWd/tU for 3x24 months strategy). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the methodology taught by Heraltova—higher enrichment and 24-month refueling cycle—to the fuel assembly of Camden as modified by Beard and Hattori for the predictable purpose of achieving longer fuel cycles, (Heraltova at p. 41), thereby increasing the effective utilization of the nuclear fuel (see p. 40).
16. Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camden, Jr. et al. US 4,637,915 in view of Beard, Jr. et al. US 4,493,814 and Hattori et al., US 2012/0033776, in further view of Mildrum US 4,687,629.
17. Regarding claims 5 and 7, the modification of Camden with Beard’s fuel rods and the H/U taught by Hattori makes claim 1 obvious. Beard does not teach fuel rods wherein all of the nuclear fuel pellets are annular and is silent as to the void volume of its annular fuel pellets. Mildrum teaches a fuel rod wherein all of the nuclear fuel pellets are annular (see Figs. 2 and 4) and have a void volume of 10.8% (see Fig. 7). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the teaching of Mildrum to the fuel pellets od Beard in Camden’s fuel assembly for the predictable purpose of creating a fuel rod having “graduated enrichment loading,” thereby permitting “fuel assembly design customization” (column 2, lines 13-45).
Interviews
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.
Additional References
The attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892) cites additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights