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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 14-21, 23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication JPH04293864A to Matsuura et al. in view of Rechenmacher et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0298745.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuura discloses a modular system comprising: receiving, at a nuclear construction site (as the metes and bounds for a nuclear construction site have not been established, a site at which nuclear modular units are utilized comprises a nuclear construction site), a first nuclear reactor component (4) housed within a first modular unit (20; paragraph 13 states that mechanical equipment is installed in advance), wherein the first modular unit comprises enclosed walls (2) forming a shipping enclosure around the first nuclear reactor component (paragraph 8) and a first pre-formed aperture configured to provide a first pathway through a first wall of the first modular unit (see, for example, Fig. 5; paragraph 10 states that the modules are fixed with sleeves 7 for guiding pipes between adjacent modules, an aperture will inherently be present where the connection sleeve is present); receiving, at the nuclear construction site (as the metes and bounds for a nuclear construction site have not been established, a site at which nuclear modular units are utilized comprises a nuclear construction site), a second nuclear reactor component (9) housed within a second modular unit (adjacent module 20, paragraph 14), wherein the second modular unit comprises enclosed walls (2) forming a second shipping enclosure around the second nuclear reactor component (paragraph 8) and a second pre-formed aperture configured to provide a second pathway through a second wall of the second modular unit (see Fig. 5, adjacent module connected by conduits to the first module); connecting the first modular unit to the second modular unit via a conduit 7 extending between the first pre-formed aperture of the first modular unit and the second pre-formed aperture of the second modular unit to provide communications between the first nuclear reactor component and the second nuclear reactor component (as shown in Fig. 5; placing the second steel modular unit in proximity to the first modular unit; and pouring concrete between the second modular unit and the first modular unit, the second modular unit and the first modular unit used as forms to contain poured concrete (paragraph 10), and wherein the second modular unit and the first modular unit remain in place permanently (if a user chooses, as the longevity of usage does not change the structure) with the first and second nuclear reactor components remaining housed within their respective steel containers during operation of the nuclear reactor, but does not disclose the modular units are containers. Rechenmacher teaches containers as modular units for a structure (paragraph 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize standard shipping containers for the modular units so that they are sized for shipping. The phrases “configured to provide a first pathway through a first wall of the first steel container,” “configured to provide a second pathway through a second wall of the second steel container,” and “to provide communications between the first nuclear reactor component and the second nuclear reactor component” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuura discloses a modular system but does not specifically disclose excavating earth to create a subgrade region. Matsuura does teach the modules being placed below grade (paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the site would require excavation before placement of the modular unit, and because it is notoriously well known in the art to excavate a building site prior to erection of a building.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art as modified discloses a modular system but does not specifically disclose placing the first steel container in the subgrade region. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the containers below grade when the desired structure is to be below grade.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art as modified discloses a modular system but does not specifically disclose the step of connecting the first steel container to the second steel container and wherein placing the first steel container in the subgrade region is performed after the step of connecting the first steel container to the second steel container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the containers would be attached prior to being placed beneath grade for better access to the workers assembling the assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Matsuura discloses a modular system wherein the step of connecting the first steel container to the second steel container comprises coupling the containers with one or more fluid conduits (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuura discloses a modular system further comprising coupling the first steel container to the second steel container with at least one interconnecting pipe prior to pouring the concrete, the at least one interconnecting pipe providing a fluid connection between the first nuclear reactor component and the second nuclear reactor component (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art as modified discloses a modular system wherein the first steel container and the second steel container each have a standardized shipping dimension (Rechenmacher, paragraph 110).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art as modified discloses a modular system wherein the standardized shipping dimension is selected from the group consisting of: 20 feet long, 40 feet long, 45 feet long, 48 feet long, and 53 feet long (Rechenmacher paragraph 111).
Regarding claim 17, Matsuura discloses a modular system but does not specifically disclose wherein the first nuclear reactor component is a tank module and the second nuclear reactor component is a compressor module. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a compressor and a tank module as these are components typical of nuclear reactors.
Regarding claim 18, Matsuura discloses a modular system but does not specifically disclose placing a plurality of steel reinforcing bars between the first steel container and the second steel container prior to pouring the concrete. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize steel reinforcing bars where the concrete is to be poured for tensile strength within the hardened concrete, as this is notoriously well known and practiced in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Matsuura discloses a modular system but does not disclose wherein the concrete is poured to a thickness of at least 2 feet between the first steel container and the second steel container. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pour the concrete with a wall thickness of at least two feet depending on the desired structural strength and thermal protection, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 20, the prior art discloses a modular system but does not specifically disclose it is further comprising: attaching a removable lid to the first steel container prior to shipping to the construction site; and removing the lid after placing the first steel container at the construction site to allow access to the first nuclear reactor component. Rechenmacher teaches modules may be stacked (Fig. 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an upper plate, or lid, may require removal from the container modules when the stacked modules require communication between one another.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art, as modified, discloses a modular system further comprising shipping the first nuclear reactor component in the first steel container and shipping the second nuclear reactor component in the second steel container to the nuclear construction site (Matsuura paragraph 8; see figures).
