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
Claims 1–17 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome some of the 112(b) rejections, which are withdrawn. The remaining ones are repeated below with additional explanation.
Applicant’s amendments introduced new 112(b) rejections, which are detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 10/06/2025, have been fully considered but they are moot because they are directed towards amendments, which are therefore addressed herein.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 1, “transportation means” is treated under 112(f) as defined in the Specification (see PGPub at ¶ 3) as “a vehicle or a ship.”
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 1–17 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 “wherein the second cooling unit is configured such that the water coolant flows into the first cooling unit in a normal position.” This limitation is indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear what is in a “normal position”—the flow line, the second cooling unit, the first cooling unit, or the water coolant? Or, it actually cannot be any of these because the final clause recites “wherein the normal position is a state in which the reactor vessel is disposed in a straight position”—so, the subject of what is “in a normal position” is instead the “reactor vessel”?
A “position” cannot be “normal.” An axis can be normal (if the claim defines what the axis is normal relative to), but a “position” is akin to a “location,” which cannot be “normal.” Similarly, the final clause appears to attempt to recite a geometric arrangement of the components. If this is the intended interpretation, then it does not make sense to use the term “state.” If a pencil is perpendicular or parallel relative to the surface of a desk, the pencil is not in a ”state.” It should be recited in geometric terms, e.g., the pencil is elongated in a direction perpendicular to/parallel to the upper surface of the desk.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the normal position is a state in which the reactor vessel is disposed in a straight position with respect to a ground in a state in which the apparatus is installed in a transportation means.” This limitation is unclear for the following reasons:
It is unclear if this is a positive recitation, i.e., the claimed “apparatus” as recited in the preamble is installed in a vehicle, and the reactor vessel has a linear disposition relative to a ground of said vehicle OR if this is intended to be an intended use recitation, i.e., if the reactor vessel were installed in a vehicle, then it would be capable of being installed in a linear disposition relative to the ground. Because this is an apparatus claim and not a method claim, Examiner will assume the latter.
The second use of the phrase “in a state” does not make sense. It is unclear what the purpose of this phrase is.
Claim 2 recites “the water coolant… flows upward to be separated from the ground.” This limitation is indefinite because in order to be separated from the ground, the water coolant would first have needed to be recited as contacting the ground, but this is not the case. The water coolant cannot be separated from the ground if it was not contacting the ground in the first place.
Claim 2 recites “a state” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this is a different “a state” than was recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a straight position” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this is a different “a straight position” than was recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a ground” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this is a different “a ground” than was recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a state” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this is a different “a state” than was recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a transportation means” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this is a different “a transportation means” than was recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the normal position is a state in which the reactor vessel is disposed in a straight position with respect to a ground in a state in which the apparatus is installed in a transportation means.” This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if this is a positive recitation, i.e., the claimed “apparatus” as recited in the preamble is installed in a vehicle and is in the normal position, or, alternatively, the claimed “apparatus” as recited in the preamble is installed in a vehicle and is in the abnormal position, or, alternatively still, this is intended to be an intended use recitation, i.e., if the reactor vessel were installed in a vehicle, then it would be capable of being installed in a first position or a position perpendicular to the first position. Because this is an apparatus claim and not a method claim, Examiner will assume the last interpretation is the intended one.
Claim 2 further confuses the question raised by claim 1 of what is in the normal, and now abnormal, position. Claim 1 provided four options (see above indefiniteness rejection of claim 1) for what is in the normal position, but none of the options was “the reactor cooler.” Claim 2 states that the reactor cooler is now in both the normal position and the abnormal position. This limitation is indefinite because there are now five options for the component that is in the normal position, and this limitation is further indefinite because it is not understood how the reactor cooler can be in the normal position and in a position perpendicular to said normal position. Claim 2 is directed to an apparatus. The apparatus is either in a first position or a second position because it is a stationary object.
Claim 3 recites “the water coolant is discharged at an upper side spaced apart from the ground.” This limitation is indefinite because it is incomplete. The water coolant is discharged at an upper side of…what?
Claim 3 recites “the water coolant is introduced at a lower side adjacent to the ground.” This limitation is indefinite because it is incomplete. The water coolant is introduced at a lower side of…what?
Claim 3 recites that the reactor cooler is in both the normal position and the abnormal position. This limitation is indefinite because it is not understood how the reactor cooler can be in the normal position and in a position perpendicular to said normal position. Claim 3 is directed to an apparatus. The apparatus is either in a first position or a second position because it is a stationary object.
