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
Claim 1 is under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome the Drawing objection, which is withdrawn, but introduce new Drawing objections, which are detailed below.
Applicant’s amendments overcome some of the 112(b) rejections, which are withdrawn, but introduce others, which are detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 12/03/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over Sidorov, Applicant states that Sidorov does not disclose water supply valves installed in the nozzles, said valves being connected to external water supply sources via pipelines. However, a comparison of Figures 1 and 2 of Sidorov show water supply valves (10) installed inside nozzles (11). By definition, a water supply valve must have water supplied to it from an external source via a pipeline. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further states that in Sidorov, “There are no special elements installed between the membrane and the vessel.” It is unclear what the “special elements” correspond to in the instant application. This term is not recited in the claims. This argument does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because it does not clearly point out the patentable novelty which Applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, it does not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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. Therefore, the cover and bottom part of the drum (claim 1, line 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. As noted in the below indefiniteness rejection, it is unclear what the structural relationship is among the drum, the cover, and the bottom part. Examiner cannot find any component in the Specification or Drawings corresponding to a “cover” or a “bottom part” of the drum. If these structural features are going to be explicitly claimed, then they must be shown and labeled in the Drawings.
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.
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 sealed covers of the valves (claim 1, lines 20-21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. As noted in the below indefiniteness rejection, it is unclear what the structural relationship is between individual valves and the claimed sealed covers. Examiner cannot find any component in the Specification or Drawings corresponding to “sealed covers” of the valves. If these structural features are going to be explicitly claimed, then they must be shown and labeled in the Drawings.
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.
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 external water sources (claim 1, lines 23-24) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. As noted in the below indefiniteness rejection, it is unclear what the structural relationship is between the valves and the claimed external water sources. Examiner cannot find any component in the Specification or Drawings corresponding to “external water sources”. If these structural features are going to be explicitly claimed, then they must be shown and labeled in the Drawings.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Specifically, claim 1 should be re-written with proper indentation to clearly show which features are subsets of other features, and semicolons should be used where appropriate instead of the numerous commas.
Claim 1, line 13 recites “the inner side of the drum.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 at lines 13-14 recites “the reinforcing ribs are rested on a cover and a bottom part of the drum.” This limitation is indefinite for the following reasons:
What, structurally or functionally, is meant by the ribs “are rested” on a cover? This wording sounds like a method step being performed, i.e., an operator take the ribs and places them onto a cover, such that they are rested there. Does this limitation instead mean that the cover is supporting the gravitational weight of the ribs?
What is the relationship between the cover and bottom part and the drum? Does “part” describe both the cover and the bottom, i.e., a cover part and a bottom part? If not, in what manner can the ribs rest on the cover but only a portion of the bottom? Is “cover” intended to mean an upper portion, or simply a structural cover that may be present anywhere on the drum?
Claim 1, lines 23-25, recites “the external water sources are connected to the water supply valves via feeding, pressurizing, compensating and equalizing pipelines.” It is unclear if there is 1 or more feeding pipeline(s), 1 or more pressurizing pipeline(s), 1 or more compensating pipeline(s), and 1 or more equalizing pipeline(s), or if these are all the same pipeline that performs the functions of feeding, pressurizing, compensating and equalizing. Separately, each of these functions requires additional information or features in order to be understood. If the pipeline(s) is/are feeding, to what are they feeding into, or what are they feeding from? If they are pressurizing, what is being pressurized—is the pipeline itself pressurized, or is it connected to a pressurized gas supply, and it supplies pressurized gas into the vessel, thereby pressurizing the vessel? “Compensating” also requires some comparative feature—what feature/parameter/state is compensating for another feature/parameter/state? And how is a pipeline able to “compensate”? Typically, a pipeline is simply a channel through which a material is routed. Lastly, “equalizing” also requires some comparative feature—which two features/parameters/states are in conflict and are therefore being “equalized” by the pipeline? And how is the pipeline able to perform this function of equalizing?
