DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 1-18 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 1
It is unclear whether the “fuel assembly guide tube” is a “fuel assembly thimble guide tube” or some other guide tube.
The phrase “a fuel assembly guide tube of a fuel assembly” appears to have redundant (and thus unclear) wording. As a result, it is unclear whether the “fuel assembly guide tube” can be used without a fuel assembly.
The phrase “a wall that surrounds the material” is unclear. A “material” is not positively recited. At best, the claim indicates that the capsule can house a material. It is unclear how the “wall” can be defined based upon a non-recited feature (i.e., material). Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
The phrase “a backfill region disposed between the capsule and the material” is unclear. Again, a “material” is not positively recited. At best, the claim indicates that the capsule can house a material. It is unclear how the “backfill region” can be defined based upon a non-recited feature (i.e., material). Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
The phrase “a second annulus comprising a second width defined between the outer tube and the fuel assembly guide tube” is unclear. A “fuel assembly guide tube” is not positively recited. It is unclear how a “second annulus” and a “second width” can be defined based upon a non-recited feature (i.e., a fuel assembly guide tube). Thus, the subject matter of claim 1 is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
It is also unclear whether the “second width” differs from the “first width”, or whether they can be the same width.
It is unclear what constitutes a “backfill region”. For example, it is unclear whether the backfill region completely annularly surrounds the material and extends in the axial direction. The recited “backfill region” allows for the capsule and the material to have 99% contact and 1% empty space therebetween. Regardless, it would appear that some empty space would inherently exist between a material and a wall, no matter how compacted the material is against the wall. It also appears that this empty space would inherently be filled by a gas (e.g., air). Thus, this claim feature appears to be an inherent feature.
Claim 2
The use of “first radial diameter” when there is no mention of a “second radial diameter” is unclear and confusing. The use of “first radial diameter” implies that there is a “second radial diameter” in the same claim. However, claim 2 lacks mention of a “second radial diameter”. Thus, the claim appears to be incomplete.
The use of “first radial diameter” implies that it is not the full radial diameter of the material. Furthermore, the material can be mathematically divided into (viewed as) several different radial diameters. Likewise, the wall can be mathematically divided into (viewed as) several different radial thicknesses. As a result, in clam 2 the describing of a (single) radial thickness of the capsule wall relative to a first (single) radial diameter of the material is nonsensical.
Claim 3
For reasons discussed above, a “second width” is not positively recited. It is unclear how the first width (of the first annulus) can be defined relative to a non-claimed feature. Thus, it is unclear how this claim further limits the structure of the rodlet.
Claim 7
The phrase “less than” allows for zero. Thus, it is unclear how the total claim further limits the structure of the rodlet of claim 1.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Claims not addressed are rejected based upon dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is unclear how the “backfill region” can have a predetermined annulus width that is created and maintained. Note Applicant’s published application at [0025]. There is no indication that the target material is fixed in location. Rather, it appears that the target material is capable of moving, and thus it would contact the capsule tube during handling. As a result, there would not be any maintained annulus width for a “backfill region disposed between the capsule and the material” (claim 1 wording).
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 1, 9-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heibel (WO 2021/076673 A1).
Heibel teaches a rodlet for insertion into a fuel assembly guide tube. The rodlet comprises a capsule for housing a material (120) to be irradiated. The capsule defines a wall (160) that surrounds the material. An outer tube (180) comprises a plurality of apertures (50). The outer tube can house the capsule. A first annulus (140) of a first width is between the capsule wall and the outer tube. Some empty space would inherently exist between the material and the capsule wall. This empty space would inherently be filled by a gas (e.g., air). A spacer (20, 200) is between an end plug and the capsule. Particularly note Figure 4.
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 2-8, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heibel (WO 2021/076673 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 2-5 and 18
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that each of: material diameters; capsule wall thicknesses; annulus widths; aperture diameters; and quantity of apertures; can be implemented with various dimensions and amounts, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain dimensions and amounts in light of the specific nuclear reactor (or fuel assembly) design. Heibel’s elements are capable of being re-dimensioned to meet another nuclear reactor design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Heibel to have implemented the material, capsule wall, annulus, and apertures with the recited dimensions and amounts to meet a particular nuclear reactor design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions, but the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, then the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 6-8 and 15-16
Heibel discloses use of stainless steel and zirconium [0036-0037]. It is a matter of optimization to employ a particular percentage of stainless steel and zirconium because the decision on the percentages requires proper balancing of competing factors, e.g., structural strength, neutron absorption, etc. It is within the skill of the artisan to determine the optimum or workable percentages for a particular nuclear reactor design. Where routine testing and general conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Heibel to have the capsule comprise one of SS304, Alloy 718, or Alloy 625, and have the outer tube comprise zirconium alloy, to meet a particular nuclear reactor design.
Objection to the Drawings
It appears that Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old seems to be illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 drawing objection will not be held in abeyance.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes wording rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). For example, note “fuel assembly guide tube of a fuel assembly” and “backfill region”.
An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is too generic for the elected invention. The following Title is suggested: “Rodlet For Positioning Isotope Target In Thimble Guide Tube Of A PWR Fuel Assembly”.
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.
Interview Information
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.
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