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
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species shown in Figures 4-5, the species shown in Figure 22, the species in which the propellant heats as it flows inwardly, the species in which the coating is at least one of tungsten tantalum, zirconium carbide, niobium carbide, and hafnium, and the species in which the central flow channel is open, in the reply filed on 9/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the Double Patenting rejections set forth in this Office action. Please note that, if amendments made to overcome these rejections make the claim more broad or permit different interpretation(s), then an updated search may be performed that produces applicable prior art, and the claim may no longer be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claim 1 is allowable over the prior art for the same reasons that the same features were determined allowable in parent case 17/472,148 on page 2 of the 08/29/2023 Non-Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: please update the claims to provide proper indentation, e.g., in claim 1, each feature that is a sub-component of a previous feature should be additionally indented. For example, “a housing” should be indented under “wherein each subcore comprises.” Additionally, in claim 1, the spacing is improper following the term “between”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 26 be found allowable, claim 28 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1–33 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 "each said fuel plate" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein propellant flows". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No propellant has yet been introduced. It is unclear if the recited propellant is a new feature or an already previously recited feature by another name.
Claim 7 recites “or other methods.” Therefore, the claim recites methods. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
In claim 8, it is unclear what the subject of “without utilizing a working fluid” is. Which feature or component is not utilizing a working fluid?
Claim 11 recites “where moderator, reflector, or gap thicknesses are varied in order to generate a specific neutron field outside of the plurality of subcores.” The varying is a method step. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Additionally, the moderator, reflector, and gap thicknesses have insufficient antecedent bases in the claims.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "each said fuel plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “wherein moderator material or reflector material is placed between each of the plurality of subcores.” It is unclear if this means the material is placed between each single subcore, or if the material is placed between each plurality of subcores, i.e., the material separates multiple sets of subcores.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein moderator material or reflector material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "wherein propellant flows". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No propellant has yet been introduced. It is unclear if the recited propellant is a new feature or an already previously recited feature by another name.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 recites “or other methods.” Therefore, the claim recites methods. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
In claim 19, it is unclear what the subject of “without utilizing a working fluid” is. Which feature or component is not utilizing a working fluid?
Claim 22 recites “where moderator, reflector, or gap thicknesses are varied in order to generate a specific neutron field outside of the plurality of subcores.” The varying is a method step. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Additionally, the moderator, reflector, and gap thicknesses have insufficient antecedent bases in the claims.
The final limitation of claim 23 is not properly linked with the rest of the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "each said fuel plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "wherein propellant flows". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No propellant has yet been introduced. It is unclear if the recited propellant is a new feature or an already previously recited feature by another name.
Claim 29 recites “or other methods.” Therefore, the claim recites methods. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 24 recites the limitation "wherein propellant flows". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No propellant has yet been introduced. It is unclear if the recited propellant is a new feature or an already previously recited feature by another name.
In claim 30, it is unclear what the subject of “without utilizing a working fluid” is. Which feature or component is not utilizing a working fluid?
Claim 33 recites “where moderator, reflector, or gap thicknesses are varied in order to generate a specific neutron field outside of the plurality of subcores.” The varying is a method step. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Additionally, the moderator, reflector, and gap thicknesses have insufficient antecedent bases in the claims.
Regarding claim 29, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,098. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 1 only differs from the patented claim 1 in that it recites that the core produces thermal power through fission (which is implicit considering the invention is a nuclear fission reactor) and in that it lacks the limitation “wherein additional moderator material is placed between the subcores,” which makes the instant claim broader than the patented claim. Therefore, the instant claim 1 could be anticipated by the subject matter found in patented claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,098. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 12 is broader than the patented claim. Therefore, the instant claim 12 could be anticipated by the subject matter found in patented claim 1.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,098 in view of Malloy (US 5,089,219). Claim 23 could be rejected under USC 103 over of the subject matter found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,098, needing Malloy only to teach the listed materials in the final clause: (“graphitized carbon,” col. 3, l. 60).
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 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy (US 5,089,219) in view of Hocker (US 3,189,524).
Regarding claim 12, Malloy discloses a reactor core (Fig. 2) comprising: a plurality of subcores (10, individually shown in Fig. 1) that are spaced apart, wherein each subcore comprises: a housing (14); a plurality of stacked sections contained within the housing, each section comprising: a plurality of fuel plates (disks 12); wherein each said fuel plate (12, Fig. 3) comprises: a center flow channel (18); a fuel region (“a matrix material such as carbon to bind nuclear fuel particles into a disk,” col. 2, ll. 35-36) having a plurality of flow channels (grooves 20) carved into at least one of a top surface and a bottom surface of the cermet fuel region; and a coating (“coated fuel particles,” col. 3, l. 43) that covers the fuel region for containing any byproducts; and wherein moderator material (38, Fig. 2) or reflector material is placed between each of the plurality of subcores.
Malloy teaches the fuel region as cited above but does not explicitly state that the fuel region is cermet.
Hocker does teach these features. Hocker is also in the art area of fuel elements for nuclear reactors and teaches a fuel element formed from a plurality of fuel plates wherein the fuel can be a cermet fuel (“Suitable as nuclear fuels…cermets,” col. 2, ll. 47-51). A purpose for the use of a cermet-type fuel is, as explained by Hocker (col. 2, ll. 47-56), these types of fuels “will remain in its solid state even at a temperature of 2450 degrees C; and, in particular, the desirable physical properties of the graphite are preserved.”
The combination of the cermet-type fuel of Hocker with the fuel plates of Malloy would have produced a core with a plurality of annular stacked cermet fuel plates, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Malloy, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Hocker’s material choices with Malloy would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a subcore comprising stacked sections of cermet fuel plates and a moderator plate surrounded by a sheath.
