DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 1-16 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 1
It is unclear what constitutes a “small containment vessel”. The dividing boundary between a small containment vessel and a non-small containment vessel is unknown and unclear. The term “small” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The phrase “containment vessel formed to surround the reactor vessel” is unclear. It is unclear whether the containment vessel actually surrounds the reactor vessel, or whether the surrounding can occur at a later date. The containment vessel either surrounds the reactor vessel or it doesn’t.
The phrase “an outer shell . . . formed to protrude toward” the containment vessel is unclear. It is unclear whether the outer shell actually protrudes toward the containment vessel, or whether the protruding can occur at a later date. The outer shell either protrudes toward the containment vessel or it doesn’t.
The phrase “connect an inside of the reactor vessel to an inside of the small containment vessel” is unclear. It is unclear how the phrase further limits the claim. If the containment vessel surrounds the reactor vessel then the inside of the reactor vessel is inherently inside of the containment vessel. It is unclear whether “an inside of the small containment vessel” means “an interior volume of the containment vessel which is located exterior of the reactor vessel”. It is unclear whether the phrase should be interpreted as “connect an interior of the reactor vessel to an interior volume of the containment vessel, wherein the interior volume is located exterior of the reactor vessel”.
The phrase “a coolant is filled in a space between the reactor vessel and the small containment vessel” is unclear. It is unclear whether the space contains a coolant. It is unclear whether the space is only filled in response to a LOCA. It is also unclear whether the space is actually completely “filled” with a coolant. It is unclear what recited structure allows coolant to flow into the space. For example, it is unclear whether it is the ECCS valve, when open, which allows coolant to flow into the space.
The phrase “a restoring force for moving the piston to a side of the reactor vessel” is unclear. Typically, a reactor vessel is cylindrical. Thus, what constitutes “a side” thereof is unclear. It is unclear whether the phrase should be interpreted as “a restoring force for moving the piston in a direction toward the reactor vessel”.
It is unclear what constitutes a “system-integrated modular advanced reactor (SMART)”. The reactor structure is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is unclear whether the “reactor vessel” is a nuclear reactor vessel or some other type of vessel (e.g., chemical reactor vessel).
It is unclear whether a “reactor vessel” and a “containment vessel” are being positively recited, or whether they are merely intended use. The preamble is directed to a “valve”. It is unclear whether the preamble should be interpreted as “A system comprising an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) valve, a reactor vessel of a nuclear reactor, and a containment vessel, wherein the containment vessel surrounds the reactor vessel, and wherein the ECCS valve is located between the reactor vessel and the containment vessel.
Claim 6
The phrase “the outer shell is formed to protrude toward the side” is unclear. It is unclear whether the outer shell actually protrudes toward the side, or whether the protruding can occur at a later date. The outer shell either protrudes toward the side or it doesn’t.
Claim 9
The phrase “the inner shell is formed to share an inner wall with an inner wall of one side of the outer shell” is unclear. It is unclear whether the inner shell actually shares an inner wall with the outer shell, or whether the sharing can occur at a later date. The inner shell either shares an inner wall or it doesn’t. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “the inner shell shares an inner wall with the outer shell”.
Claim 16
The phrase “to communicatively connected to” is unclear and appears to be missing at least one word. Thus, the claim appears to be incomplete.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. 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.
Claims 1-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (KR 10-1543261 B1).
Claim 1
Kang (cited via IDS) teaches an emergency core cooling system {EGGS} valve provided between a reactor vessel (10) of a system-integrated modular advanced reactor [0002]) and a surrounding containment vessel, so that a coolant can pass into a space between the reactor vessel and the containment vessel during a LOCA. The valve comprises (e.g., Figure 7): an outer shell (510’); an inner shell (515', 512', 514'); a piston (532’, 530b’); and a spring (534’). The outer shell (510’) is connected to the reactor vessel (10) and protrudes toward the containment vessel. The outer shell has a connector (520) formed therein. The inner shell (515', 512', 514') is inside the outer shell (510') at a preset distance (e.g., Figure 7). The piston (532', 530b') is movably constrained and inserted through a piston opening formed in the inner shell, to open and close the connector. The spring (534') is on an outer circumferential surface of the piston to provide a restoring force for moving the piston toward the reactor vessel. The piston (534') operates to open the connector when a difference between an internal pressure of the reactor vessel and an internal pressure of the containment vessel is less than the restoring force of the spring.
