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 G21D 3/001.
II. Claims 12-20, drawn to a method, classified in G21C 7/12.
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 calibrate plant instrumentation.
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 1/2/2025, 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 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 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 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 2 recites “a distinct set of the system controllers.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of system controllers,” which indicates two as an option. However, it is unclear if a set of controllers is intended to indicate, for example, two sets of two each is the minimum number of controllers required, or if a “set” of controllers may be considered one controller.
Claim 3 recites “wherein there are at least three system controllers, and wherein a majority of the system controllers…”. It is unclear if this limitation means “a majority of the at least three system controllers,” which would allow for two system controllers to comprise the “majority,” or if the recited “majority of the system controllers” instead refers to all system controllers in the system for instrumentation and control (from the preamble of claim 1).
Claim 3 recites “a majority of the system controllers receive a same command or the command is not provided to the plant actuators by the controllers.” It is unclear if this phrase is intended to be interpreted as only one of the limitations (the one preceding “or” or, instead, the one following “or”) is required to fulfill the claim, or, alternatively, if this claim is intended to be interpreted as an “if then” statement, i.e., “if a majority of the system controllers do not receive a same command, then the command is not provided to the plant actuators.”
Claim 7: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim 7 recites the term “burnable and fission product poison reactivity.” It is not known in the art, to the Examiner’s knowledge, to describe burnable poisons or fission products in terms of reactivity. These species influence the overall reactivity of the core, but they themselves do not possess their own reactivities. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 8: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Claim 8 recites the term “burnable and fission product poison reactivity.” It is not known in the art, to the Examiner’s knowledge, to describe burnable poisons or fission products in terms of reactivity. These species influence the overall reactivity of the core, but they themselves do not possess their own reactivities. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the reactivity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Numerous “reactivities” have been introduced thus far, and it is unclear to which reactivity this recited reactivity refers.
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 § 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.
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 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 1–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “JP898” (JP S63-235898 A1) in view of Cheatham (US 2018/0254109).
Regarding claim 1, JP898 discloses a system (Fig. 1 that includes conventional features of Fig. 4) for instrumentation and control of a nuclear power plant, the system comprising: a plurality of system controllers (51, 52) interfaced with plant actuators (recirculation pump 16 and turbine steam control valve 8, both shown in Fig. 4); a plurality of plant sensors (sensors collect signals generator output actual signal, reactor pressure actual signal or steam flow rate signal and main steam pressure signal, page 7, third paragraph) communicatively connected with the system controllers; and a processor-based multivariable controller (50) receiving sensor data from the plant sensors and providing commands to the plurality of system controllers (“The multivariable control[ler] device 50 outputs, for example, two output control signals, the first output signal … is sent to the recirculation flow rate controller 51, and the second output signal … is sent to the pressure controller 52, respectively,” end of page 3 – top of page 4), wherein the multivariable controller is configured to calculate plant power from the sensor data and output commands to the plurality of system controllers to achieve a desired power calculated from the plant power and the sensor data (top half of page 4: multivariable controller 50 receives actual generator output signal and actual reactor pressure signal from sensors, performs calculations, then outputs a control signal U to the recirc controller 51 and pressure controller 52—see also Fig. 1 with multivariable controller 50 outputting control signals to recirc pump controller 51 and pressure controller 52).
JP898 calculates plant power to achieve a desired power, as cited above, but does not explicitly teach calculating plant reactivity to achieve a desired reactivity.
Cheatham does. Cheatham is also in the art area of a system for instrumentation and control of a nuclear power plant and, like JP898, teaches modeling and calculating power and coolant via sensor data (“Such a system may receive actual operating parameters….Actual operating parameters that may be received include, for example…power production….coolant flow,” ¶ 15) and further suggests including reactivity calculations in this mix (“Such a system may receive actual operating parameters….Actual operating parameters that may be received include, for example…reactivity,” ¶ 15 and “the branch search calculator is adapted to determine one or more outputs….the one or more outputs includes at least one of a group comprising a reactivity change within the core,” ¶ 27).
