DETAILED ACTION
Elections
Applicant’s election of Invention I (and species A) without traverse in the Reply filed 28 January 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 1-17. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s). The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “heat generated by the nuclear reactor core enters the controlled temperature housing” is unclear. This subject matter is defined by an intended method result to be achieved (e.g., heat entry) instead of by positively recited structural features which cause (or allow for) the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Furthermore, in said phrase it is unclear whether all reactor heat (or only some) enters the controlled temperature housing. The purpose of the heat entry is unclear.
The phrase “the controlled temperature housing is to passively maintain the motor at a temperature equal to or below a predetermined temperature threshold” is unclear. This subject matter is defined by an intended method result to be achieved (e.g., maintain temperature) instead of by positively recited structural features which cause (or allow for) the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure.
Claim 6
The phrase “the base plate is attached to the nuclear reactor” is unclear. Claim 1 is directed to a “nuclear reactor”. Anything attached to this nuclear reactor is inherently outside of the structural scope of the nuclear reactor. Thus, it is unclear how claim 6 further limits the structure of claim 1.
Claim 7
It is unclear what constitutes a “gap”. It is unclear whether the “gap” extends in the horizontal or vertical direction. A plate can touch a housing and yet there can still be a gap defined between the plate and the surrounding housing. Thus, the “gap” can broadly read on any open space between the plate and the surrounding housing.
Claim 8
It would appear that every part of a nuclear reactor is “removable”, especially during dismantling of a decommissioned nuclear reactor. Thus, it is unclear how claim 8 further limits the structure of claim 7.
Claim 11
The phrases “canister maintains a working fluid at a first pressure”, “housing maintains the working fluid at a second pressure”, and “first pressure is equal to the second pressure” are unclear. The subject matter is defined by an intended method result to be achieved (e.g., pressure) instead of by positively recited structural features which cause (or allow for) the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure.
Claim 12
The phrases “first pressure being greater than the second pressure” and “working fluid . . . enters the controlled temperature housing until the equilibrium state is reached” are unclear. The subject matter is defined by an intended method result to be achieved (e.g., pressure) instead of by positively recited structural features which cause (or allow for) the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure.
Claim 13
The phrases “first pressure being less than the second pressure” and “working fluid . . . enters the nuclear reactor core until the equilibrium state is reached” are unclear. The subject matter is defined by an intended method result to be achieved (e.g., pressure) instead of by positively recited structural features which cause (or allow for) the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure.
Claim 15
It is unclear how the subject matter of claim 15 further limits the structure of claim 1. As indicated above with regard to claim 1, the phrase “predetermined temperature threshold” is an intended result to be achieved. A specific temperature value does not provide any structural features necessary for achieving the intended result.
It is unclear whether “250 Fahrenheit” should be interpreted as 250° Fahrenheit.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 9-15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flaherty (US 3,547,778).
Claims 1-2, 11-13, and 15
Flaherty (cited via IDS) teaches a nuclear reactor comprising a canister (12), and a shaft (102) extending from a control drum (22) and out of the reactor core (10). A controlled temperature housing comprises a proximal end (20), a first internal plate (36, 38), a second internal plate (50), and a motor (98) operably coupled to the shaft (102).
Claim 3
Flaherty teaches at col. 3, lines 2-5 and 19-21.
Claim 9
The shaft (102) extends through a first hole at the proximal end (20). The shaft (102) extends through a second hole in the first internal plate (36, 38).
Claim 10
Flaherty teaches at col. 4, lines 59-60.
Claim 14
Flaherty’s central components (106, 108, 112, 114) do not make part of the controlled temperature housing (col. 4, lines 66-71). They do not house the control drum motors, thus rendering the shape of the controlled temperature housing essentially annular.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 5-8 and 17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 5
Using protective coatings to protect components in a nuclear reactor environment is conventional. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Flaherty to have coated the housing to enhance protection thereof.
Claim 6
Using additional structural supports to enhance positioning of nuclear reactor components is conventional in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Flaherty to have employed additional structural supports to have enhanced secure positioning of the plates.
Claims 7-8
Although a reference may not disclose a plurality of items, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Modification of Flaherty to have employed a double housing arrangement, to have enhanced housing integrity and protection security, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17
Although a reference may not disclose a plurality of items, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Modification of Flaherty to have employed multiple housings, to have enhanced temperature control, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keegan (US 8,401,142).
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that nuclear reactor components can be implemented with various levels of insulation where needed, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain levels of insulation where needed in light of the specific nuclear reactor design. For example, Keegan discloses a nuclear reactor component using multi-layer (metal reflective) insulation, and additional insulation (23). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Flaherty to have implemented the housing with multi-layer insulation, as suggested by Keegan, to provide a desired level of insulation in meeting a particular reactor design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 16, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clelland (US 2025/0027684).
Clelland shows that it is well known in the art to have a shaft employ a thermal break to enhance protection against excessive heat transfer. Modification of Flaherty to have employed the shaft with a thermal break to have enhanced heat protection, as suggested by Clelland, 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.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
multi-layer insulation (claim 4).
coating (claim 5).
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.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is not directed to the recited invention. The following Title is presented for consideration: “Nuclear Reactor Having Control Drum Motor Located In A Temperature Controlled Housing”.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
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