DETAILED ACTION
Elections
Claims 16-18 and 21-34 are pending. Applicant’s elections of Invention I and Species A1-B2-C1-D16-E3 without traverse in the Reply filed 20 April 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 16-17, 21-24, 26, 28, and 31-34. Claims 18, 25, 27, and 29-30 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention/Species. It is noted that claim 25 is not shown in the elected Figure 8 (E3), and is thus withdrawn. The Invention/Species election requirements are deemed proper and are therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 16-17 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16
It is unclear what constitutes a “reactor”. It is unclear whether the reactor is a nuclear reactor, a chemical reactor, a biological reactor, or some other type of reactor. The specification mentions a nuclear reactor. It is unclear where the original specification provides support for a generic reactor.
The phrase “coupled to first modular wall” is unclear. It is unclear whether “first modular wall” in said phrase differs from the prior mentioned “first modular wall”. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “coupled to the first modular wall”.
The phrase “coupled to second modular wall” is unclear. It is unclear whether “second modular wall” in said phrase differs from the prior mentioned “second modular wall”. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “coupled to the second modular wall”.
Claim 28
The phrase “the second location is positioned closer to the first surface than the second surface” is unclear. Claim 26 indicates that second location is at the second surface. Thus, the second location can’t be closer to the first surface than the second surface. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “the second location is positioned closer to the second surface than the third surface”.
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.
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:
a second location (at the second surface) is positioned closer to the first surface than the second surface (claim 28).
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.
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 16, 21-24, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Craig (US4508677).
Claims 16 and 21
Craig teaches passive temperature control systems (e.g., 76, 78) coupled to modular walls (e.g., 71, 72, 74, 104). The structure is capable of housing a reactor. Particularly note Craig at col. 11, lines 27-59 and col. 14, lines 35-49.
Craig teaches a plurality of modular walls (e.g., four) and a plurality of wall segments (e.g., three, four, etc.). The claims do not indicate a direction (e.g., radially, axially) in which the walls/segments are located relative to other walls/segments. Reactor system components are inherently removably coupled, as evidenced by decommissioning and dismantling. No specific (modular) wall structure is recited.
Claims 22-23
Craig teaches a first modular wall that includes a plurality of wall segments. Craig teaches a first wall segment (71) and a second wall segment (74). Particularly note Figure 5.
Claim 24
Craig teaches a (adjacent) third wall segment (71 or 74). The structure components are “coupled to” (connected to) each other (either directly or indirectly).
Claims 33-34
Craig teaches a second passive temperature control system (e.g., 76, 78) configured to couple to the second modular wall (e.g., 71, 72, 74, 104).
Claims 16, 21-24, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Badie (US 6,802,671).
Claims 16 and 21
Badie (cited via IDS) teaches passive temperature control systems (e.g., 28) respectively coupled to plural modular walls (e.g., 26a; Figure 5). The structure is capable of housing a reactor. Particularly note Badie at col. 4, line 34 to col 5, line 49; col. 7, lines 23-28; and Figures 1-6.
Claim 22
Badie teaches a first modular wall (26a) having a first wall (outer surface) segment and a second (inner surface) segment.
Claim 23
The (flow area of the) passive temperature control system (28) extends between the inner surface and the outer surface.
Claim 24
The first modular wall (26a) has a third wall (outermost surface) segment (e.g., outermost surface of element 28).
Claims 33-34
Badie teaches a second passive temperature control system (e.g., 28) coupled to a second modular wall (e.g., 26a).
Claims 16-17, 21-24, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki (JP 2017-125774A).
Claims 16-17 and 21
Mochizuki (cited via IDS) teaches passive temperature control systems (e.g., heat pipes 11) respectively coupled to modular walls (e.g., 21). The structure is capable of housing a reactor. Particularly note Mochizuki at [0017]-[0022]; and Figures 1-2.
Claims 22-23
Mochizuki teaches a first modular wall (21) having a first wall (outer surface) segment and a second (inner surface) segment. A passive temperature control system (e.g., heat pipes 11) extends between the inner surface and the outer surface.
Claim 24
Mochizuki teaches a (adjacent) third wall segment (21). The structure components are “coupled to” (connected to) each other (either directly or indirectly).
Claims 33-34
Mochizuki teaches a second passive temperature control system (e.g., 11) configured to couple to the second modular wall (e.g., 21).
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 16, 21-24, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure (US20160027536) in combination with Takeda (JP2010145111A).
