DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA Status
The present application is examined under the pre-AIA provisions.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Election
Applicant’s election of Invention I without traverse in the Reply filed 11 May 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 21-31. Claims 32-40 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Inventions. 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 (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.
Claims 21-31 are rejected under 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 Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21
The claim recites the preamble phrase “A method for operating a power module assembly”, but no operating step is recited. Thus, the claim appears to be incomplete. It is unclear whether the phrase should be interpreted as “A method of cooling a nuclear power module assembly”, and the wording “a reactor core” (in line 10) be interpreted as “a nuclear reactor core”.
The scope of the claim allows for the heat exchanger to be located outside of the reactor vessel, but it is unclear where the specification provides support therefor. The claim is indefinite because there is a conflict/inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure, which renders the scope of the claim uncertain.
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 § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for anticipation rejections set forth in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by Schoessow (US 3,290,222) or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Schoessow (US 3,290,222) in combination with Tominaga (US 5,011,652).
The different rejections are based on different interpretations of “submerged”.
Claim 21 Anticipation
Schoessow (cited via IDS) teaches a reactor vessel (12), a containment cooling pool (100), a containment vessel (86), and a heat exchanger (42). A portion of the secondary coolant from the containment cooling pool (100) passes through an inlet (102), and then into the heat exchanger (42), and then back to the cooling pool (100) through an outlet (104). During an accident, the containment cooling pool (100) gets connected to the secondary coolant inlet and outlet headers (e.g., col. 3, line 71 to col. 4, line 4). That is, the containment cooling pool provides (emergency) secondary coolant to the inlet and outlet headers, which normally receive (non-emergency) secondary coolant.
Technically, Schoessow’s containment vessel (86) is at least partially “submerged” in the containment cooling pool (100). The containment vessel is surrounded by the pool. The containment vessel can also be viewed to act as a caisson or bell that extends into the pool. Thus, Schoessow anticipates the claim.
Claim 21 Obviousness
Schoessow is discussed above. The skilled artisan would understand that the cooling technique employed in Schoessow can also be implemented with other available sources of coolant, including coolant from other cooling pool arrangements.
Tominaga (cited via IDS) discloses (Figure 5) a containment vessel (1) that is immersed in a containment cooling pool (14). Similar to Schoessow’s operation, Tominaga also employes emergency cooling water taken from a containment cooling pool (14). Tominaga’s emergency cooling water is fed via a line (having valve 66) from the containment cooling pool (14) into the interior of the containment vessel (via a spray 63). Tominaga’s containment cooling pool arrangement beneficially allows for the dissipation of large amounts of accident heat for up to several days (e.g., col. 10, lines 50-57). The skilled artisan would understand that Tominaga’s alternative arrangement for a coolant source is applicable for use with Schoessow’s cooling technique.
Thus, modification of Schoessow to be used with a containment cooling pool that fully surrounds the containment vessel to enhance heat dissipation, as suggested by Tominaga, 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. In the modified Schoessow, the containment cooling pool fully surrounds the containment vessel, like in Tominaga, and the pool water can be taken to Schoessow’s inlet (102). Thus, in the modified Schoessow, the containment vessel is fully “submerged” in the cooling pool.
Claim 22
In each of Schoessow and Tominaga, the secondary coolant includes a volume of emergency feedwater.
Claims 23 and 26
Each of Schoessow and Tominaga (e.g., Abstract) disclose natural circulation. Schoessow employs natural circulation for circulating secondary coolant through the cooling tank and the steam generating (heat exchanger) tubes (e.g., col. 1, lines 46-50; col. 3, line 74 to col. 4, line 4).
Claims 24-25
There is inherently a slight difference in elevation between the inlet (102) and the outlet (104) in Schoessow. Regardless, Tominaga discloses using differences in elevation between the inlet (of line having valve 66) and the outlet (63) for enhanced circulation, where the outlet is positioned above the inlet. The result of the modification to Schoessow would include the differences in elevation as suggested by Tominaga.
Claim 27
Each of Schoessow and Tominaga prevent a release of primary coolant outside of the containment vessel while passing the portion of secondary coolant.
Claim 28
Tominaga discloses having the inlet (of line having valve 66) submerged in the containment cooling pool (14), where the inlet is coupled to a partially submerged upwardly extending conduit (line having valve 66). In the modified Schoessow, the pool water can be taken via this conduit to Schoessow’s inlet (102).
Claim 29
Schoessow directs other (normal) secondary coolant through the heat exchanger (e.g., col. 2, lines 62-64). A turbine is a conventional (and critical) component of a nuclear plant. Tominaga discloses a turbine (42). Modification of Schoessow to have conventionally employed a turbine, as suggested by Tominaga, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 30-31
The recited “volume” can be tiny/minute. Regardless, Schoessow discloses a dry volume (e.g., upper portion of containment vessel).
Objection to the Abstract
An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. The Abstract could better reflect the actual method being recited. The following Abstract is suggested:
Passive Emergency Cooling Method In Which Coolant Is Taken From A Pool In Which A Containment Vessel Is Submerged, Then Passed Through A Primary Heat Exchanger In A Nuclear Reactor Vessel, And Then Returned To The Pool
Citation of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered related to Applicant's disclosure. Eoh (US 7,522,693) discloses passive emergency cooling.
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).
Application Status Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
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