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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 shows reactor 1 as surrounding the entire vessel 12. As is known in the art, the reactor core is interior to the vessel, not exterior to it.
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 filler (e.g., claim 3) 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.
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 containers having a portion with a filler and a free volume (e.g., claims 3 and 9) 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.
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 filter (e.g., claim 10) 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.
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 plugs made of a metal wire (e.g., claim 11) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both blocks and containers.
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. 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 blocks (e.g., claims 5 and 6) 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.
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 containers made in the form of bundles of rod containers (e.g., claim 13) 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.
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 internal cooling channels (e.g., claim 14) must be shown and labelled with a reference numeral 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.
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 auxiliary channels (e.g., claim 1) 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests a title that incorporates the containers and their neutron-absorbing/neutron-reflecting filler.
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 1–14 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 “a nuclear reactor with a heavy liquid metal coolant, with, located in the same vessel, at least one heat exchanger or at least one steam generator, control and monitoring elements, one circulation pump of the primary circuit, main channels and auxiliary channels, designed for the coolant flow, that do not perform the function of core cooling, including a header for collecting and distributing the coolant through the main and auxiliary channels.”
It is unclear if this limitation means that the heavy liquid metal coolant is located within the same vessel as the heat exchanger/steam generator, control and monitoring elements, pump and primary circuit, channels, and header, or if, alternatively, all the listed elements are located within the same vessel (not necessarily the heavy liquid metal coolant).
It is further unclear what the subject of “that do not perform the function of core cooling” is. What is not performing core cooling? All of the previously listed elements, or a subset of them? Additionally still, nearly all coolant structures in a nuclear reactor perform core cooling, whether directly or indirectly, and so it is unclear if this limitation is only intended to exclude direct core cooling structures.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this “the primary circuit” in the claim.
It is unclear what is meant by the distinction “main channels and auxiliary channels.” In what manner are some “main” and others “auxiliary”? Is this a structural or functional distinction?
It is unclear what the subject of “designed for the coolant flow” is. What is designed for the coolant flow? All of the previously listed elements, or a subset of them?
It is unclear what the subject of “including a header for collecting and distributing” is. What includes a header?
In claim 1, It is unclear what the subject of “characterized in that…” in lines 5-6 is. Which of the previously recited elements is being further characterized?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same vessel" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the in-vessel space" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1, It is unclear what the subject of “not occupied by these elements” in line 6 is. What is not occupied by these elements? Also, which elements are being referred to here?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coolant flow" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Claim 1 recites a nuclear reactor (an apparatus) but then in lines 6-8, it is recited that containers are placed in order to provide gaps, are then filled with a material, and then again in line 9, the containers are placed again (method steps).
In claim 1, it is unclear what is meant, structurally or functionally, by “the containers are placed with gaps, providing the coolant flow, wherein the said containers are filled with a material.” Do the gaps correspond to an ability to allow coolant to flow around the containers, or are the gaps what is being filled with the material?
In claim 1, It is unclear what the subject of “with a heat capacity great than that of the coolant” in line 8 is. What has this greater heat capacity?
Line 7 in claim 1 introduces “gaps” and then “resulting gaps” are recited in line 9. Are these the same or different gaps?
It is unclear what is meant by “a heat capacity greater than that of the coolant.” Does this refer to the boiling point of the material? In what manner is “heat capacity” being measured and compared to that of the coolant?
The term “turbulent” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “turbulent” 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 what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear what property is being measured in order to determine if a particular coolant flow is “turbulent” or not.
Claim 1 recites “the resulting gaps form channels with a turbulent coolant flow.” A channel cannot have a turbulent coolant flow. A coolant can flow in a channel, but the channel itself cannot be turbulent.
In claim 1, It is unclear what the subject of “at its flow rate” in line 10 is. The flow rate of what?
Claim 1 recites “a heavy liquid metal coolant” in line 1, “the coolant flow” in lines 4 and 7, “the coolant” in line 8, and “a turbulent coolant flow” in line 10. It is unclear if these are all the same coolant/coolant flow, or if they are distinct.
Examiner cannot extract a meaningful structure or function from the phrase “its flow rate corresponding to the nominal power level of the reactor.” Reactor power is typically measured in Watts or Megawatts. In what way is a flow rate “corresponding” to a wattage? Additionally, is this intended to be written as a desired result-type clause, i.e., wherein the skilled artisan hopes that the flow rate keeps up with the reactor power, or something similar?
Claim 2 recites “the channels…are located preferably vertically.” The use of the term “preferably” renders the claim unclear. In accordance with MPEP 2111.04, a claim that makes a limitation optional is non-limiting. In this case, “preferably” makes it unclear if the claim requires a vertical orientation or not.
In claim 2, it is unclear what the subject of “formed between them” is. The containers or the channels?
Claim 3 recites “a container filler.” It is unclear if this is the same filler as recited in lines 7-8 of claim 1. If so, the terms should be standardized.
In claims 4 and 6, it is unclear what is meant by “vibro-compacted” powder. Is this intended to be a product-by-process claim? If so, it is unclear what structure is imparted to the powder after it is “vibro-compacted” that would distinguish it from other powders.
In claims 5 and 6, it is unclear what is meant by “hot-pressed” blocks. Is this intended to be a product-by-process claim? If so, it is unclear what structure is imparted to the powder after it is “hot-pressed” that would distinguish it from other powders.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the other part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 7, the phrase “materials based on hydrides of refractory metals” is clunky and unclear. What is meant by “based on”? Is this reciting a composition?
In claim 12, the phrase “blocks are used while maintaining the external dimensions of the containers.” It is entirely unclear how a block can maintain the external dimension of a container. What is the relationship between the blocks are the container? Why are the external dimensions of the container being altered to begin with?
Claim 12 recites “instead of containers…of the containers.” Claim 12 suggests using blocks instead of containers but then describes the dimensions of the containers. Are the containers present or not?
Claim 13 recites “the containers are made in the form of bundles of rod containers.” This limitation is unclear—the containers are made in the form of themselves? What is the relationship between the containers and the rod containers? Is “rod” intended to imply a particular shape?
Claim 14 recites that the containers include internal cooling channels. What is the relationship between these cooling channels and those recited in claim 1 in lines 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10?
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites containers. Claim 12 depends from claim 1 but recites “instead of containers.” Claim 12 cannot retroactively remove the containers from claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Due to the considerable indefiniteness of the claims, there is a great deal of speculation required by the Examiner to interpret said claims. Therefore, no art rejections are being presented in this action. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in /n re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. In this case, because no reasonable interpretation can be made about the structural or functional arrangement of the claimed features, any assumption on the part of the Examiner would be extraordinarily and inappropriately speculative.
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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