Claims 16 and 21
McClure (cited via IDS) discloses a reactor container (cask 1220) having plural modular walls (Figure 12). The structure is capable of housing a reactor. Particularly note McClure at [0006]. Takeda shows (e.g., Figure 1) that it is well known in the art to couple passive temperature control systems (1) to modular walls (3) of a cask (2) to enhance cooling. Modification of McClure to have included passive temperature control systems to enhance cooling, as suggested by Takeda, 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.
Claims 22-24
Takeda discloses a first modular wall having a cooling passage (8) formed by a first wall (outer surface) segment and a second (inner surface) segment. Another cooling passage (10) is formed by the first wall (outer surface) segment and a third (inner surface) segment. As previously discussed, modification of McClure to have included passive temperature control systems as suggested by Takeda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 31
The use of a reflector to reflect neutrons back toward the core is standard in the art. The reflector would also inherently direct heat. Further modification of McClure to have included a reflector for the benefits thereof would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 32
The configuration (shape) of a claimed item is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed item was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a reflector can be implemented with various shapes (e.g., parabolic), necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics (e.g., interior space availability, neutron requirements, etc.) obviously more favorable in light of the specific system design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified McClure to have implemented the reflector with a parabolic shape to meet a particular system design.
Claims 33-34
Takeda discloses a plurality of passive temperature control systems, including a second passive temperature control system (1) configured to couple to a second modular wall. As previously discussed, modification of McClure to have included passive temperature control systems as suggested by Takeda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16, 21-22, 24, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US20100177859) in combination with Singh (US20140321596).
Claims 16 and 21
Yokoyama discloses a housing (1) having plural modular walls (6). The housing is capable of housing a reactor. Singh shows (e.g., Figure 2) that it is well known in the art to couple passive temperature control systems (220) to walls of a housing (200, 204) for a reactor in order to enhance cooling. Modification of Yokoyama to have included passive temperature control systems to enhance cooling, as suggested by Singh, 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.
Claim 22
Yokoyama discloses a first modular wall (6) having a first wall (outer surface) segment and a second (inner surface) segment.
Claim 24
Yokoyama discloses the first modular wall has a third wall segment (61H, 62B)
Claim 31
The use of a reflector to reflect neutrons back toward the core is standard in the art. The reflector would also inherently direct heat. Further modification of Yokoyama to have included a reflector for the benefits thereof would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 32
The configuration (shape) of a claimed item is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed item was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a reflector can be implemented with various shapes (e.g., parabolic), necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics (e.g., interior space available, etc.) obviously more favorable in light of the specific system design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yokoyama to have implemented the reflector with a parabolic shape to meet a particular system design.
Claims 33-34
Singh discloses a plurality of passive temperature control systems, including a second passive temperature control system (1) configured to couple to a second modular wall. As previously discussed, modification of Yokoyama to have included passive temperature control systems as suggested by Singh would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16-17, 21-22, 24, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama (US20100177859) in combination with Nam ("Conceptual design of passive containment cooling system for APR-1400 using multipod heat pipe", Nuclear Technology 189, no. 3 (2015): 278-293).
Claims 16-17 and 21
Yokoyama discloses a reactor housing (1) having plural modular walls (6; A-H). Nam shows (e.g., Figure 3) that it is well known in the art to couple passive temperature control systems (heat pipes) to walls of a reactor housing to enhance cooling. Modification of Yokoyama to have included passive temperature control systems to enhance cooling, as suggested by Nam, 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.
Claim 22
Yokoyama discloses a first modular wall (6) having a first wall (outer surface) segment and a second (inner surface) segment.
Claim 24
Yokoyama discloses the first modular wall has a third wall segment (61H, 62B)
Claim 31
The use of a reflector to reflect neutrons back toward the core is standard in the art. The reflector would also inherently direct heat. Further modification of Yokoyama to have included a reflector for the benefits thereof would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 32
The configuration (shape) of a claimed item is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed item was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a reflector can be implemented with various shapes (e.g., parabolic), necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics (e.g., interior space available, etc.) obviously more favorable in light of the specific system design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yokoyama to have implemented the reflector with a parabolic shape to meet a particular system design.
Claims 33-34
Nam discloses a plurality of passive temperature control systems, including a second passive temperature control system (1) configured to couple to a second modular wall. As previously discussed, modification of Yokoyama to have included passive temperature control systems as suggested by Nam would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is 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.
Claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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