A purpose for this teaching of measuring and calculating power and reactivity together is, as described by Cheatham (¶ 22), to provide acceptable limits on the changes of these parameters during an operation cycle to better keep tabs on the health of the fuel: “[T]he one or more inputs includes at least one of a group comprising an indication of an acceptable limit to reactivity swing over a particular cycle, physical limits associated with a fuel assembly, and an indication of an acceptable power change in the fuel assembly.” Additionally, reactivity evaluations provide information to the operator regarding how fuel assemblies should be arranged and shuffled: “Practically, some factors that can be modified include the number of assemblies shuffled, locations and/or direction where assemblies are shuffled, what assemblies are chosen to be shuffled (by location, burnup, composition, power, etc.) and the results may be evaluated on K-effective, power distribution, and reactivity swing, among other factors,” ¶ 103.
The combination of the reactivity parameter of Cheatham with the instrumentation and control (I&C) system of JP898 would have produced an I&C system for a nuclear reactor utilizing a multivariable controller that received sensor data and calculated plant power and reactivity among other parameters in order to stay within desirable limits, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of JP898, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Cheatham’s reactivity with JP898's power and flow parameters would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a multivariable controller that received power, flow, and reactivity input data and calculated desirable and future ranges for these data.
The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Cheatham (¶ 22), to provide acceptable limits on the changes of these parameters during an operation cycle to better keep tabs on the health of the fuel: “[T]he one or more inputs includes at least one of a group comprising an indication of an acceptable limit to reactivity swing over a particular cycle, physical limits associated with a fuel assembly, and an indication of an acceptable power change in the fuel assembly.” Additionally, reactivity evaluations provide information to the operator regarding how fuel assemblies should be arranged and shuffled: “Practically, some factors that can be modified include the number of assemblies shuffled, locations and/or direction where assemblies are shuffled, what assemblies are chosen to be shuffled (by location, burnup, composition, power, etc.) and the results may be evaluated on K-effective, power distribution, and reactivity swing, among other factors,” ¶ 103.
Regarding claim 2, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP898 further discloses a plurality of switches (Fig. 1: 60 and 65), wherein each switch is communicatively connected to a distinct set of the system controllers (switch 60 is coupled to controller 51, and switch 65 is coupled to controller 52), and wherein the multivariable controller (50) connects to the system controllers through at least one of the switches (as shown in Fig. 1, multivariable controller 50 connects via switch 60 to controller 51, and via switch 65 to controller 52).
Regarding claim 3, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP898 further discloses wherein there are at least three system controllers (as is known in the art, the system shown in Fig. 4 is limited to showing only one loop of the reactor for simplicity; there is a second loop that is not pictured, and thus the pictured main steam line, recirculation pump, etc. are duplicated in practice in the second loop, and therefore there are at least four system controllers, since Fig. 1 shows two for the first loop), and Cheatham further teaches system logic wherein a module may prevent an output command if the signals received by a controller are not in agreement (¶ 86). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize such logic in order to mitigate the effects of statistical outliers or malfunctioning equipment.
Regarding claim 4, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP898 further discloses wherein there are a plurality of the multivariable controllers (as is known in the art, the system shown in Fig. 4 is limited to showing only one loop of the reactor for simplicity; there is a second loop that is not pictured, and thus the pictured main steam line, recirculation pump, etc. are duplicated in practice in the second loop, and therefore there are at least two multivariable controllers, since Fig. 1 shows one for the first loop), wherein each of the multivariable controllers provides commands to a distinct switch of the plurality of switches (Fig. 1: the first multivariable controller 50 in the first loop provides commands to first switches 60, 65 of the first loop, and the second multivariable controller 50 in the second loop provides commands to second switches 60, 65 of the second loop).
Regarding claim 5, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP898 further discloses a human-machine interface including a display and input device communicatively connected to the switches (Examiner notes that all nuclear reactors, including the commercial BWR of JP898, have reactor operators who interface with the reactor components and controllers remotely via the control room), and Cheatham teaches a viewer module that operates without viewer interference, i.e., automatically, to output commands or calculations: “Examine the reactor database (e.g., with a viewer module) to determine if the database has reactivity coefficients calculated. This step could be performed automatically by the reactor core modeling system. If there exist no reactivity coefficients, the system may call a module that calculates reactivity coefficients,” ¶ 217. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide such automation as a backup to the human reactor operator.
Regarding claim 6, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP898 further discloses wherein the sensor data includes radiation flux (e.g., neutron flux data is shown in Fig. 2C and described mid- to lower- page 5). Cheatham further teaches wherein the sensor data includes control element position (e.g., “control rod position,” ¶ 240), fuel temperature (e.g., “temperature,” ¶ 24), radiation flux (e.g., “flux,” ¶ 4), and moderator temperature (e.g., “coolant temperature,” ¶ 149). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to monitor all these parameters using sensors because, as is known in the art, measuring them is “advantageous to perform many movements of fuel assemblies within the reactor to ensure safe, efficient and in some cases also optimal core and/or fuel performance,” ¶ 4, Cheatham.
Regarding claim 7, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, including JP898 disclosing wherein the multivariable controller is configured to calculate reactor parameters from the sensor data, as cited above, and Cheatham teaches the use of a large number of parameters used as input data, as also cited above. Additionally, Cheatham teaches wherein the system is configured to perform calculations using data including control element worth and reactivity (e.g., “reactivity coefficients…control rod worth,” ¶ 18), burnable and fission product poison reactivity (“poisons,” ¶ 24, “burnup state…fission product[s],” ¶ 103), fuel doppler reactivity (“Doppler reactivity coefficients,” ¶ 155), and moderator feedback reactivity (coolant feedback reactivity, ¶ 145). The skilled person’s motivation for using sensor data from these additional parameters would have been the expectation of, as described by Cheatham (¶ 22), to provide acceptable limits on the changes of these parameters during an operation cycle to better keep tabs on the health of the fuel, as cited above in more detail in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, including JP898 disclosing wherein the multivariable controller is configured to calculate reactor parameters from the sensor data, as cited above, and Cheatham teaching the specific parameter of reactivity, as also cited above. Additionally, Cheatham teaches calculating plant reactivity from the control element reactivity, burnable and fission product poison reactivity, fuel doppler reactivity, and moderator feedback reactivity: per ¶ 249, plant reactivity is calculated in order to maintain it “within acceptable limits,” and this calculation requires the optimization of reactor parameters, and throughout Cheatham’s lengthy disclosure, these reactor parameters are repeatedly described as known and as beneficial to such calculations: control element reactivity (e.g., “reactivity coefficients…control rod worth,” ¶ 18),
burnable and fission product poison reactivity (“poisons,” ¶ 24, “burnup state…fission product[s],” ¶ 103),
fuel doppler reactivity (“Doppler reactivity coefficients,” ¶ 155), and
moderator feedback reactivity (coolant feedback reactivity, ¶ 145).
The skilled person’s motivation for using the parameters suggested by Cheatham would have been the expectation of, as described by Cheatham (¶ 249), “optimizing fuel moves for maintaining reactivity within acceptable limits, or above a critical threshold.”
Regarding claim 9, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP898 further discloses wherein the multivariable controller (50) is configured with a simulation model (e.g., “quadratic evaluation function,” top of page 6) of the plant to calculate the reactivity (as modified above with Cheatham) and output commands (“The multivariable control[ler] device 50 outputs, for example, two output control signals, the first output signal … is sent to the recirculation flow rate controller 51, and the second output signal … is sent to the pressure controller 52, respectively,” end of page 3 – top of page 4) to achieve the desired reactivity (as modified above with Cheatham). Cheatham also teaches creating a simulation model of the plan to calculate the reactivity and output commands to achieve the desired reactivity (e.g., “the modeling system can include actual measured parameters from an operating reactor, calculations of the results of a branch search move can be compared to actual results, and the models used to create a modeled reactor can be adjusted to be more accurate. In other embodiments, particular parameters may be optimized to have different effects, such as, for example optimizing fuel moves for maintaining reactivity within acceptable limits, or above a critical threshold,” ¶ 249, wherein said “optimizing fuel moves” includes “issu[ing] control commands to a fuel handling apparatus,” ¶ 114).
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to create the simulation model of the plant, as described above by both JP898 and Cheatham, in order to optimize fuel moves by “issu[ing] control commands to a fuel handling apparatus,” ¶ 114, Cheatham, or in order to provide an optimal regulation that weighs variables against manipulated variables for “making it easy to establish stability,” top of page 6, JP898.
Regarding claim 10, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP898 further discloses wherein the commands include at least one of control element position and moderator flow rate (“the first output signal … is sent to the recirculation flow rate controller 51,” top of page 4).
Regarding claim 11, modified JP898 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and JP898 further discloses wherein the multivariable controller is configured to receive the sensor data, as cited above, but does not explicitly state the type of communication.
Cheatham does. Cheatham is also in the art area of control of a nuclear reactor and teaches a processor-based controller using an ethernet network for communication (“Ethernet,” ¶ 245). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize ethernet for the sensor-controller communication due to its known reliability and security relative to other options such as wireless communication.
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 21-page foreign reference.