DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 were subject to restriction requirement mailed on 02/26/2026.
Applicant filed a response, and elected Group II, claims 10-18, and withdrew claims 1-9, without traverse on 04/16/2026.
Claims 1-18 are pending, and claims 1-9 are withdrawn.
Claims 10-18 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 10-18 in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/16/2026.
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.
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.
Claim 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17, line 2, recites a phrase “primarily”. However, it is unclear what the phrase refers to, as it is unclear what is considered primarily, i.e., more than 50%, more than 75%, etc. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to “partially”. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinescu et al., DE 4035927 A1 (Morinescu) in view of Shimizu et al., Recent research and development of Intermediate heat exchanger for VHTR plant, 2011 (Shimizu).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Morinescu et al., DE 4035927 A1 (Morinescu). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Morinescu teaches methods for environmentally friendly use of hydrocarbons and biomasses (Morinescu, page 1, 1st paragraph); introducing the energy required for the thermal splitting of the hydrocarbons or biomass by an energy supply that is optimized for the respective circumstances. This includes, in particular, energy generated by nuclear (Morinescu, page 2, 6th paragraph);
the device for supplying the heat from a high-temperature nuclear reactor from which a heat exchanger helium (helium reads upon a second medium) is supplied, which surrounds the reactor (reading upon an allothermal gasification reactor); in this way, hydrogen (reading output syngas) and carbon can be produced from hydrocarbon (Morinescu, page 4, 3rd paragraph).
Morinescu does not explicitly disclose the nuclear reactor comprises a first medium, exchanging heat between the first medium and a second medium using a heat exchanger thermally coupled to the nuclear reactor.
With respect to the difference, Shimizu teaches nuclear reactor plant developed for process heat applications utilizing nuclear thermal energy (Shimizu, Abstract, 1st paragraph). Shimizu specifically teaches in the intermediate heat exchanger, in which the primary helium gas (reading upon a first medium) leaving the reactor, and heats the secondary helium gas (reading upon the second medium) for process heat applications (Shimizu, page 1, Introduction, 2nd paragraph); Fig. 1 shows that the heat exchanger is thermally coupled to the nuclear reactor, Shimizu, Fig. 1).
As Shimizu expressly teaches, an increase in heat transfer characteristics by 30% resulted in decrease of total length by 34% (Shimizu, page 5, Design Process, 2nd paragraph).
Shimizu is analogous art as Shimizu is drawn to nuclear reactor plant developed for process heat applications utilizing nuclear thermal energy.
In light of the motivation of the nuclear reactor plant developed by Shimizu, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the nuclear reactor plant of Shimizu, which comprises a primary helium gas from the nuclear reactor, which heats the secondary helium gas through an intermediate heat exchanger, in the method of Morinescu, to provide process heat to convert biomass to syngas, in order to have a nuclear reactor with improved heat transfer characteristics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 10, Morinescu in view of Shimizu further teaches secondary coolant helium gas from the secondary helium gas circulator is heated up to the temperature of 905˚C (Shimizu, page 2, 4th paragraph).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinescu in view of Shimizu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Office of Nuclear Energy, TRISO Particles: The most robust nuclear fuel on earth, 2019 (ONE).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 10, Morinescu in view of Shimizu does not explicitly disclose wherein producing heat in the first medium comprises producing nuclear reactions inside tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) particle fuel.
With respect to the difference, ONE teaches fuel for nuclear reactors (ONE, page 2). ONE specifically teaches TRISO particle fuel (ONE, page 3).
As ONE expressly teaches, TRISO fuels are structurally more resistant to neutron irradiation, corrosion, oxidation and high temperatures (the factors that most impact fuel performance) than traditional reactor fuels (ONE, page 3).
ONE is analogous art as ONE is drawn to fuel for nuclear reactors.
