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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 March 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends from claim 11 which has been canceled and most of the limitations incorporated into claim 1. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that claim 12 should depend from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the Smith reference and the limitations of “a self-propelled platform comprising at least one acoustic sensor” and “wherein the self-propelled platform is navigable within an area of the nuclear power plant that is greater than a threshold radiation level. These limitations were previously found mostly in claims 11 and 17 which are now canceled. It is noted however that the original claims 11 and 17 did not require that the self-propelled platform be navigable within an area of the nuclear power plant that is greater than a threshold radiation level, just that it be “positioned” within such an area. Therefore, the newly added limitations have required the addition of the Casarez reference as detailed below which includes a navigable platform in the form of a UAV for mounting the acoustic sensor of Smith. The same rationale applies to claims 18 and 20 which are further detailed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith US 2018/0136167 and Casarez et al. US 2020/0141734.
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a system comprising:
at least one acoustic sensor (paragraph 0028, microphone or acoustic sensors) configured to generate at least one time-dependent acoustic data signal (signals are continuously captured, abstract) indicative of an acoustic signal generated by a nuclear power plant (paragraph 0021) performing a process possessing a plurality of process attributes (paragraphs 0030-0032 discloses the signals being monitored as process attributes including temperature, axial extension, pressure fluctuations, etc.); and
a computing device (data acquisition system 220) comprising:
an acoustic data signal processing module (processor 222) configured to:
receive the at least one time-dependent acoustic data signal; and
transform the at least one time-dependent acoustic data signal to a frequency-domain spectrum, wherein each process attribute of the plurality of process attributes is associated with at least one respective frequency band (paragraphs 0044-0054 disclose the collection of, and transformation of the data using fast Fourier transforms); and
a correlation module configured to determine a process attribute of the plurality of process attributes by identifying at least one characteristic of the frequency-domain spectrum (paragraphs 0052-0056 and the abstract disclose determining process states based on measured attributes after the FFT has been applied to the signals). Smith does not explicitly teach the self-propelled platform which is navigable within an area of the nuclear power plant that is greater than a threshold radiation level.
Casarez teaches a system and method for monitoring a hazardous area such as a nuclear power plant (paragraph 0029) using a self-propelled platform (UAV, drone, paragraph 0032) which is navigable within an area of the nuclear power plant that is greater than a threshold radiation level (“dangerous radiation levels,” paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Casarez with those of Smith in order to allow for monitoring of a site where radiation may be of a dangerous level to a human being.
Regarding claim 2, the signal processing module of Smith is configured to transform the at least one time-dependent acoustic data signal into the frequency-domain spectrum using a fast Fourier transform as claimed (abstract, paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses the correlation module configured to extract a plurality of intensities from a selected frequency-domain spectrum, each intensity of the plurality of intensities corresponding to a respective frequency of a plurality of frequencies within the selected frequency band (fig. 5 shows the results of the fast Fourier transform, with specific intensities shown for different elements), and selecting at least one intensity of the plurality of intensities as the at least one characteristic (the data sets 512, 522, 532, 542 each represent the intensity of the elements which would be the at least one characteristic claimed, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses in paragraph 0036, searching for the peak amplitude in the data after performing the FFT which would be the peak intensity as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, paragraph 0044 of Smith discloses comparing the measured values of sensor data to over time to determine trends or deviations which are over a first and second interval of time as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, paragraph 0044 of Smith discloses comparing the measured values of sensor data to over time to determine trends or deviations which are over a third and fourth interval of time as claimed which are compared to predetermined characteristic value ranges (baselines).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses the process parameters of temperature or pressure as claimed (paragraph 0023). Since the limitations with regard to the process deviation status are in the alternative, they are not required to be taught by the prior art to meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses the method as monitoring a pump as claimed (paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses an output device (display 228) to output a representation of at least one of the time-dependent acoustic data signal, the frequency-domain spectrum, the at least one characteristic of the frequency-domain spectrum, or the process attribute of which the at least one characteristic is indicative as claimed (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses the monitoring of a reactor which would be involved in power generation as claimed (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 12, the sensor of Smith is positioned within a reactor as claimed (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 13, the sensor of Smith senses a signal from a system component of the nuclear power plant and is not in contact with the component as claimed (non-intrusive monitoring, paragraph 0022, sensors located outside of the reactor, paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 14, the system component of Smith may be a fuel rod component as claimed (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 15, the system component of Smith would include a fluid circuit as claimed since they system includes coolants, gas and water etc. (paragraph 0025) and can monitor fuel motion and flow blockage which would be within a fluid circuit (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 16, Smith discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the acoustic sensor as being positioned proximate to a spent fuel pool of the nuclear power plant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the sensor at any location within the system, including near that spent fuel pool in order to monitor for any potential safety risks, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Smith discloses a method (and a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that cause a processor to perform the method), receiving by a computing device (220) from at least one acoustic sensor (paragraph 0028), at least one time-dependent acoustic data signal indicative of an acoustic signal generated by a nuclear power plant performing a process possessing a plurality of process attributes (paragraphs 0030-0032 discloses the signals being monitored as process attributes including temperature, axial extension, pressure fluctuations, etc.);
transforming, by the computing device, the at least one time-dependent acoustic data signal to a frequency-domain spectrum with each process attribute of the plurality of process attributes associated with at least one respective frequency band (paragraphs 0044-0054 disclose the collection of, and transformation of the data using fast Fourier transforms), and determining, by the computing device, a process attribute of the plurality of process attributes by identifying at least one characteristic of the frequency-domain spectrum (paragraphs 0052-0056 and the abstract disclose determining process states based on measured attributes after the FFT has been applied to the signals). Smith does not explicitly teach the self-propelled platform which is navigable within an area of the nuclear power plant that is greater than a threshold radiation level.
Casarez teaches a system and method for monitoring a hazardous area such as a nuclear power plant (paragraph 0029) using a self-propelled platform (UAV, drone, paragraph 0032) which is navigable within an area of the nuclear power plant that is greater than a threshold radiation level (“dangerous radiation levels,” paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Casarez with those of Smith in order to allow for monitoring of a site where radiation may be of a dangerous level to a human.
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses the process parameters of temperature or pressure as claimed (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 21, Casarez teaches in paragraph 0032 that the drone can be a land-based unmanned vehicle, thereby reading on the driven land drone claimed.
Regarding claim 22, in combination, Smith discloses the use of radiation-hardened sensors as claimed (paragraph 0004). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used radiation hardened elements in any arrangement such as the combination with Casarez to ensure the platform can withstand the harsh effects of radiation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights