DETAILED ACTION
Claims 13-30 are pending, of which claims 26-28 are withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted with the response of 2/17/26 have been fully considered.
On pages 7-8 of the response, Applicant argues that the 63/463,319 provisional application fully supports the instant claims. Applicant argues that the ‘319 application states that the fuel storage racks are “substantially restrained against lateral movement” (emphasis in Applicant’s remarks). Applicant states that the term “substantially retained” implies that there is some lateral movement because otherwise the application would have stated that the storage racks are “completely restrained” from lateral movement. Upon further review, Examiner agrees that the term “substantially restrained” from lateral movement means that there is some amount of lateral movement. Accordingly, the ‘319 application fully supports claim 13 as pending and the priority date is therefore considered 02/24/2017.
On page 9, Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 17 overcome the pending rejections under §112(b). Examiner agrees, and the rejections are therefore withdrawn.
On pages 9-11, Applicant argues that the cavities of 20100177858 (“Kielbowicz”) are not configured to allow lateral movement of the pedestals. This argument is not persuasive.
At the outset, Examiner notes that claim 13 does not require that the storage racks or pedestals actually move. Rather, claim 13 merely requires that the cavities be configured to allow for lateral movements. As argued by Applicant, allowing any amount lateral movement would be sufficient to meet this limitation. As argued by Applicant, even if the pedestals are “substantially restrained” from movement, or move only a minute amount, the cavities should be considered “configured to allow lateral movement of the plurality of first pedestals.”
Kielbowicz teaches that “the base plates on which the storage racks are supported have a large damping effect on the vertical movements and above all on the horizontal movements” (see e.g. paragraph [0022]). Further, “the displacements of the storage rack arrangement are also greatly reduced by the connection of adjacent storage racks …, which decisively brakes the movement process” (Id.). Similar to Applicant’s arguments regarding the ‘319 provisional application, the fact that the base plates and connections between storage racks prevent horizontal, or lateral, movement implies that in the absence of the baseplates and connections between the storage racks, lateral movement would be possible. Further, the statement that the displacement of the storage racks are reduced implies that some displacement still exists even with the connections. Accordingly, the cavities themselves of Kielbowicz must allow for some amount of lateral movement, and are therefore considered to be “configured to allow lateral movement” as recited in claim 13.
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.
Claims 13-15 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100177858 (“Kielbowicz”).
Regarding claim 13, Kielbowicz teaches a method of storing nuclear fuel in a fuel pool (see e.g. paragraph [0012]). Kielbowicz teaches that a first fuel rack comprises a plurality of first pedestals (see e.g. FIG. 1, pedestals 6 and 6a on fuel rack 1.3). The method of Kielbowicz includes the step of lowering the fuel rack into the pool (see e.g. paragraph [0016]). The pedestals are inserted into a plurality of cavities defined by a sidewall (see e.g. FIG. 1, cavities into which positioning members 8 are inserted). Although Kielbowicz does not expressly state that the cavities are fixed with respect to the pool, Kielbowicz does not appear to teach that these cavities move. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would, following the teachings of Kielbowicz, use cavities that are fixed in position.
Kielbowicz teaches that lateral movement is restrained due to the fact that the storage racks are connected to each other at the tops of the racks (see e.g. paragraphs [0021]-[0022]). Specifically, Kielbowicz teaches that “the base plates on which the storage racks are supported have a large damping effect on the vertical movements and above all on the horizontal movements” (see e.g. paragraph [0022]). Further, “the displacements of the storage rack arrangement are also greatly reduced by the connection of adjacent storage racks …, which decisively brakes the movement process” (Id.). These teaching suggests that the cavities alone would allow some lateral movement of the pedestals, which is only prevented by the connections between the storage racks. Accordingly, the cavities of Kielbowicz are considered to be “configured to allow lateral movement”.
Regarding claim 14, Kielbowicz teaches that the system can include at least a second fuel rack lowered into the pool (see e.g. FIG. 1, showing three fuel racks that have been lowered into the pool). Kielbowicz teaches that each fuel rack has a plurality of pedestals that are each inserted into a plurality of cavities defined by a sidewall and allowing lateral movement of the pedestal, as described with respect to the first fuel rack of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, Kielbowicz teaches that the cavities are disposed in a plurality of embedment plates (see e.g. plates 2.1-2.3 in FIG. 1). Kielbowicz teaches that adjacent fuel racks share an embedment plate, and as such, at least one of the plurality of first pedestals and second pedestals are inserted into the same shared embedment plate (see e.g. FIG. 1, showing that each of rack 1.2 and rack 1.3 have pedestals inserted into cavities of plate 2.2).
Regarding claim 20, Kielbowicz teaches that each fuel rack includes a base plate (see FIG. 1, bottom plate of each rack). The base plates of each rack appear to be rectangular, and as such, would each have a peripheral edge (Id). The base plates of Kielbowicz appear to each be at the same height, and as such, the first peripheral edge of the first base plate and the second peripheral edge of an adjacent base plate would be adjacent after the pedestals are inserted into the cavities (Id.).
Regarding claim 21, the base plates of each fuel rack appear to be coplanar (see coplanar base plates for each rack in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 22, the base plates of each fuel rack appear to extend somewhat from the actual fuel loading portion of each rack (see e.g. FIG. 1 showing that the bottom portion of each fuel rack is wider than the inner portion into which the fuel will be placed). As such, the peripheral edge of each base plate is horizontally spaced by a lateral distance from the actual fuel rack.
Regarding claim 23, during an earthquake, the peripheral edges of each rack of Kielbowicz would likely contact each other given the small or non-existent distances between the base of each fuel rack (see e.g. bases of fuel racks 1.1-1.3 in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 24, each pedestal in Kielbowicz would necessarily have a first lateral side having a first transverse width (see e.g. pedestals 6 and 8 in FIG. 1). As these pedestals fit within the cavities, the cavities necessarily have a transverse width larger than the pedestals.
Regarding claim 25, the cavities of Kielbowicz appear to be substantially circular to accommodate the circular pedestals of the fuel rack (see e.g. cavities around pedestal portion 8 in FIG. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-30 are allowed.
Claims 16-19 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 16 and 18-19 are allowable for the same reasons as described in the prior office action. New claim 29 recites is essentially the same as claim 19 rewritten in independent form. As such, claim 29 is allowable for the same reasons as provided with respect to claim 19 in the prior office action. New claim 30 depends from claim 29 and is allowable over the prior art for the same reasons. Claim 17 was previously rejected as unpatentable over Kielbowicz in view of US20160099085 (“Singh”). However, as noted above, the priority date of the instant application is considered to be 02/24/2017. Singh is a disclosure by the same inventor as the instant application and was published within one year of the effective filing date. As such, Singh is no longer considered prior art with respect to the instant application. The rejection has therefore been withdrawn.
Other Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20150310947 (“Singh”)
Singh teaches a method for reducing lateral movement of one or more nuclear fuel storage racks in a storage pool during a seismic event (see e.g. paragraph [0005]). Singh teaches that the storage racks are supported on pedestals that are inserted into cavities in the storage pool (see e.g. paragraph [0034]). Singh specifically teaches that the cavities have a diameter that is greater than the diameter of the pedestals, which would mean that the cavities are configured to allow lateral movement of the pedestals (see e.g. paragraph [0035] and FIG.’s 4A and 4B).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC S SHERMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571)270-3591. 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.
/E.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights