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
A reply was filed on 02/18/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 22-29 are pending in the application with claims 10-11 withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 22-29 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 25-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25: “a top end” should be amended to recite “[[a]] the top end” (see claim 1 which previously recites “a top end ... of the fuel moderator block”)
Claim 25: “a bottom end” should be amended to recite “[[a]] the bottom end” (see claim 1 which previously recites “a bottom end of the fuel moderator block”)
Claim 26 should be amended to depend on claim 25
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 22-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2019/0096536 (“Arafat”).
Regarding claim 1, Arafat (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1, 3, 5-7) discloses a fuel moderator block (10) ([0021]), comprising:
a matrix (16) ([0021]-[0022]);
a plurality of fuel particles (26) embedded inside the matrix ([0023]);
at least one moderator opening for disposition of at least one moderator element (60) therein ([0025]); and
at least one cap (e.g., top-most, bottom-most ones of element 16) located on a top end or a bottom end of the fuel moderator block ([0026]-[0027]), wherein:
the at least one cap includes a planar (e.g., flat) shape; and
the at least one cap and the matrix are configured to seal the at least one moderator element in the at least one moderator opening ([0021], [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block is shaped as a prism or a polyhedron (FIG. 1, [0021], [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Arafat discloses (see FIGS. 1, 6-7)
the fuel moderator block includes a plurality of block interface walls (e.g., formed by 16 and/or walls around elements 16 in FIG. 1); and
the plurality of block interface walls include planar (e.g., flat) surfaces.
Regarding claim 5, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Arafat discloses at least one coolant passage (36, 50, 52) formed in the matrix to flow a coolant (FIGS. 3-4, 6-7, [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 5. Arafat discloses (see FIGS. 3-4, 6-7)
the at least one coolant passage includes a coolant passage wall (e.g., defining elements 36, 50, 52); and
the at least one coolant passage wall includes a planar (e.g., flat) or spherical surface ([0027]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 22, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Arafat discloses the at least one cap is configured to protect the at least one moderator element from wetting and dust (FIGS. 1, 6-7; as best understood by Examiner, the at least one cap is configured to protect the at least one moderator element from wetting and dust by surrounding at least a portion of the at least one moderator element in view of instant specification, [0094], [0097]).
Regarding claim 23, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Arafat discloses the at least one cap is formed by depositing more or different material than the matrix on the at least one moderator opening to seal the at least one moderator opening ([0021], [0026]-[0027], [0030]).
Regarding claim 24, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Arafat discloses the at least one cap is formed as a bonded material on the at least one moderator opening ([0021], [0027], [0030]). The limitation “via additive manufacturing, chemical vapor infiltration, or chemical vapor deposition” is a product-by-process limitation. There is no evidence that the process (“additive manufacturing, chemical vapor infiltration, or chemical vapor deposition”) would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product (“the at least one cap”). See MPEP 2113. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product (the at least one cap) in the product-by-process claim is the same as the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 25, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Arafat discloses the at least one cap includes a top cap (e.g., top-most one of element 16) located on the top end of the fuel moderator block and a bottom cap (e.g., bottom-most one of element 16) located on the bottom end of the fuel moderator block (FIGS. 1, 6-7, [0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 26, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 25. Arafat discloses the top cap includes a convex shape (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block includes a convex polyhedron shape (FIGS. 1, 6-7).
Regarding claim 29, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 5. Arafat discloses the at least one coolant passage is tapered (FIGS. 6-7).
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 3,224,944 (“Turner”).
Regarding claim 1, Turner (newly cited) (see FIGS. 2-4) discloses a fuel moderator block, comprising:
a matrix (13, 51) (3:26-29);
a plurality of fuel particles (53) embedded inside the matrix (1:71-2:11, 3:26-29);
at least one moderator opening (17) for disposition of at least one moderator element (31) therein (2:29-47); and
at least one cap (25, 27, 33) located on a top end or a bottom end of the fuel moderator block (2:31-50, 2:71-3:22), wherein:
the at least one cap includes a curved shape; and
the at least one cap and the matrix are configured to seal the at least one moderator element in the at least one moderator opening (2:31-34, 2:42-50, 2:71-3:22).
Regarding claim 3, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Turner discloses the fuel moderator block is shaped as a cylinder (FIGS. 2-3, 6:16-19).
Regarding claim 4, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Turner discloses (see FIGS. 2-3)
the fuel moderator block includes a plurality of block interface walls (e.g., formed by 25, 27, 43, 59); and
the plurality of block interface walls include planar or freeform surfaces.
Regarding claim 8, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Turner discloses the plurality of fuel particles include coated fuel particles (FIG. 4, 3:34-38).
Regarding claim 22, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Turner discloses the at least one cap is configured to protect the at least one moderator element from wetting and dust (FIGS. 1-2; as best understood by Examiner, the at least one cap is configured to protect the at least one moderator element from wetting and dust by surrounding at least a portion of the at least one moderator element in view of instant specification, [0094], [0097]).
Regarding claim 23, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Turner discloses the at least one cap is formed by depositing more or different material than the matrix on the at least one moderator opening to seal the at least one moderator opening (2:31-34, 2:46-50, 2:71-3:22, 7:11-16).
Regarding claim 24, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Turner discloses the at least one cap is formed as a threaded cap (FIG. 2, 2:31-34, 2:71-3:22).
Regarding claim 25, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1. Turner discloses the at least one cap includes a top cap (25, 33) located on the top end of the fuel moderator block and a bottom cap (27, 33) located on the bottom end of the fuel moderator block (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 25. Turner discloses the top cap includes a convex shape (e.g., defined by element 35) (FIG. 2, 2:66-71).
Regarding claim 27, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 26. Turner discloses the bottom cap includes a concave shape (e.g., defined by element 45) (FIG. 2, 3:18-25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arafat in view of CN Publication No. 112233820 (“Zhao”).
Regarding claim 8, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 1, but does not appear to disclose the plurality of fuel particles include coated fuel particles. Zhao (previously cited) (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a plurality of fuel particles (“TRISO particle”) for a nuclear reactor ([0002], [0014], [0016]). Zhao teaches the plurality of fuel particles are coated fuel particles ([0016]). Zhao further teaches the coated particles provide the advantages of effectively containing fissile material and reducing leakage of radioactive materials ([0016]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to employ the coated fuel particles as taught by Zhao in Arafat’s fuel moderator block for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Arafat in order to enhance radiation containment, as suggested by Zhao, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 9, Arafat in view of Zhao teaches the fuel moderator block of claim 8. Zhao teaches the coated fuel particles include tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) fuel particles (FIG. 3, [0012], [0016]). Arafat discloses the matrix includes molybdenum ([0026]). Thus, Arafat, modified to include the coated fuel particles as taught by Zhao, would have resulted in the features of claim 9.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner in view of Zhao.
Regarding claim 9, Turner discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 8. Turner discloses the coated fuel particles are coated with pyrolytic carbon layers (3:56-4:3; see also instant specification, [0049]), but does not appear to explicitly disclose the coated fuel particles are TRISO, BISO, or TRIZO fuel particles and further discloses the matrix includes graphite (3:26-29). Zhao (previously cited) (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a plurality of coated fuel particles (“TRISO particle”) embedded in a matrix ([0012], [0016]-[0017], [0030]). Zhao teaches the coated fuel particles are TRISO fuel particles and the matrix includes silicon carbide ([0016]-[0017], [0030]). Zhao further teaches the TRISO particles provide the advantages of effectively containing fissile material and reducing leakage of radioactive materials ([0016]) and the silicon carbide matrix material provide the advantages of having good stability under high temperature conditions and a low migration rate of fission products, and reducing radiation effects ([0017]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have coated fuel particles including TRISO fuel particles embedded in a matrix including silicon carbide as taught by Zhao in Arafat’s fuel moderator block for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Arafat in order to enhance radiation containment, as suggested by Zhao, would have been obvious to a POSA. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to have a matrix including silicon carbide, zirconium carbide, titanium carbide, niobium carbide, tungsten, molybdenum, or a combination thereof since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arafat.
Regarding claim 27, Arafat discloses the fuel moderator block of claim 26. The embodiment in Figures 6-7 does not appear to show the bottom cap includes a concave shape. However, Arafat teaches another embodiment in Figures 8-9 comprising a fuel moderator block (10) having a bottom cap (e.g., bottom-most one of element 16) located on a bottom end of the fuel moderator block, the bottom cap including a concave shape (e.g., defined by element 60) (FIGS. 8-9, [0028]). Arafat further teaches the concave shape provides the advantages of reducing stress and improving fuel and moderator densities ([0028]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have modified Arafat’s bottom cap in the embodiment shown in Figures 6-7 to have a concave shape, as taught by Arafat in the embodiment shown in Figures 8-9, for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Arafat in order to reduce stress and improve fuel and moderator density, as suggested by Arafat’s embodiment shown in Figures 8-9, would have been obvious to a POSA. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Arafat’s embodiment shown in Figures 6-7 to have a bottom cap including a concave shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior drawing objection.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, but have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
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 Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646