Regarding claim 23, Matsuura discloses a modular system wherein the pre-formed apertures are formed at predetermined locations in the [modular units] during manufacturing to align with connection points of the nuclear reactor components housed therein (paragraphs 10, 21).
Regarding claim 25, Matsuura in view of Rechenmacher, as modified, discloses a modular system wherein: the first nuclear reactor component comprises piping (Matsuura 4) pre-installed and permanently mounted within the first steel container at a manufacturing facility (Matsuura paragraph 15, the module is manufactured as a unit in a factory), but does not specifically disclose valving, nor specifically that the piping is pre-aligned with the first pre-formed aperture during manufacturing such that no field modification of the first steel container is required to establish the connection via the conduit. Matsuura does teach that that all mechanical elements, including piping, is installed in the factory (paragraph 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the piping would be installed in its desired position aligning with the aperture through which it is to connect to the adjacent modular unit (see Figs. 5-6), so that a modification at the installation site is not required to reduce the margin of error in the assembly of the plant and to shorted the construction time as that is the goal of the invention. It would also have been obvious that, as piping is present, valves will need to be present to control flow, and that the valves will also be pre-installed along with the other mechanical equipment.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication JPH04293864A to Matsuura et al. in view of Rechenmacher et al., U.S. Patent Application Publiction 2014/0298745 and Schoeny et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0094946.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses a modular system but does not specifically disclose wherein the first nuclear reactor component remains within the first steel container during operation of the nuclear reactor. Schoeny teaches a modular structure having prefabricated modular units having installed equipment for use at a building site (paragraph 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the equipment installed for its intended use when the building is assembled at the building site.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication JPH04293864A to Matsuura et al. in view of Rechenmacher et al., U.S. Patent Application Publiction 2014/0298745 and Sato, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0127427.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses a modular system but does not specifically disclose it is further comprising attaching one or more form ties between the first steel container and the second steel container. Sato teaches a form tie (H) used between wall elements (paragraph 53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include form ties for even spacing and to reinforce the concrete.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication JPH04293864A to Matsuura et al. in view of Rechenmacher et al., U.S. Patent Application Publiction 2014/0298745 and Nelson, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0089066.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses a modular system but does not disclose connecting the first steel container to the second steel container comprises welding form ties between the first steel container and the second steel container. Nelson teaches welding in a concrete form system (claim 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a steel form tie to resist tensile loads on the concrete, and that it could be welded to the steel walls for a secure connection.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication JPH04293864A to Matsuura et al. in view of Rechenmacher et al., U.S. Patent Application Publiction 2014/0298745 and Biffiger et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0321443.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art discloses a modular system but does not disclose specifically wherein the first nuclear reactor component is permanently mounted to a skid within the first steel container at a manufacturing facility prior to transport; and the skid and first nuclear reactor component remain within the first steel container during operation of the nuclear reactor. Biffiger teaches facility equipment mounted to a skid (paragraph 120). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the nuclear components onto skids for ease of assembly, as it is known in the art to utilize a skid for large components that are not capable of being moved/installed by hand.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a method of constructing a nuclear reactor including all of the components and method steps, and including a removable lid for a steel container and sealing a pre-formed aperture during shipping.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument toward the pre-formed apertures, the prior art of Matsuura discloses modules (20) comprised of a frame (1) fitted with steel plates (2), the plates utilized at the floor, walls, and ceiling of the structure (paragraph 16, see also Figs. 1-4). The plates therefore serve as module walls (see for example Figs. 2-3) and must be present in order for the modules to be utilized as a concrete formwork. The steel plates (2) are described as being fitted with sleeves (7) interconnecting the modules, the sleeves, as shown at least in figures 5 and 6, interconnecting equipment between adjacent container plates/walls. Apertures would inherently be present in the plates to accommodate the sleeves in order to connect pipes (4) as illustrated in the figures. If there were no apertures in the plates/walls the sleeves would serve no purpose, and if there were no module walls in the frame the module (20) could not serve as concrete formwork as intended. The rejection stands.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the invention of Matsuura cannot be utilized for shipping nuclear reactor components, the examiner points to at least paragraph 8 which describes all mechanical equipment installed in the unit within a factory prior to being installed and assembled at a construction site. The rejection stands.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Matsuura does not provide for component alignment, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As Matsuura discloses all equipment being installed in the factory (paragraph 8), and the equipment includes pipes which interconnect modules as shown in at least figures 5-6, the pipe alignment would require to be considered in order for the aligned modules to function as intended. The rejection stands.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Matsuura is concerned with producing a structural module within a facility which can be delivered to a construction site and easily and quickly be assembled. It would not be beyond permissible hindsight to produce these modular units as a standardized shipping container so that the shipping does not require extra consideration or specialized vehicles.
For reference, a translation of the Japanese Patent document to Matsuura has been attached.
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 GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633