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 1-11, drawn to an apparatus, classified in G21C 7/14.
II. Claims 12-20, drawn to a method, classified in G21D 3/001.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed could be used to limit the fuel supply to a fuel injection pump for an internal combustion engine.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
b. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
c. The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
d. The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
e. The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a conversation with Ryan Alley on 12/17/2025, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant stated that details per the traversal will be forthcoming.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, in line 6, “controller” should be “a controller”; and in claim 10, “the blocking the movement” should be “the blocking movement”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP8651 (JP 2008002865 A).
Regarding claim 1, JP865 discloses a system (fig. 1) for limiting withdrawal of control elements from a nuclear reactor core, the system comprising: a limiter (21) coupled with a control element (12) for the core (10), wherein the limiter is configured to selectively block movement of the control element to a further withdrawn position within a stroke range (the vertical range of the control rod 12) of the control element (for example, after it has been partially withdrawn, the brake 21 can stop the control rod 12 from being more withdrawn, see page 4); and a controller (38) communicatively coupled with the limiter, wherein the controller is configured to transmit a withdrawal command to the limiter to cause the limiter to stop the blocking movement of the control element to the further withdrawn position (the controller 38 can turn off the power supply to the brake 21, which therefore prevents it from stopping the continued withdrawal of the control rod 12, see page 4).
Regarding claim 2, JP865 anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses a plurality of the limiters (21) each coupled with a control element (12) for the core (“A plurality of electromagnetic brakes 21 are also installed corresponding to the control rods 12,” page 4), wherein the controller (38) is communicatively coupled with all the limiters and configured to transmit the withdrawal command to less than all the limiters (fig. 1 and page 4: each control rod 12 has its own brake 21 and intermediate controller 31, and so the central controller 38 can individually send signals to brakes 21 via the dedicated intermediate controller 31 of each brake).
Regarding claim 8, JP865 anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the limiter (21) does not prevent movement of the control element (12) to a less withdrawn position within the stroke range (the brake 21 does not prevent the control rod 12 from being inserted).
Regarding claim 11, JP865 discloses a nuclear power plant (“nuclear power plant,” page 1) commercially generating electricity using heat generated from a nuclear reactor core (10, fig. 1) controlled by insertion and withdrawal of control elements (12), the plant comprising: at least one of the controllers (38) of claim 1 (as cited above in claim 1); and a plurality of the limiters of claim 1 each coupled with a control element for the core (“A plurality of electromagnetic brakes 21 are also installed corresponding to the control rods 12,” page 4).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP865 in view of Clarkson (US 2023/0290527).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, JP865 anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the controller is configured to select the less than all limiters to which to transmit the withdrawal command, including a single limiter (fig. 1 and page 4: each control rod 12 has its own brake 21 and intermediate controller 31, and so the central controller 38 can individually send signals to brakes 21 via the dedicated intermediate controller 31 of each brake), but does not explicitly disclose the use of a circuit without software.
Clarkson does. Clarkson is also in the art area of safety systems for nuclear reactors (abstract) and teaches using a circuit that functions without software (“circuits are preconfigured in hardware settings to derive the first and second safety determinations, respectively, without software instructions,” claim 42). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a non-software circuit as taught by Clarkson in order to “mitigate common-cause failures (CCF) caused by software or software-developed logic errors that could defeat and/or disable a safety function in the system,” as explained by Clarkson in ¶ 51.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP865 in view of KR1012 (KR 101721101 B1).
Regarding claim 5, JP865 anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the controller (38) is communicatively coupled to the limiter (21) through a wired connection (as shown in fig. 1) but does not explicitly state that it is only a wired connection. KR101 does. KR101 is also in the art area of nuclear reactor control rods and teaches (top of third page) utilizing only a wired communication with a control unit: ”The control unit…through either a wired communication network or a wireless communication network.” The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a wired connection for speed and security, as is known in the art. The skilled artisan is easily able to choose between a wired connection and a wireless connection.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP865 in view of JP246 (JP2010032246 uploaded via IDS).
Regarding claim 6, JP865 anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the controller (38) is further communicatively connected to a user operating the control elements of the nuclear reactor (the control rods of every nuclear reactor are necessarily in communication with the reactor operator), and wherein the controller is configured to transmit the withdrawal command in response to the user requesting withdrawal of at least one of the control elements (every nuclear reactor has a reactor operator who communicates with the electronic controllers) but does not explicitly state this is the only user. JP246 does teach this. JP246 is also in the art area of control rods for nuclear reactors (abstract) and teaches that the control rod can only be withdrawn in response to the reactor operator requesting withdrawal (reactor operator must use the control panel 9a to withdraw a control rod). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize such a feature in the system of JP865 so that, as is well-known in the art, the reactor operator is able to control the reactivity of the reactor as needed for desired output and personnel safety.
Regarding claim 7, the above-described combination of JP865 and JP246 teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, JP865 discloses wherein the user is at least one of a control rod drive system, an algorithmic plant controller, and a human plant operator (every nuclear reactor has a human reactor operator who communicates with the electronic controllers).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP865 in view of Lichtenberger (US 3,572,161).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, JP865 anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the limiter (21) blocks the movement of the control element (12) to the further withdrawn position and also stops stop the blocking the movement of the control element (12) to the further withdrawn position upon receipt of the withdrawal command, as cited above, but does not explicitly disclose the limiter is a ratchet and pawl.
Lichtenberger does. Lichtenberger is also in the art area of control rod drives for nuclear reactors (abstract) and teaches a limiter for a control rod (12) that is a ratchet and pawl (18) secured with the control element, and wherein the ratchet and pawl when engaged block the movement of the control element to the further withdrawn position (as shown in fig. 3), and further wherein the limiter further includes a non-powered drive pushing to engage the ratchet and pawl and a powered drive configured to push the ratchet and pawl to a disengaged position to stop the blocking the movement of the control element to the further withdrawn position upon receipt of a withdrawal command (as shown in fig. 2; “A nuclear reactor control rod antiejection latch for use with magnetic jacking type control rod drives and having a pawl which rachets to allow insertion of the control rod, but which prevents withdrawal unless the control rod life coil is energized,” abstract).
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the limiter taught by Lichtenberger because “It prevents ejection of the control rod during an accident condition but allows scram of the control rod at any time,” col. 1, ll. 29-33.
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
1 see attached 13-page foreign patent.
2 see attached 24-page foreign reference.