Claim 1 at lines 20-21 recites that “each water supply valve has sealed covers installed in the nozzles.” The limitation recites that the nozzle has a valve inside it, and the nozzle has “sealed covers” inside it. No physical arrangement is made between the valve and the sealed covers. These features are only described, separately, relative to the nozzle. What is the structural relationship between the valve(s) and the cover(s)? Does each valve have multiple sealed covers? Is this a sealed cover on one side of the valve, and a second sealed cover on the opposite side of the valve? Or are the covers instead covering an entrance/exit to the nozzle?
Claim 1 at lines 23-24 recites that the dampers are connected to external water sources, which are connected to the valves via pipelines. It is unclear if there is a first damper connected to a first external water source, which is connected, via a first pipeline, to a first water supply valve, and further there is a second damper connected to a second external water source, which is connected, via a second pipeline, to a second water supply valve, or something else. In other words, the dampers, external water sources, valves, and pipelines are all plural, and so it is unclear in what manner they are arranged relative to each other. If there is more than one external water source, are the external water sources remote from each other? If so, then how are they connected to the dampers/valves via the 1-4 pipelines?
Claim 1, at lines 10-18, recites “a drum…the drum comprising … tension elements configured to connect the drum to the vessel flange … wherein said support flange is welded to the drum … spacing elements providing an adjustment space between the drum and the vessel flange.” The drum cannot comprise itself. It is confusing to describe that the drum comprises “…the drum…the drum….”. In other words, the drum cannot be further delimited by recitations to the drum. This language makes it unclear what the structural relationship is among the component “drum” and all the subcomponents recited in lines 11-21.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Sidorov” (RU2736545C1; corresponding US publication US2023/0154633A1 cited herein for convenience).
Claim 1 is rejected as best understood by the Examiner in light of the above indefiniteness rejections.
Regarding claim 1, Sidorov discloses (Fig. 1) a system for confining and cooling the melt from the core of a nuclear reactor, the system comprising: a guide device (1); a cantilever truss (3); a vessel (4) comprising: a filler (7) for receiving and distributing a melt; water supply valves (10) installed along a periphery, of the vessel (as shown in Fig. 2, valves 10 are inside nozzles 11, which are along the periphery of the vessel); and a thermal protection (6) installed on a vessel flange (5); a drum (shown best in Fig. 3 and including subcomponents 21, 24, 27, 23, 25, 22, 11, 10) installed on the vessel flange (5), the drum comprising: a shell (21, 24); reinforcing ribs (27) installed along a periphery of the drum, wherein the reinforcing ribs (27) are installed on the inner side of the drum (Figure 4 and ¶ 43: the ribs 27 are installed interior to outer shell 21), wherein the reinforcing ribs (27) are rested on a cover and a bottom part of the drum (Figs. 3/4: ribs 27 extend from a cover 24/21 and extend towards the bottom of the figures); tension elements (23) configured to connect the drum to the vessel flange (5) via a support flange (25), wherein said support flange is welded to the drum (as described in the above indefiniteness rejection, it is unclear how the drum, which is recited as comprising the support flange, can be welded to itself); spacing elements (22) providing an adjustment space between the drum and the vessel flange (5) (as described in the above indefiniteness rejection, it is unclear how the drum, which comprises the spacing elements, can be spaced apart from itself); nozzles (11) extending through the shell; and a water supply valve (10) installed in each nozzle (11), wherein each water supply valve has sealed covers installed in the nozzles (as best understood by the Examiner, a valve opens and closes and therefore possesses a seal that may be opened or closed); hydraulic dampers (12; membrane 12 absorbs impacts and is connected with the nozzles 11 and valves, ¶ 44) connected to external water sources (the water supply valves are implicitly connected to an external water supply), wherein the external water sources are connected to the water supply valves (10) via feeding, pressurizing, compensating and equalizing pipelines (the valves are implicitly connected to the external water supply via such pipelines).
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 LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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, 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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646