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 .
Election by Original Presentation
1. Originally presented claims are directed to only two disclosed species of “thermally activated failsafe mechanism.”
Claim 154 is directed to the species disclosed at Fig. 15
Claim 156 is directed to the species disclosed at Fig. 16
2. The Fig. 15 species operates by a “magnetic gate” ([0208]). The Fig 16 species operates when the neutron poison itself melts ([0209], [0287]).
3. Applicant has amended claim 148 to include limitations discussed at [0260]. This portion of the disclosure is directed to a mechanism for moving a reflector. See Figs. 26 and 27 and [0252-0260]).
4. Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 148-153 and 155-157 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
5. See paragraphs 2-4 of the non-final office action dated 10/08/25.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 148-153 and 155-166 are pending in this application and examined herein. Claims 148-153 and 155-157 are withdrawn. Claims 158-166 are examined below.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 161 and 163 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 161 should recite wither “wherein the one or more shutdown rod channels comprise” or “the one or more shutdown rods comprising.” Claim 163 should recite “having a curie temperature.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 158-166 are 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.
10. Regarding claims 158 and 163, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the critical safety temperature.”
11. Regarding claims 159-160, claim 158 introduces a shutdown mechanism comprising “a shutdown material.” Claim 159 further introduces “one or more shutdown rods.” According to claims 158 and 159, the “shutdown material” and the “shutdown rod(s)” have the same function. What is the structural relationship between them? Are they the same? Do the shutdown rod(s) comprise the “shutdown material”?
12. Further, claim 160 introduces “a shutdown rod.” Is this the same “one or more shutdown rods introduced in claim 159.” Moreover, claim 160 appears to recite many similar recitations that have been added to claim 158. How does claim 160 relate to these limitations to further limit them? What additional structure is recited in claim 160 that is not already present in claim 158?.
13. Claims 161, 162 and 164-166 are rejected because they depend on claims 158 or 163.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 158-160 and 163-166 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc US 2015/0036779 in view of Sowa et al., US 3,976,540.
18. Regarding claims 158-160, Leblanc discloses a molten salt reactor (Fig. 1A) comprising: a molten salt chamber (100); a molten salt mixture (108) disposed within the molten salt chamber, the molten salt comprising a fluoride salt ([0004]); a heat exchange system (106) at least partially disposed within the molten salt chamber; and a shutdown mechanism (901) coupled with the molten salt chamber, the shutdown mechanism comprising a shutdown material contained in one or more shutdown rods (902) and a release material (“e.g., a powered solenoid arrangement”), such that when the reactor temperature rises, the shutdown material is actuated into the molten salt mixture such that fission reactions within the molten salt will be inhibited ([0056]).
Leblanc discloses an electromagnetic release for its shutdown rods. 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 position where the shutdown rod does not inhibit fission reactions within the molten salt, the magnet having a curie temperature that is at or near the critical safety temperature of the molten salt mixture such that when the temperature of the magnet is near the curie temperature, the magnetic field is weakened sufficiently to allow the shutdown rod to move to inhibit fission reactions within the molten salt (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 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).
19. Regarding claim 162, Leblanc as modified by Sowa makes claim 159 obvious. LeBlanc is silent as to the materials present in its control 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
20. Regarding claim 163, Leblanc discloses a molten salt reactor (Fig. 1A) comprising: a molten salt chamber (100); a molten salt mixture (108) disposed within the molten salt chamber, the molten salt comprising a fluoride salt ([0004]); and a shutdown rod (902; [0056]) comprising a neutron dampening material (inherent to the term “control rod” employed by LeBlanc; see the NRC glossary definition cited in footnote 1 above). LeBlanc does not disclose a magnetic actuator for its shutdown rod. 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 position where the shutdown rod does not inhibit fission reactions within the molten salt, the magnet having a curie temperature that is at or near the critical safety temperature of the molten salt mixture such that when the temperature of the magnet is at or near the curie temperature, the magnetic field is weakened sufficiently to allow the shutdown rod to move to inhibit fission reactions within the molten salt (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 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).
21. Regarding claim 164 and 166, LeBlanc as modified by Sowa makes claim 163 obvious. LeBlanc further discloses a reactor further comprising a heat exchanger subsystem (106) integrated with the molten salt chamber (Fig. 1A) and a neutron moderator in the molten salt chamber ([0043] “mass of graphite” ).
22. Regarding claim 165, , LeBlanc as modified by Sowa makes claim 163 obvious. LeBlanc and Sowa are silent as to the materials present in their control rods. 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.2
23. Claim 161 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBlanc US 2015/0036779 in view of Sowa et al., US 3,976,540 in further view of GB 968,212, referred to here as “Babcock.”
24. Regarding claim 161, Leblanc as modified by Sowa makes claim 159 obvious. Sowa further teaches one or more shutdown rod channels (16/17) within which the one or more shutdown rods are disposed. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to provide the channels of Sowa in the reactor of Leblanc so as to guide the falling shutdown rods into a desired position within the reactor. Sowa is silent as to the material of its shutdown rod channels. Babcock teaches a shutdown mechanism for a nuclear reactor comprising silicon carbide (see p. 2, lines 83-97). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have fond it obvious to apply the materials taught by Babcock to the shutdown mechanism of Leblanc as modified by Sowa because Babcock teaches that such materials are suitable for use in nuclear reactors due to their “low neutron absorption cross-section.”
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 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.
2 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.