POOL TYPE LIQUID METAL COOLED MOLTEN SALT REACTOR

§103 §112

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 6. Claims 158-166 are pending in this application and examined herein. Response to Arguments 7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Drawings 8. 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 “one or more shutdown rods comprising a neutron absorbing shutdown material and a magnetic release material” 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 9. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 10. Claims 158-162 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. 11. Regarding claim 158, the recitation “one or more shutdown rods comprising a neutron absorbing shutdown material and a magnetic release material” is not supported by the disclosure as filed and constitutes new matter. The claimed embodiment of the invention is illustrated at Fig. 15 and described at [0208]. The disclosed shutdown mechanism includes a shutdown rod 1505 and a magnetic gate 1530. Further description of this found at [0049, 0058, 0060, 0093, 0111, 0194]. None of these paragraphs disclose a shutdown rod that itself comprises a magnetic release material. The disclosure only supports a shutdown rod “coupled to” a separate magnetic element. 12. Accordingly, claim 158 has been amended to recite new matter. Dependent claims 159-162 are also rejected because they depend on claim 158. 13. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 14. Claim 162 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. 15. Regarding claim 162, the recitation “comprise one or more neutron absorbing materials selected from…” is unclear in view of the recitation in claim 158 of “one or more shutdown rods comprising a neutron absorbing shutdown material.” Is the recitation of claim 162 intended to refer to the previously introduced materials? Introduce an additional neutron absorbing material? Further limit the identity of the previously recited material? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 16. 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. 17. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI. 18. 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. 19. Claims 158-162 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros, Jr. et al., US 2022/0051818 in view of Sowa et al., US 3,976,540. 20. Regarding claim 158, Cisneros discloses a molten salt reactor (Fig. 5; [0011]) comprising: a molten salt chamber (510); a molten salt mixture (514a/b; [0065]) disposed within the molten salt chamber, the molten salt comprising a fluoride salt ([0011]); a heat exchange system (570) at least partially disposed within the molten salt chamber ([0066]); and a shutdown mechanism (590) coupled with the molten salt chamber ([0069]) and comprising a shutdown rod (see Fig. 5) that releases from vessel head 512 into the molten salt chamber to inhibit fission reactions within the molten salt mixture ([0069]). Cisneros is silent as to the actuating mechanism that causes the control rod to release to its shutdown position. Sowa teaches a shutdown mechanism coupled to a nuclear reactor core (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 14-25), comprising a shutdown rod (10) coupled and a magnetic release material (15) wherein the magnetic release material has a Curie temperature at or near a critical safety temperature of the reactor core such that, when the temperature of the magnetic release material is at or near the Curie temperature, a magnetic field is weakened sufficiently to release the one or more shutdown rods into the reactor core to inhibit fission reactions within the reactor core (Abs., column 2, lines 45-61) One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the shutdown rod release mechanism of Sowa with the reactor of Cisneros for the predictable advantage of providing a mechanism that “eliminates dependence upon external electrical circuitry…which may compromise assembly design and operation” (Sowa: column 4, lines 25-32). The examiner notes that Sowa clearly establishes that the magnetic release material is selected so as to have a Curie temperature “at the critical temperature of the reactor” (Abs.), so in combination with Cisneros, such a temperature would be the critical temperature of the molten salt mixture in Cisneros’ reactor core. 21. Regarding claim 159, the combination of Sowa’s shutdown rod release mechanism with the control rod of Cisneros makes claim 158 obvious. Cisneros further discloses a reactor wherein the one or more shutdown rods are each moveable from a suspended position above the molten salt mixture to a released position in which at least a portion of the respective shutdown rod enters the molten salt mixture to inhibit fission reactions within the molten salt (see Fig. 5 and [0069]). 