Claim 4 recites “unit further includes a jacket tank…and communicating.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the subject of “communicating” is. There is no subject-verb agreement. The “unit…includes” makes sense but the “unit further includes … and communicating with the plurality” does not make sense.
Claim 4 recites “a jacket tank filled with the heat medium.” It is unclear if the jacket is filled with the heat medium or the tank. Alternatively, it is unclear if the tank and the jacket are the same component, or if the tank is a first component, and it has a second component that is a distinct jacket attached to it or inside it?
Claim 5 recites “part connected to one side of each of the plurality of heat dissipating pipes.” It is unclear if this means that the part is connected to one side of each one of the pipes, or if the part is connected to one side of a group/plurality of pipes. The same is unclear for the limitation for the second manifold part.
Claim 6 recites “the water coolant is discharged at the upper side spaced apart from the ground.” This limitation is indefinite because it is incomplete. The water coolant is discharged at the upper side of…what?
Claim 6 recites “the water coolant is…introduced at the lower side adjacent to the ground.” This limitation is indefinite because it is incomplete. The water coolant is introduced at the lower side of…what?
Claim 6 recites “when the reactor cooler is in the normal position and in the abnormal position.” This limitation is indefinite because it is not understood how the reactor cooler can be in the normal position and also in a position perpendicular to said normal position.
In claim 8, it is unclear what the subject of “…and flows” in line 5 is. What is flowing? The claim language allows either the external fluid to be flowing or the water coolant to be flowing.
Claim 10 recites “one end…is located in an upper position spaced apart from the ground.” This limitation is indefinite because it is incomplete. The one end is located in an upper position of…what?
Claim 10 recites “the other end…is located in a lower position adjacent to the ground.” This limitation is indefinite because it is incomplete. The other end is introduced located in a lower position of…what?
Claim 10 recites a relative arrangement of heat pipes “…when the containment case rotates.” Therefore, the claim recites a step of rotating. 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 10 recites “…when the containment case rotates.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The containment case has not yet been established as rotating. Examiner will treat this limitation is the case is capable of rotating or being rotated.
Claim 11 recites “heat pipe.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “vapor holes are formed in the fluid tank.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant, structurally or functionally, by “vapor holes.” Is this a bubble, i.e., a “hole” comprising vapor? Or is a vapor hole instead an aperture in a structure through which vapor is capable of passing?
Claim 12 recites “the heat pipe.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the evaporated gas.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the evaporated gas is discharged…when the fluid in the fluid tank is evaporated.” It is unclear if this is a positive recitation, i.e., the claimed fluid is evaporated, OR if this is intended to be an intended use recitation, i.e., if the fluid were to evaporate, then it would be capable of being discharged to an outside of the tank. Because this is an apparatus claim and not a method claim, Examiner will assume the latter.
Claim 14 recites “a first flow passage connected to the first manifold part and upper parts of the plurality of first heat pipes in the normal position.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how “…in the normal position” is intended to be interpreted. Is this a conditional statement, i.e., the first part of the clause is only true when the apparatus/some subcomponent thereof is “in the normal position”? Or, alternatively, is the first flow passage “in the normal position”? Or is the first manifold part or the upper parts or the first heat pipes “in the normal position”? What is in the normal position?
Claim 14 recites “a second flow passage connected to the first manifold part and upper parts of the plurality of second heat pipes in the normal position.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how “…in the normal position” is intended to be interpreted. Is this a conditional statement, i.e., the first part of the clause is only true when the apparatus/some subcomponent thereof is “in the normal position”? Or, alternatively, is the second flow passage “in the normal position”? Or is the first manifold part or the upper parts or the second heat pipes “in the normal position”? What is in the normal position?
Claim 15 recites “a first flow channel connected to the second manifold part and lower parts of the plurality of first heat pipes in the normal position.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how “…in the normal position” is intended to be interpreted. Is this a conditional statement, i.e., the first part of the clause is only true when the apparatus/some subcomponent thereof is “in the normal position”? Or, alternatively, is the first flow channel “in the normal position”? Or is the second manifold part or the lower parts or the first heat pipes “in the normal position”? What is in the normal position?
Claim 15 recites “a second flow channel connected to the second manifold part and lower parts of the plurality of second heat pipes in the normal position.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear how “…in the normal position” is intended to be interpreted. Is this a conditional statement, i.e., the first part of the clause is only true when the apparatus/some subcomponent thereof is “in the normal position”? Or, alternatively, is the second flow channel “in the normal position”? Or is the second manifold part or the lower parts or the second heat pipes “in the normal position”? What is in the normal position?
