DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 25 June 2026. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending. Claim 15 is withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
It is unclear how the neutron absorber is linked (related) to the graphite matrix. The claim allows for these elements to be separated (distant) from each other. Thus, how the structural cooperative relationships (if any) of the distant elements result in a “composite fueled compact” is unknown and unclear.
Claims 10-12
The phrase “based on the weight of the matrix" is unclear, For example, it is unclear whether the phrase refers to: (1) weight of the graphite matrix alone; (2) a combination of the weight of the graphite matrix and the weight of the fissile fuel particles; (3) a combination of the weight of the graphite matrix, the weight of the fissile fuel particles, and the weight of the neutron absorber; or (4) something else. For example, it is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “based on the total weight of the graphite matrix which includes the weight of the neutron absorber but does not include the weight of the particles”.
Claim 13
It is unclear whether: (1) the graphite matrix comprises the neutron absorber; (2) the layer (which surrounds the graphite matrix) comprises the neutron absorber; or (3) something else.
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(a)(1)
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 14, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trinuruk ("Small, long-life high temperature gas-cooled reactor free from prompt supercritical accidents by particle-type burnable poisons", 2013).
Trinuruk teaches a composite fueled compact which comprises a graphite matrix. Both fissile fuel particles and a neutron absorber are in the graphite matrix. Particularly note Trinuruk at section 2.1 and Figure 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3-5, 7, and 10-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinuruk as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, and further in view of Washington ("Selection and evaluation of potential burnable absorbers incorporated into modified TRISO particles", August 2014).
Claims 3-5
Washington shows that it is well known in the art to have a graphite matrix contain TRISO fuel having an initial enrichment level greater than 10% (e.g., page 380, sec. 4.1). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that nuclear fuel can be implemented with various enrichments, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain enrichments in light of the specific nuclear reactor design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trinuruk to have implemented the fuel with an initial enrichment greater than 10%, as suggested by Washington, to meet a particular reactor design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to a skilled artisan.
Claim 7
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have uniformly distributed the neutron absorber in Trinuruk in order to have a known even effect throughout the matrix, especially in the absence of any reason for the contrary. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 10-12
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Trinuruk to have optimized the concentration of neutron absorbers in the graphite matrix in a case-by-case basis, depending on the geometry and the materials of the reactor core (i.e., particular reactor design), so as to achieve the desired result regarding reactivity, flux flattening, reactor lifetime, fuel burnup, etc. Additionally, the skilled artisan would optimize said concentration depending on the specific neutron absorber used. Thus, the choice of a preset neutron absorber concentration, to meet a particular reactor design, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinuruk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Evans (“Burnable Absorbers in Nuclear Reactors – A Review”, May 2022).
It is well known in the art to surround an element with a layer that comprises a neutron absorber. For example, Evans discloses having a neutron absorber both dispersed in fuel and surrounding the fuel (e.g., Fig. 4 far right). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have to have surrounded Trinuruk’s graphite matrix with a layer that comprises a neutron absorber to better control neutron absorbing as needed in a particular reactor design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objection to the Abstract
The objection to the Abstract remains, as requested by Applicant.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it refers to non-claimed subject matter. The following Title is suggested: “Composite Fueled Compact Comprising A Graphite Matrix That Contains Both TRISO Fuel Particles And Burnable Absorbers”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The argued features (which are claimed) are taught by Trinuruk. The claims do not require the graphite matrix to comprise the neutron absorber.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing 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 and/or the specification.
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
Prosecution Insights