DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 20-41 are pending.
Elections
Applicant’s elections of Invention I and species A without traverse in the Reply filed 5 December 2025 is acknowledged. The elections encompass claims 20-21, 23-24, 27-34, and 40-41. Claims 22, 25-26 and 35-39 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s) or species. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 20-21, 23-24, 27-34, and 40-41 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20
The phrase “a flow restrictor for a fuel assembly of a nuclear power plant comprising a plurality of fingers adapted to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube of the fuel assembly when the flow restrictor is inserted into the fuel assembly” is unclear. In said phrase it is unclear whether the restrictor or the plant comprises a “plurality of fingers”. The phrase wording “for a fuel assembly of a nuclear power plant” appears to be redundant with previously recited subject matter. The phrase wording “adapted to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube of the fuel assembly when the flow restrictor is inserted into the fuel assembly” appears to be duplicative wording. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “a flow restrictor comprising a plurality of fingers, each finger configured to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube of the fuel assembly”.
Claims 27-28
The phrase “the screw connections are pressed or squeezed after their assembly” is unclear. Claims 27 and 28 are apparatus claims. The subject matter of the claims is improperly defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Claim 30
The phrase “the material to be achieved” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 33
The phrase “the fingers have a length adapted to extend at least 15 cm into the control rod guide tubes when the device is inserted into fuel assembly” is unclear. The phrase wording “when the device is inserted into fuel assembly” appears to be duplicative wording or redundant with previously recited subject matter. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “the fingers have a length configured to extend at least 15 cm into the control rod guide tubes”.
Claim 40
The phrase “a flow restrictor for a fuel assembly of a nuclear power plant comprising the flow restrictor comprising: a plurality of fingers adapted to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube of the fuel assembly when the flow restrictor is inserted into the fuel assembly” is unclear. In said phrase it is unclear whether the restrictor or the plant comprises a “plurality of fingers”. The phrase wording “for a fuel assembly of a nuclear power plant” appears to be redundant with previously recited subject matter. The phrase wording “a flow restrictor for a fuel assembly of a nuclear power plant comprising the flow restrictor comprising:” is unclear in its meaning. The phrase wording “adapted to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube of the fuel assembly when the flow restrictor is inserted into the fuel assembly” appears to be duplicative wording. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “a flow restrictor comprising a plurality of fingers, each finger configured to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube of the fuel assembly”.
Claim 41
The phrase “in case the material is sufficiently activated” is unclear.
The phrase wording “in case” may never occur. Thus, “in case” is not an active positive step, and hence is attributed little patentable weight.
The phrase wording “sufficiently activated” is unclear. It is unclear what activation level constitutes “sufficiently activated”. The dividing boundary between “sufficiently activated” and “not “sufficiently activated” is unknown and unclear. The phrase does not sufficiently allow the public to be informed of the required definite boundaries. Rather, the boundaries of what would constitute infringement are unknown.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20-21, 29-34, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heibel (US 2024/0105354).
Claims 20, 32, and 40
Applicant’s specification indicates that the “flow restrictor” acts as a plug for control rod guide tubes (e.g., published application at [0065]). As indicated in Heibel’s Figure 2C, “modified thimble plug assembly fingers are inserted into fuel assembly guide thimbles”. Thus, Heibel’s plug assembly corresponds to Applicant’s “flow restrictor”.
Heibel teaches a device comprising a plurality of fingers (30), each configured to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube (32) of a fuel assembly. A rod (26) is connected to a finger. The rod comprises containers (10; 100) having a space being filled with material (12; 120) to be activated. The device has at its upper end a coupling piece (40, 42), which includes a spring (44) to fix the device within the fuel assembly.
Claim 21
Note Heibel at [0040].
Claims 29-30 and 34
Note Heibel at [0037].
Claim 31
Note Heibel at [0027].
Claim 33
Note Heibel at [0039-0040].
Claim 41
Note Heibel at [0045].
Claims 20, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 105244069A).
Zhang teaches a device comprising a plurality of fingers (1; 11), each configured to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube (21) of a fuel assembly. A rod (1; 11) is connected to a finger. The rod comprises containers having a space being filled with material (12) to be activated. The device has at its upper end a coupling piece (4, 5), which includes a spring (7) to fix the device within the fuel assembly (e.g., Figure 6).
Recited features are disclosed, but not all are directly identified by reference numeral. Thus, Applicant should review Zhang in its entirety.
Claims 20, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN 112117021A).
Xu teaches a device comprising a plurality of fingers (2), each configured to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube of a fuel assembly. A rod (7, 8) is connected to a finger. The rod comprises containers (7, 8) having a space being filled with material to be activated. The device has at its upper end a coupling piece (1, 3), which includes a spring to fix the device within the fuel assembly (e.g., Figure 1).
Recited features are disclosed, but not all are directly identified by reference numeral. Thus, Applicant should review Xu in its entirety.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 20-21, 23-24, 27-28, 29, 31-33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (JPH11202074A) in combination with Monchanin (US 2010/0111243).