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 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gardner (US 5,102,616).
Regarding claim 1, Gardner discloses (Fig. 6) an apparatus for eliminating residual heat of a nuclear reactor, the apparatus comprising: a reactor vessel (12) in which molten salt flows (the reactor vessel of Gardner is capable of containing a molten salt—per MPEP 2115, the material worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim); and a reactor cooler (58, 62) for cooling the reactor vessel, wherein the reactor cooler includes: a first cooling unit (58) including a heat medium configured to exchange heat with the reactor vessel, and one or more heat dissipation pipes (64B, 66B) providing passages through which water coolant flows; a second cooling unit (62) configured to receive the water coolant discharged from the first cooling unit and cool the water coolant through an external fluid (fluid within tank 62 but outside of the pipes therein [not pictured but necessarily present since 62 is a heat exchanger cooler]), and a flow line (64, 66) connected to the first cooling unit and the second cooling unit to provide a passage through which the water coolant flows to circulate between the first cooling unit and the second cooling unit, wherein the second cooling unit (62) is configured such that the water coolant flows into the first cooling unit in a normal position (interpreted as vertically upright) through the flow line (water flows from 62 to 60 via line 64), and wherein the normal position is a state in which the reactor vessel (12) is disposed in a straight position with respect to a ground in a state in which the apparatus is installed in a transportation means (the reactor vessel 12 is disposed in a vertically upright position relative to the horizontal ground and is capable of maintaining this orientation if it were installed in a vehicle or on a ship).
Regarding claim 2, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the first cooling unit (58) is configured such that the water coolant in the first cooling unit flows upward to be separated from the ground when the reactor cooler (58, 62) is in the normal position (upward through 66B) and in an abnormal position (if Fig. 6 is rotated 90 degrees, water will flow upward within 60B and out through the opening adjacent the base of 64B), wherein the normal position is a state in which the reactor vessel is disposed in a straight position with respect to a ground in a state in which the apparatus is installed in a transportation means (vertically upright), and the abnormal position is inclined to be perpendicular to the normal position (90 degree rotation).
Regarding claim 3, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the first cooling unit (58) is configured such that the water coolant is discharged at an upper side spaced apart from the ground and the water coolant is introduced at a lower side adjacent to the ground when the reactor cooler is in the normal position and in the abnormal position (normal position: water discharged through 66B and introduced through bottom of 64B; abnormal position rotated 90 degrees: water discharged through port in 60B adjacent base of 64B and introduced through vent pipe 82).
Regarding claim 4, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the one or more heat dissipation pipes (64B, 66B) are a plurality of heat dissipation pipes, and the first cooling unit (58) further includes a jacket tank (60 or 60B) filled with the heat medium and communicating with the plurality of the heat dissipation pipes (64, 66 or 64B, 66B).
Regarding claim 5, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the jacket tank (60 or 60B) includes: a first manifold part (65; shown in Fig. 2 for tank 60, which corresponds to jacket tank 60/60B in Fig. 6) connected to one side of each of the plurality of heat dissipation pipes to communicate with the plurality of heat dissipation pipes; and a second manifold part (63) connected to an opposite side of each of the plurality of heat dissipation pipes to communicate with the plurality of heat dissipation pipes.
Regarding claim 6, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the flow line (64, 66) is connected to the first manifold part (65) and the second manifold part (63) such that the water coolant is discharged at the upper side spaced apart from the ground and introduced at the lower side adjacent to the ground when the reactor cooler is in the normal position and in the abnormal position (Fig. 6: normal position: water discharged through 66B and introduced through bottom of 64B; abnormal position rotated 90 degrees: water discharged through port in 60B adjacent base of 64B and introduced through vent pipe 82).
Regarding claim 7, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the jacket tank (60 or 60B) further includes: a flow part (interior of 60/60B) in which the plurality of the heat dissipation pipes are disposed, wherein the heat medium is accommodated outside the plurality of heat dissipation pipes and inside the flow part (the heat medium is interior to 60/60B as well as the pipes therein).
Regarding claim 8, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the second cooling unit (62) includes one or more heat pipes (not shown in Fig. 6 for simplicity, but shown in Fig. 2 within tank 60) for cooling the water coolant by exchanging heat with the external fluid, the water cooling being introduced from the first cooling unit (58) (the fluids circulate between 62 and 58), and wherein the second cooling unit (62) is configured such that the water coolant in the second cooling unit is cooled by exchanging heat with the external fluid and flows to be adjacent to the ground (the fluid within 62 is capable of flowing adjacent the ground, e.g., if the apparatus is subterranean, or if the fluid within 62 leaks).
