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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-4, drawn to a power plant, classified in G21D 9/00.
II. Claims 5-7, drawn to pumps, classified in F03B 17/061.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed (1) have a materially different function, with Invention I being an electricity-producing power plant and Invention II being a pump; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, as evidenced above by their disparate classifications; and (3) they are not obvious variants, i.e. the skilled artisan would not take the power plant of Invention I and find it obvious to modify it to instead be a pump, or vice-versa. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
During a telephone conversation with Robin Jerry McDaniel on 12/11/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-4. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Pro Se Applicant
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1–4 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the improvement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said second low reservoir”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said first high reservoir”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said second reservoir”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said first reservoir”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "via penstock”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a two man made or natural bodies of water of differing heights.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what its intended meaning is. It appears to have extra words or be missing words. The grammar is unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said reactor - heat output”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDaniel (US 2016/0240273).
Regarding claim 1, McDaniel discloses (fig. 1) a hybrid nuclear-hydro power plant in which a difference between two water levels is utilized to generate an electrical power, comprising: a first water reservoir (C) located at a high level; a second water reservoir (E) located at a low level; an equipment for pumping water from said second low reservoir to said first high reservoir, the improvement comprising of: (a) a heat powered water pump (B) positioned in said second reservoir for pumping water to said first reservoir (“a heat powered water pump positioned in said second reservoir,” claim 1), (b) a reverse penstock (3) from said pump to said first reservoir, which has a non-return valve (“a non-return valve,” claim 1) to allow water flow upstream but not downstream, and (c) a nuclear reactor (A) with a heat conduit (“a heat conduit,” claim 1) coupled directly to said water pump to provide said pump with thermal energy to operate said water pump and act as a prime mover for said heat-powered water pump (id.); a hydraulic turbine (“hydraulic turbine,” claim 1) installed to receive water via penstock from said first reservoir and to discharge said water to said second reservoir and to convert said water's kinetic energy into mechanical energy of turbine rotation (id.); an electrical generator (6) coupled to said turbine and rotated by said turbine to produce electrical energy.
Regarding claim 2, McDaniel anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses (fig. 1) wherein said first (C) and said second reservoirs (E) are created by a dam (4) in a river.
Regarding claim 3, McDaniel anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses (fig. 1) wherein said first (C) and said second reservoirs (E) are created by a two man made or natural bodies of water of differing heights (“said first and said second reservoirs are created by a two man made or natural bodies of water of differing heights,” claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, McDaniel anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses (fig. 1) wherein said reactor - heat output may be proportionally diverted to pumping, desalination, or process heat loads to maintain the reactor core power level at a constant optimized steady state (“said reactor heat output may be proportionally diverted to pumping, desalination, or process heat loads to maintain the reactor core power level at a constant optimized steady state,” claim 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646