In light of the motivation of using TRISO fuel particles for a nuclear reactor, as taught by ONE, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use TRISO (i.e., tri-structural isotropic) fuel particles, for the nuclear reactor of Morinescu in view of Shimizu, in order to use fuel particles that are structurally more resistant to neutron irradiation, corrosion, oxidation and high temperatures (the factors that most impact fuel performance) than traditional reactor fuels, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinescu in view of Shimizu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Momina et al., Production potential of medical isotopes from natural uranium fission process, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2018 (Momina).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 10, Morinescu in view of Shimizu does not explicitly disclose further comprising producing radioactive medical isotopes using the nuclear reactor.
With respect to the difference, Momina teaches fission of uranium (Momina, Abstract). Momina specifically teaches fission products at nuclear plants is one known method to produce isotopes for medical applications (Momina, page 891, left column, 1st paragraph).
As Momina expressly teaches, there is an ever-increasing demand of radioactive isotopes for medical imaging and radiation therapy (Momina, page 891, left column, 1st paragraph).
Momina is analogous art as Momina is drawn to fission of uranium.
In light of the motivation of producing isotopes for medical applications from nuclear plants, as taught by Momina, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to produce isotopes (i.e., radioactive isotopes) for medical applications using the nuclear reactor of Morinescu in view of Shimizu, to meet the ever-increasing demand of radioactive isotopes for medical imaging and radiation therapy, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinescu in view of Shimizu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leifsson et al., WO 2012/117423 A1 (Leifsson).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 10, Morinescu in view of Shimizu does not explicitly disclose further comprising converting the syngas into one or more selected hydrocarbons using a Fischer-Tropsch process in a Fischer-Tropsch reactor.
With respect to the difference, Leifsson teaches applying external renewable energy in the form of heat derived from nuclear reactors to carbon containing feedstock (for example biomass) in a large scale well insulated Fischer-Tropsch process to produce liquid fuels of high energy content (Leifsson, Abstract). Leifsson specifically teaches the conversion of said syngas components into liquid fuels by the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (Leifsson, Abstract).
Leifsson is analogous art as Leifsson is drawn to applying external renewable energy in the form of heat derived from nuclear reactors to carbon containing feedstock (for example biomass) in a large scale well insulated Fischer-Tropsch process to produce liquid fuels of high energy content.
In light of the disclosure of Leifsson, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to covert the syngas of Morinescu in view of Shimizu into liquid fuels (reading upon or more selected hydrocarbons) by the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, and yield expected results.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 15, Morinescu in view of Shimizu and Leifsson further teaches applying external renewable energy in the form of heat derived from nuclear reactors to carbon containing feedstock (for example biomass) in a large scale well insulated Fischer-Tropsch process to produce liquid fuels of high energy content (Leifsson, Abstract), therefore, the heat from the secondary helium of the nuclear reactor of Morinescu in view of Shimizu would be used for the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Furthermore, the syngas produced of Morinescu in view of Shimizu and Leifsson upon gasification of biomass would necessarily be at elevated temperature and can provide heat used in the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 15, Morinescu in view of Shimizu and Leifsson further teaches FT (i.e., Fischer-Tropsch) reactor at 300˚C (Leifsson, Figure 1).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morinescu in view of Shimizu and Leifsson as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Li et al., Selectively converting biomass to jet fuel in large-scale apparatus, ChemCatChem, 2017 (Li).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 15, Morinescu in view of Shimizu and Leifsson does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the selected hydrocarbons comprises aviation fuel or carbon fiber.
With respect to the difference, Li teaches converting biomass to jet fuel (Li, Title and Abstract). Li specifically teaches biomass gasification to FTS (i.e., Fischer-Tropsch synthesis) to produce jet fuel (Li, page 2672, left column, 4th paragraph).
As Li expressly teaches, selective conversion of biomass into jet fuel is successfully realized on a large scale (Li, page 2672, Conclusion); the increasing scale of the aviation industry worldwide is promoting great demand for jet fuel (Li, page 2668, left column, 1st paragraph).
Li is analogous art as Li is drawn to converting biomass to jet fuel.
In light of the motivation of conversion of biomass into jet fuel, as taught by Li, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis of Morinescu in view of Shimizu and Leifsson to convert the biomass syngas to jet fuel (reading upon aviation fuel), using the successful method of Li, in order to meet the great demand for jet fuel, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights