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 .
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 (claim 16) and Species B1 (claim 18) in the reply filed on 12/09/25is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner “merely makes a conclusory allegation that the identified species do not share the same or corresponding technical feature, but does not substantiate the allegation in any way.” This is not found persuasive because the reason that the “allegation was not substantiated” is that one need only read the claims themselves to find evidence that the identified species do not share a technical feature. Claim 16 recites a completely different arrangement of fuel salt channels than claim 17 recites. The same is true for the features of the heat-transfer salt channels in claims 18 and 19. This is evident from the language presented in paragraph 1 of the office action dated 10/09/25.
2. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Accordingly claims 1-22 are pending with claims 17, 19, and 20 withdrawn. Claims 1-16, 18, and 21-22 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Many claims lack appropriate punctuation (semi-colons) and the connecting word “and” delineating lists of required structure. At least claim 1 and claim 6 exhibit this deficiency.
In claim 1, the phrase “which primary enclosure is impermeable to liquid salts” should be “wherein the primary enclosure is impermeable to liquid salts.”
In claim 5, the phrase “an element called the central collector arranged…” should be amended to “a central collector arranged…” Additionally, the phrase “central portion of slice” is redundant and should be simplified to using only one term.
In claim 6, the phrase “an element called the collector integrated…” should be amended to “a collector integrated…”
In claim 10, the phrase “which thorium layer which thorium layer is intended to be fertilised by absorption of leakage neutrons which escape from the primary enclosure and are slowed down by the reflective layer” should be amended to “the thorium layer intended to absorb neutrons escaping from the primary layer and passing through the reflective layer.”
In claim 15, the phrase “have a dimension comprised between” should be amended to “have a dimension of between.”
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of claims 11 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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: “device for controlling…” in claim 13.
13. 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.
14. 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
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-16, 18, and 21-22 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.
17. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a reactor core crossed by a fuel salt” is unclear and one would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the structure encompassed by this limitation. At a minimum, the recited “reactor core” has no defined structure that would indicate how it interacts with the fuel salt to result in the structural relationship of “crossed by.” The examiner suggests amending to “a reactor core; a fuel salt circulating through the reactor core, the fuel salt comprising fission-capable heavy nuclei; a primary enclosure…”
18. Regarding claim 5, the recitation “said primary collector” lacks antecedent basis. It appears it should refer to “the central collector.” Additionally, the recitation “on one side” and “on the other side” referring to the central collector, because this phrasing suggests that the central collector is two-dimensional having only two sides. Since, the central collector must be 3-dimensional, one would be unable to determine which side is “the other side.” The term “large” is relative and subjective and therefore indefinite. The term “inner side” is also indefinite because it fails to establish a reference point that would allow one to determine which side is inner. Finally, the phrase “arranged in the primary enclosure opposite, above the top opening of the central collector” claims to make clear what relationship is required between the two elements. Is it opposite and above? Opposite or above” To what is the pump “opposite”?
The examiner suggests: “a central collector, arranged in the primary enclosure above the upper face of the matrix, said central collector comprising on its lower side, a base adjacent to the upper face of the matrix, the base covering a central portion of the upper face, and on its top side, a top opening, the central collector defining a pyramidal hopper connecting the large base to the top opening; and a centrifugal pump, arranged in the primary enclosure above the top opening of the central collector.”
19. Claim 6 is indefinite for the same reasons listed for claim 5.
The examiner suggests: a collector integrated with the primary enclosure, the collector having on one side a base adjacent the first lateral face of the matrix and on an opposite side at least one opening connected to the heat-transfer salt inlet opening of the primary enclosure or to the heat- transfer salt outlet opening of the primary enclosure; and one or two pumps arranged outside the primary enclosure.
20. Regarding claims 11 and 13, the limitations “ means for injecting” and “device for controlling” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claim elements. The specification merely repeats the claim language.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
21. Further regarding claim 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “said neutral gas” in the claim. The claim merely introduces a tank.
22. Regarding claim 12, the recitation “a trace preheating system” is undefined and has no clear metes and bounds. Neither the claim nor the disclosure provides a sufficient explanation as to how one would differentiate “a trace preheating system” from any system providing the function of heating.
23. Claim 16 is indefinite for the same reasons listed for claim 5 and additionally, because there is no antecedent basis for “the motor drive and control elements of said fuel salt circulation means.
24. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Shu (EP 2427886 cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 08/09/23) and Geist (cited on attached PTO-892) are the closest prior art. Both circulate fuel salt through the core in a loop that involves the fuel salt entering the core on one face and exiting at an opposite face of the core. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify these reactors such that the fuel salt circulates by exiting from one portion of one face of the core matrix and entering through another portion of the same face, as recited in claim 1. With respect to Geist, such a modification would destroy its intended purpose of providing natural circulation of the fuel salt.
7. Withdrawn species claims 17 and 19-20 appear to also employ much of the indefinite language present in he claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The examiner respectfully requests that Applicant attempt to correct the claims according to the suggested language above so that the claims can be rejoined without additional rejections.
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