Regarding claim 9, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses a containment case (all nuclear reactors have a containment, an example is shown in Fig. 12 as containment building 122) for accommodating the reactor vessel (12) and the reactor cooler, wherein the one or more heat pipes diagonally extend in the containment case (not shown in Fig. 6 for simplicity, but shown in Fig. 2 within tank 60, pipes 67 include diagonal portions).
Regarding claim 10, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the containment case (122) has a rectangular parallelepiped shape, and one end of the one or more heat pipes is located in an upper position spaced apart from the ground (heat pipes within 62 are located in an upper position spaced apart from the ground, Fig. 6) and the other end of the one or more heat pipes is located in a lower position adjacent to the ground when the containment case rotates (if Fig. 6 is rotated, 62 and its internal heat pipes will be adjacent the ground).
Regarding claim 11, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the one or more heat pipes include a plurality of first heat pipes and a plurality of second heat pipes (as shown in Fig. 2, there are multiple heat pipes 67).
Regarding claim 12, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the second cooling unit (62, details shown in Fig. 2 as tank 60) further includes: a fluid tank (61) in which a fluid is contained, wherein one or more vapor holes (open top of tank 61) are formed in the fluid tank, and wherein the heat pipe is disposed in the fluid tank so that the evaporated gas is discharged to an outside of the fluid tank through the vapor holes when the fluid in the fluid tank is evaporated by exchanging heat with the water coolant in the heat pipe (the water within tank may vaporize and escape through the open hole at the top).
Regarding claim 13, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the second cooling unit (62) includes one or more heat pipes (67, shown in Fig. 2) for cooling the water coolant by exchanging heat with the external fluid, the water coolant being introduced from the first cooling unit (58 and 62 are in fluid communication), and wherein the flow line (64, 66) includes: a flow passage (interior tube of 67) providing a path through which the water coolant flows from the first manifold part (65, shown in Fig. 2) to one end of the one or more heat pipes; and a flow channel (another interior tube of 67) providing a path through which the water coolant flows from the other end of the one or more heat pipes to the second manifold part (63).
Regarding claim 14, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the one or more heat pipes (67) include a plurality of first heat pipes and a plurality of second heat pipes (as shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the flow passage includes: a first flow passage connected to the first manifold part (65) and upper parts of the plurality of first heat pipes in the normal position; and a second flow passage connected to the first manifold part (65) and upper parts of the plurality of second heat pipes in the normal position (as shown in Fig. 2, the manifolds 63 and 65 are connected to the ends of all the tubes 67, regardless of the position/orientation of the tank 60).
Regarding claim 15, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the one or more heat pipes (67) include a plurality of first heat pipes and a plurality of second heat pipes (as shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the flow channel includes: a first flow channel connected to the second manifold part (63) and lower parts of the plurality of first heat pipes in the normal position; and a second flow channel connected to the second manifold part (63) and lower parts of the plurality of second heat pipes in the normal position (as shown in Fig. 2, the manifolds 63 and 65 are connected to the ends of all the tubes 67, regardless of the position/orientation of the tank 60).
Regarding claim 16, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses: a molten salt cooler (Fig. 6: 42) for cooling the molten salt in the reactor vessel, wherein the molten salt cooler includes: a heat exchanger (42 is a heat exchanger) for cooling the molten salt when the molten salt is discharged from the reactor vessel (the heat exchanger of Gardner is capable of cooling a molten salt—per MPEP 2115, the material worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim); a discharge channel (see arrows on either side of the chimney where the hot rising fluid flows into the heat exchanger 42) providing a path through which the molten salt flows from the reactor vessel to the heat exchanger; and an inlet channel (see the arrows at the bottom of the heat exchanger 42) providing a path through which the cooled molten salt flows from the heat exchanger to the reactor vessel.
Regarding claim 17, Gardner anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses (Fig. 6): a circulation pump (28) disposed at the inlet channel to flow the cooled molten salt from the heat exchanger (42) to the reactor vessel, wherein the discharge channel is connected to an upper part of the reactor vessel (see arrows on either side of the chimney where the hot rising fluid flows into the heat exchanger 42), and the inlet channel is connected to a lower part of the reactor vessel (see the arrows at the bottom of the heat exchanger 42).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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