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 .
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 passive heat removal system loop is divided into two sections: accessible and inaccessible, at least one cooling water loop, a heat exchanger, the upper and lower headers connected with heat exchange tubes, riser pipeline and downpipe connected to the heat exchanger, a cooling water storage tank, a steam dump valve, a heating tank with electrical heating elements, a discharge line including a receiving tank, devices for measurement of the water flow rate, and pressure differential measurement devices 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 Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes that there are no active steps recited in claims 1-3. Therefore, Examiner suggest Applicant to avoid using the passive tense of actions such as is determined/processed/defined, etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “a method for monitoring a passive heat removal system for the internal containment volume characterized in that:" visual examination of the system for presence of any external damages is performed; " the passive heat removal system loop is divided into two sections: accessible and inaccessible for inspection with the use of visual control means; " the internal areas of individual pipeline sections are examined with the use of a mobile remote video camera; " additional flow resistance in the pipeline at the inaccessible section is determined by investigation of the forced circulation mode in the loop; " the fraction of blocked tubes in relation to their total number in the heat exchanger is determined; the data obtained at the previous stages are processed, and the state of the passive heat removal system for the internal containment volume is defined.” is unclear. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the internal containment volume”, “the passive heat removal system loop”, “the internal areas”, “the forced circulation mode in the loop”, “the fraction of blocked tubes”, “the heat exchanger”, and “the data obtained at the previous stages” in the claim. Second, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “the use of visual control means” and “the use of a mobile remote video camera” since, per disclosure Page. 9 Line 8, they are the same structure. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a method for monitoring heat removal system using video camera.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the contribution of the corrosive component". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant is claiming a contribution of a corrosive component.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “data processing is performed with the use of 3D modelling” is unclear since claim 1 already recites “the data obtained”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the data of claim 3 is the same of claim 1 or different. To expedite prosecution, Examiner interprets the above to read as if Applicant the data of claim 3 is the same of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “a device for embodiment of the method for monitoring a passive heat removal system for the internal containment volume including at least one cooling water loop comprising: a heat exchanger located inside the containment and including the upper and lower headers connected with heat exchange tubes, riser pipeline and downpipe connected to the heat exchanger, a cooling water storage tank located above the heat exchanger outside the containment and connected to the downpipe, a steam dump valve connected to the riser pipeline, located in the water storage tank and hydraulically linked to the latter, characterized in that it additionally comprises: a heating tank with electrical heating elements partially filled with water, a discharge line including a receiving tank for the water drained from the system, devices for measurement of the water flow rate in the loop and pressure differential measurement devices“ is unclear. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the method for monitoring a passive heat removal system for the internal containment volume” and “the upper and lower headers” in the claim. Moreover, it’s unclear as to what Applicant is referring to by “a device for embodiment of the method for monitoring a passive heat removal system for the internal containment volume”. It’s unclear if Applicant is referring to claim 1 by “for embodiment of the method for monitoring a passive heat removal system for the internal containment volume” or it’s different method. Assuming Applicant is referring to claim 1, it’s unclear if “at least one cooling water loop”, “a heat exchanger”, and “heat exchange tubes” are the same structures recited in claim 1 or different. Examiner has attempted to interprets the above, however, no clear claim interpretation can be made by Examiner. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection. Examiner has not indicated any claims allowable in view of the cumulative issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) and drawings.
For compact prosecution purposes, Examiner recommends that Applicant contact the Examiner using the information below to schedule an interview to aid in advancing prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by (American Efficiency 2012: hereinafter referred to as AES).
Regarding claim 1, AES teaches a method for monitoring a passive heat removal system for the internal containment volume characterized in that:
visual examination of the system for presence of any external damages is performed; " the passive heat removal system loop is divided into two sections: accessible and inaccessible for inspection with the use of visual control means; the internal areas of individual pipeline sections are examined with the use of a mobile remote video camera (see AES where, starting from the time of 0:04, a visual examination of the system is being performed while inspecting inaccessible using a mobile remote video camera);
additional flow resistance in the pipeline at the inaccessible section is determined by investigation of the forced circulation mode in the loop (see AES where, starting from the time of 0:30, forced circulation mode is performed at the inaccessible section to confirm the presence of flow resistance in the pipeline);
the fraction of blocked tubes in relation to their total number in the heat exchanger is determined; the data obtained at the previous stages are processed, and the state of the passive heat removal system for the internal containment volume is defined (AE recites, in the video description, that “Our reporting system is ready to transfer photographs and video images to our customers directly from the condenser. We believe that if you don't know the project status, we aren't doing our job. We have coupled our commitment to safety with our commitment to project documentation by assigning each project a Safety / Documentation Manager in addition to a Project Manager. The Safety / Documentation Manager's responsibility is to ensure the on-site safety culture exceeds our customer's requirements and achieves AES' standards, while collecting cleaning information data and compiling a comprehensive report” which is an Indication that all the data that were captured during the process including the state of heat exchanger and its tubes will be processed and defined).
Regarding claim 2, AES teaches the contribution of the corrosive component is evaluated (AE recites, in the video description, that “Our reporting system is ready to transfer photographs and video images to our customers directly from the condenser. We believe that if you don't know the project status, we aren't doing our job. We have coupled our commitment to safety with our commitment to project documentation by assigning each project a Safety / Documentation Manager in addition to a Project Manager. The Safety / Documentation Manager's responsibility is to ensure the on-site safety culture exceeds our customer's requirements and achieves AES' standards, while collecting cleaning information data and compiling a comprehensive report” which is an Indication that all the data that were captured during the process including the state of the corrosive component(s) will be processed and defined).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (American Efficiency 2012: hereinafter referred to as AES).
Regarding claim 3, AES does not teach data processing is performed with the use of 3D modelling.
However, it’s an engineering design choice to use any commercially available processing software including 3D modelling software. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the method of AES, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the 3D modelling solves any stated problem and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the processing software as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing software of AES to be 3D modelling software as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763