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 .
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 1–10 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hot coolant" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim recites the limitation "the cold coolant" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the outlet” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what is the subject of “the outside.” The outside of what component? Additionally still, it is unclear what orientation is meant by “the outside.” No inner or outer surfaces have yet been recited, and so it is unclear if “outside” means radially external or something else.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what is the subject of “the outside.” The outside of what component? Additionally still, it is unclear what orientation is meant by “the outside.” No inner or outer surfaces have yet been recited, and so it is unclear if “outside” means radially external or something else.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cold coolant flow" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one channel of the hot chamber" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how this channel relates, if at all, to the “at least one channel of the hot chamber” recited in lines 12-13.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one channel of the connecting pipe" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how this channel relates, if at all, to the “at least one channel of the connecting pipe” recited in lines 16-17.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “ “…and forming” in line 16. It is unclear what is the subject of this verb. What is forming at least one channel?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the said channels" in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the “gap” in line 11 and the “channel” in line 13. It is unclear if the gap and the channel are the same feature or a different feature. If the former, the term used to describe them should be the same term. If the latter, then the Drawings must show and label the gap to differentiate it from the channel.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the “gap” in line 15 and the “channel” in line 17. It is unclear if the gap and the channel are the same feature or a different feature. If the former, the term used to describe them should be the same term. If the latter, then the Drawings must show and label the gap to differentiate it from the channel.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "at least one additional shell” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this shell is the same shell as the “at least one additional shell” recited in lines 11-12 of parent claim 1. If they are not the same, then claim 2 should use a different term to describe the shell of claim 2. If they are the same, then the claim should recite “in the at least one additional shell of the hot chamber.”
Claim 2 again recites the limitation "at least one additional shell” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this shell is the same shell as the “at least one additional shell” recited in lines 14-15 of parent claim 1. If they are not the same, then claim 2 should use a different term to describe the shell of claim 2. If they are the same, then the claim should recite “in the at least one additional shell of the connecting pipe.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the connecting pipe” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the additional shell of the hot chamber adjacent to it” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if the additional shell refers to the additional shell recited in claim 1 at lines 11-12, claim 1 at lines 14-15, claim 2 in the first half of line 2, or claim 2 in the second half of claim 2. Additionally, it is unclear what “it” refers to in the phrase “adjacent to it.” Additionally, the use of the phrase “adjacent to it” has insufficient antecedent basis because no such adjacency has yet been recited, and so “adjacent to it” being preceded by two “the” articles is unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the adjacent additional shell” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high strength” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. There is no consensus among ordinary skilled artisans as to what materials are clearly considered high strength versus medium strength or low strength.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said sealing piston rings and/or plug”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. First, the piston rings were not introduced as “sealing piston rings” but instead as “at least one first sealing piston ring” and “at least one second sealing piston ring.” Secondly, the lack of article prior to plug is improper and unclear. Is the “the said” supposed to apply to “plug” as well as “piston rings”? Thirdly, “the said” is redundant.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the specified material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “gray cast iron with flake graphite alloyed with chromium and silicon.” The structural relationship among these listed materials is unclear. What is a “flake graphite”? Does this mean “graphite flakes”? Is “gray” really intended to specify the color, or is another parameter intended to be implied by this term? Is the iron alloyed with Cr and Si, or the graphite, or some combination?
Claims 6–10 recite “two-disc” elements. It is entirely unclear why this term is hyphenated. Examiner will assume that, as is done in the Specification, the term should not be hyphenated.
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
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 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 1–2 and 6–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deliege (US 3,384,549).
Regarding claim 1, Deliege discloses an integral type nuclear reactor with a liquid metal coolant (the material worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim, MPEP 2115), including: a reactor vessel (1) with a lower chamber (below 17), a core (8), a hot chamber (including 26), an upper chamber (above 27), and heat exchangers (10, 11), wherein the hot chamber is located above the core and includes: a hot chamber body of a substantially cylindrical shape with connecting pipes (24, unlabeled pipe radially external to label 11) for removing the hot coolant, supplied from the core to the heat exchangers, and a plug (27, 20), wherein: the connecting pipes (24, unlabeled pipe radially external to label 11) are washed from the outside by the cold coolant from the outlet of the heat exchangers (coolant is cool in 29); the hot chamber body includes an inner shell (26) of the hot chamber and at least one additional shell (23) of the hot chamber, installed with a gap on the outside and being concentric with the inner shell of the hot chamber and forming at least one channel (36) of the hot chamber; and each connecting pipe (24, unlabeled pipe radially external to label 11) includes an inner shell (24) of the connecting pipe and at least one additional shell (unlabeled pipe radially external to label 11) of the connecting pipe, installed with a gap on the outside and being concentric with the inner shell of the connecting pipe and forming at least one at least one channel (channel between 24 and the unlabeled pipe radially external to label 11) of the connecting pipe, and at least one channel of the hot chamber and at least one channel of the connecting pipe are in communication with the outlet of the heat exchangers to direct the cold coolant flow into the said channels (heated coolant rises from the core and loops back downwards through the heat exchangers where it is cooled, being output into line 29; this entire path is in fluid communication with the above-cited channels).
Regarding claim 2, Deliege discloses all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein through holes are made in at least one additional shell of the hot chamber and/or at least one additional shell of the connecting pipe (e.g., the other one of the unlabeled pipes radially external to label 11 is another shell of the connecting pipe, and it has through-holes at least at its top and bottom).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Deliege discloses all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the plug (27, 20) includes at least two-disc elements (27, 20 are disc-shaped).
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 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 3–5 and 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deliege in view of Serafini (DE 1911637 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Deliege discloses all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly teach the sealing piston rings.
Serafini does. Serafini is also in the art area of nuclear reactors and teaches (Fig. 1) wherein at least one first sealing piston ring (3) is located between an inner shell (2) of a hot chamber and a plug, at least one second sealing piston ring (3) is located between the inner shell of the hot chamber and the additional shell of the hot chamber adjacent to it (Fig. 1 shows three shells), and at least one third sealing piston ring (10) is located between the inner shell of the connecting pipe and the adjacent additional shell of the connecting pipe.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the sealing rings as taught by Serafini in order to provide a removable seal for the reactor coolant.
Regarding claim 4, modified Deliege teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not specify the material for the rings/plug. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a high-strength and corrosion-resistant material for the rings/plug, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice .
Regarding claim 5, modified Deliege teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not specify the material for the rings/plug. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used gray cast iron with flake graphite alloyed with chromium and silicon for the rings/plug, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice .
Regarding claims 8–10, modified Deliege teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Deliege additionally discloses wherein the plug (27, 20) includes at least two-disc elements (27, 20 are disc-shaped).
Conclusion
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