22. Regarding claim 160, the combination of Sowa’s shutdown rod release mechanism with the control rod of Cisneros makes claim 159 obvious. Sowa further teaches a shutdown mechanism wherein the shutdown rod is suspended by a corresponding magnet positioned outside the reactor core and thermally coupled to the reactor core such that heating of the reactor core to the critical safety temperature weakens the magnetic field and permits the corresponding shutdown rod to fall under gravity into the reactor core (see Fig. 1 and column 3, lines 26-48). The examiner notes that Sowa clearly establishes that the magnetic release material is selected so as to have a Curie temperature “at the critical temperature of the reactor” (Abs.), so in combination with Cisneros, such a temperature would be the critical temperature of the molten salt mixture in Cisneros’ reactor core. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the shutdown rod release mechanism of Sowa with the reactor of Cisneros for the reason stated above. 23. Regarding claim 161, the combination of Sowa’s shutdown rod release mechanism with the control rod of Cisneros makes claim 159 obvious. Cisneros further discloses a reactor further comprising one or more shutdown channels (506) within which the one or more shutdown rods are disposed (see Fig. 5), wherein the one ore more shutdown rod channels comprise silicon carbide ([0065]+0021]). 24. Regarding claim 162, Cisneros as modified by Sowa makes claim 159 obvious. Cisneros is silent as to the materials present in its shutdown rod. However, control rods are ubiquitous in the art of nuclear reactors, and a skilled artisan would be able to select a suitable material for use in the control rod of LeBlanc from any of the known materials used in control rods, which include any neutron absorbing material, such as boron, cadmium, and gadolinium.1 25. Claims 163-166 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arafat et al., US 2018/0075931 in view of Sowa et al., US 3,976,540. 26. Regarding claim 163, Arafat discloses a molten salt reactor (Fig. 1, [0001]0 ) comprising: a molten salt chamber (12); a molten salt mixture (34) disposed within the molten salt chamber ([0031]), the molten salt comprising a fluoride salt ([0023]); and a neutron dampening material (44, [0046]) coupled with a magnet (56, [0047]) positioned to hold the neutron dampening material in a suspended position in which the neutron dampening material does not inhibit fission reactions within the molten salt chamber (Fig. 1) and permit the neutron dampening material to fall under gravity to a position that inhibits fission reactions within the molten salt chamber (see Fig. 2 and [0047]), Arafat disclose that its magnet is an electromagnet ([0047]). Sowa teaches a shutdown mechanism coupled to a nuclear reactor core (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 14-25), comprising a shutdown rod (10) coupled with a magnet (15) wherein, the magnet holds the shutdown rod in a suspended position where the shutdown rod does not inhibit fission reactions within the reactor core, the magnet having a Curie temperature that is at or near the critical safety temperature of the reactor core such that when the temperature of the magnet is at or near the Curie temperature, the magnetic field is weakened sufficiently to permit the shutdown rod to fall under gravity to a position that inhibits fission reactions within the reactor core (see Fig. 1 and column 3, lines 26-48). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the shutdown rod release mechanism of Sowa to the reactor of LeBlanc for the predictable advantage providing a mechanism that “eliminates dependence upon external electrical circuitry…which may compromise assembly design and operation” (Sowa: column 4, lines 25-32). Moreover, Sowa teaches an additional advantage of its mechanism as compared to that of Arafat: it is capable of being tested in situ and of being reset (column 1, lines 22-47). 27. Regarding claim 164, the combination of Sowa’s shutdown rod with the reactor of Ararat makes claim 164 obvious. Ararat further discloses a heat exchanger subsystem (32) integrated with the molten salt chamber (see Fig. 1). 28. Regarding claim 165, the combination of Sowa’s shutdown rod with the reactor of Ararat makes claim 164 obvious. Ararat further discloses a reactor wherein the neutron dampening material comprises boron carbide ([0044]). 29. Regarding claim 166, the combination of Sowa’s shutdown rod with the reactor of Ararat makes claim 164 obvious. Ararat further discloses a reactor wherein the molten salt chamber includes a neutron moderator ([0024]). 30. Claims 158-160 and 162 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arafat et al., US 2018/0075931 in view of Sowa et al., US 3,976,540. The examiner notes that the combination of Arafat with Sowa as applied to claims 163-165 will also reject claims 158-160. 31. Claims 163-165 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros, Jr. et al., US 2022/0051818 in view of Sowa et al., US 3,976,540. The examiner notes that the combination of Cisneros with Sowa as applied to claims 158 and 162 will also reject claims 163-165. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET. 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. /SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646 1 A list of exemplary materials can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod and https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/control-rod.