Claim 20
Murakami (cited via IDS) discloses a device (10) comprising a rod (30) having a plurality of containers (41, 51) filled with material to be activated. A flow restrictor (17) has a plurality of fingers (19) configured to extend respectively into a control rod guide tube (7). The rod is connected to a finger. A coupling piece (13, 15) is shown.
Monchanin shows that it is well known in the art to have a coupling piece (19, 20) include a spring (21) to fix a device (1) within a fuel assembly. The spring helps to absorb hydraulic force applied to the device. Modification of Murakami to have included a coupling piece including a spring for the benefits thereof, as suggested by Monchanin, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 21 and 27-28
In Murakami, the containers (41, 51) are connected to each other at connecting portions (43, 53) with one or more screw connection (43a, 53a) and welding ([0007]).
Claims 23-24
In Murakami, each rod (30) includes a plurality of markings (43b, 53b) that identify an end of the containers (41, 51).
Claim 29
In Murakami, the containers (41, 51) are made of stainless steel ([0006]).
Claim 31
Connecting a rod to a flow restrictor using a screw connection or a welding is conventional in the art. Note Murakami at [0002]. Modification of Murakami to have included to have employed a conventional connection would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 32
Murakami shows (e.g., Figure 1) that the flow restrictor has a shape of a control rod assembly upper portion.
Claim 33
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that fingers can be implemented with various lengths, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain finger lengths in light of the specific control rod guide tube design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murakami to have implemented fingers with a length of at least 15 cm to meet a particular control rod guide tube design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 40
In Murakami, the fuel assembly and/or the control assembly comprising rods (30) are provided into and/or removed from the core of a nuclear power plant only during its
outage.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (JPH11202074A) in combination with Monchanin (US 2010/0111243) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of either Weinstein (DE 3437112A1) or Hone (US 2012/0281805).
Weinstein (cited via IDS) shows that in order to enhance the chemical stability of absorber rods (e.g., page 5), it is known to surround neutron absorbers made from alloys (e.g. alloys containing Cd, Ag, and/or In) by a layer containing U or Y (e.g., page 7). By neutron irradiation in a nuclear reactor, the uranium gets fissioned/activated. The unstable fission products contain Co60 - Co 75, Mo99, Mo101 - Mo 115, Sr89 - Sr105, and Y90 - Y108. The Y gets activated by neutron capture and generates unstable Y90. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murakami to have employed U or Y in the manner suggested by Weinstein. The modification would result in a radioactive isotope of Co, Mo, Sr, or Y.
Hone (cited via IDS) recommends [0018] using Mo in combination with a AglnCd-alloy (like in Murakami) in order to stabilize the properties of the control rod [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murakami to have employed Mo for the benefits suggested by Hone. The modification would result in the Mo getting activated by neutron capture and generating unstable Mo99 and Mo101.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (JPH11202074A) in combination with Monchanin (US20100111243) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Braun (US 3,652,394).
Braun shows that it is well known in the art to have a flow restrictor (6) made of zirconium to provide corrosion resistance (e.g., claim 8). Modification of Murakami to have made the flow restrictor of zirconium to enhance corrosion resistance, as suggested by Braun, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (JPH11202074A) in combination with Monchanin (US 2010/0111243) as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Komatsu (JPH05100091A).
Komatsu (cited via IDS) shows [0001, 0002, 0047; Figure 18] that it is well known in the art to cut the absorber rods of a spent control rod cluster for volume reduction. Modification of Murakami to have cut absorber rods to reduce volume, as suggested by Komatsu, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Determining an activation of components that shall be removed from a nuclear reactor appears to be legally mandatory, and if not would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to ensure radiation levels are safely maintained.
Claims 23-24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heibel (US 2024/0105354) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of NRC (AREVA Design Control Document Rev. 1, U.S. EPR Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Tier 2, Chapter 4 – Reactor, Section 4.2 – Fuel System Design, NRC accession number ML091671460 (29 May 2009)).
NRC shows that it is well known in the art to provide nuclear reactor components with identification markings (e.g., section 4.2.4.4). If not already legally required, then modification of Heibel to have included device components with identification markings, as suggested by NRC, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Objections to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
a rod connected to a finger of a flow restrictor (claims 20 and 40).
a rod including a plurality of markings, with the markings provided in direction of the longitudinal axis of the rod (claim 23).
connecting portions are marked on an exterior side of a rod (claim 24).
screw connections are pressed or squeezed to form a marking of the connecting portion (claim 28).
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.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes an unclear long rambling sentence. It is unclear where one feature ends and another feature begins. It is suggested that the long rambling sentence be broken into several shorter clear sentences. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is too generic for the elected invention. The Title is improperly directed to conventional prior art. The following Title is suggested: “Flow Restrictor Having Plural Fingers Is Used To Position Activation Material In Control Rod Guide Tubes Of A Nuclear Fuel Assembly”.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Application Status Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646