Claim 2
Kang teaches body (532'), head (530'), and bottom (518') of the piston (532’, 530b’) (e.g., Figure 7).
Claim 3
Kang teaches that the spring is interposed between an inner wall of the inner shell and the bottom portion of the piston inside the inner shell (e.g., Figure 7).
Claim 4
Kang teaches the valve function (e.g., Figure 7).
Claim 5
Kang teaches the inclined surface and the valve function (e.g., Figure 7).
Claim 6
Kang teaches inclined surfaces of connector pipe (510') and head portion (530').
Claims 1-2 and 7-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O'Brien (US 2019/0362861).
Claims 1-2
O'Brien (cited via IDS) teaches an ECCS valve (130), a reactor vessel (114), and a containment vessel (110) [0031]. The valve comprises: an outer shell (134) having a connector (130); an inner shell (136'); a piston (138, 140, 141, 142); and a spring (146). In an alternative embodiment, the valve comprises: an outer shell (134); an inner shell (148'); a piston (182); and a spring (190, 194).
Claim 7
O'Brien teaches a stepped head portion which seals the connector (130).
Claim 8
O'Brien teaches that the spring is interposed between the stepped surface of the head portion and an inner wall of the outer shell.
Claim 9
O'Brien teaches that the inner shell shares an inner wall with the outer shell.
Claim 10
O'Brien teaches a fluid pump (160).
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 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Brien as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kanuch (US 10,529,458 B2).
Claim 11
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that O'Brien can be implemented with various valve types, necessarily amounting to certain valve types obviously more favorable to use in light of the specific nuclear reactor design to meet operating conditions and costs. A swing check valve is conventional in art. For example, Kanuch shows that it is well known in the art to employ a swing check valve (41B; Figure 4B). Substitution of one valve type for another substantially equivalent valve type is within the skill of the artisan. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Thus, modification of O'Brien to have employed a swing check valve, as suggested by Kanuch, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15
O'Brien discloses a reset valve (132).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Brien as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Shearer (US 2020/0194135).
Claims 12-14
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that O'Brien can be implemented with various valve types, necessarily amounting to certain valve types obviously more favorable to use in light of the specific nuclear reactor design to meet operating conditions and costs. A ball valve is conventional in art. For example, Shearer shows that it is well known in the art to employ a ball valve (108, 208). Substitution of one valve type for another substantially equivalent valve type is within the skill of the artisan. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Thus, modification of O'Brien to have employed a ball valve, as suggested by Shearer, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied to claim 1 above.
Kang disclose an additional isolation valve (240, 242) (e.g., Figures 4a and 4b), which is an implementation as a further valve to the solution of Figure 7. It is conventional in the art to provide an isolation to isolate a fluid connection until needed. Even Applicant employs an “existing isolation valve” [0030]. Modification of Kang to have included an isolation valve in fluid connection with the outer shell, to provide isolation until a LOCA, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figures 2 and 3, the term “NSIDE” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the term should be interpreted as either “INSIDE” or “INTERIOR”.
In Figures 2 and 3, the term “SMALL” is indefinite for reasons discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. It is unclear whether the complete wording should be “INTERIOR OF CONTAINMENT VESSEL”.
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 (which contains 225 words) is objected to because it exceeds 150 words.
The Abstract is also 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.
The Abstract is further objected to for reasons discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. For example, it is unclear what constitutes a “small containment vessel”. It is also unclear whether the space is always filled with a coolant.
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 unclear what constitutes an “integrated-type reactor”.
Additional Comment
The claim amendment filed June 2025 in corresponding EPO application EP21930475 has been noted. The amendment was in reply to prior art rejections similar to those made above.
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. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
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