Regarding claim 15, the above-described combination of Malloy with Hocker teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Malloy further discloses wherein a working fluid (“gas,” abstract) flows through the core and extracts heat from the core with the heat being used for electrical power generation (“The coolant is then directed to a power conversion device that converts the heat into useful energy,” col. 3, ll. 39-41).
Regarding claim 17, the above-described combination of Malloy with Hocker teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Malloy further discloses wherein a working fluid (“gas,” abstract) extracts heat from the core with the heat being used for electrical power generation (“The coolant is then directed to a power conversion device that converts the heat into useful energy,” col. 3, ll. 39-41).
Regarding claim 18, the above-described combination of Malloy with Hocker teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Examiner notes that this is an intended use claim as currently drafted. The electrical power generation taught by modified Malloy is capable of being used in a power cycle such as an expanding gas cycle, a Brayton cycle, or other methods such as a Rankine cycle or thermoelectric generation.
Regarding claim 19, the above-described combination of Malloy with Hocker teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Examiner notes that this is an intended use claim as currently drafted. The electrical power generation taught by modified Malloy is capable of being used with a thermoelectric converter for electrical power generation without utilizing a working fluid.
Regarding claim 20, the above-described combination of Malloy with Hocker teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Examiner notes that this is an intended use claim as currently drafted. Malloy further discloses a working fluid is used to extract heat from the core and wherein the working fluid is used to provide heat (“The coolant is then directed to a power conversion device that converts the heat into useful energy,” col. 3, ll. 39-41).
Regarding claim 21, the above-described combination of Malloy and Hocker teaches all the elements of the parent claim, as cited above, but does not suggest a particular material for the fluid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used hydrogen, ammonia, water, carbon dioxide, air, helium, or xenon for the fluid material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, Examiner notes that the listed materials are typical for nuclear powered reactor fluids.
Regarding claim 22, the above-described combination of Malloy with Hocker teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Examiner notes that the phrase “in order to generate…” is an intended use phrase as currently drafted. Malloy further discloses where moderator, reflector, or gap thicknesses are varied (e.g., in Fig. 2, numerous gaps around the elements 10 are shown, and some are larger than others) in order to generate a specific neutron field outside of the plurality of subcores (Malloy’s reactor is capable of fulfilling this intended use).
Claims 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy and Hocker, as combined above, further in view of Bingham (US 4,759,911).
Regarding claim 13, the above-described combination of Malloy with Hocker teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose the claimed propellant. Bingham does. Bingham is also is the art area of gas cooled nuclear reactors and teaches wherein propellant flows through the core to extract heat from the core and to provide thrust for rocket propulsion (“the heated gas may be directed through a nozzle for rocket propulsion applications,” col. 3, ll. 32-34). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the gas of above-combined Malloy and Hocker for rocket propulsion as suggested by Bingham in order to power a rocket, as taught by Bingham in col. 3, ll. 32-34.
Regarding claim 14, the above-described combination of Malloy and Hocker with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim including the propellant, as cited above, but does not suggest a particular material for the propellant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used hydrogen, ammonia, water, carbon dioxide, air, helium, or xenon for the propellant material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, Examiner notes that the listed materials are typical for nuclear powered rockets.
Regarding claim 16, the above-described combination of Malloy and Hocker with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim including the propellant, as cited above, but does not suggest a particular material for the propellant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used hydrogen, ammonia, water, carbon dioxide, air, helium, or xenon for the propellant material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, Examiner notes that the listed materials are typical for nuclear powered rockets.
Claims 23–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malloy (US 5,089,219) in view of Bingham (US 4,759,911).
Regarding claim 23, Malloy discloses a reactor core (Fig. 2) comprising: a plurality of subcores (10, individually shown in Fig. 1) that are spaced apart, wherein each subcore comprises: a housing (14); a plurality of stacked sections contained within the housing, each section comprising: a plurality of fuel plates (disks 12); wherein each said fuel plate (12, Fig. 3) comprises: a center flow channel (18); a matrix fuel region (“a matrix material such as carbon to bind nuclear fuel particles into a disk,” col. 2, ll. 35-36) having a plurality of flow channels (grooves 20) carved into at least one of a top surface and a bottom surface of the matrix fuel region; and a coating (“coated fuel particles,” col. 3, l. 43) that covers the fuel for containing any byproducts; and wherein the matrix fuel region comprises one or more of the following: graphite, silicon carbide, zirconium carbide, boron nitride, or hafnium carbide (“graphitized carbon,” col. 3, l. 60);wherein moderator material (38, Fig. 2) or reflector material is placed between the subcores.
Malloy does not explicitly teach that the entire matrix fuel region is coated. In other words, Malloy does not explicitly state that both the fuel particles and the matrix are coated.
However, it was already known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to disperse fuel particles within a matrix and then coat the entire combined material, as evidenced by Bingham.
Bingham is in the same art area of stacked fuel elements for nuclear reactors (abstract) and teaches a coating that covers both the matrix material in which the fuel is dispersed as well as the fuel itself—Bingham teaches dispersing fuel particles within the surface of cylinders 12 or within a matrix foam, and then coating the entire thing after the fuel has been distributed in or on each cylinder: “Application of the nuclear fuel to cylinders 12 may be accomplished by…impregnating the cylinder base material with the desired fuel. An open pore foam material which can serve as the skeleton on which the fissile material may be deposited is reticulated vitreous carbon (RVC)…. Protective coatings such as carbon or zirconium carbide for the nuclear fuel may be accomplished by means known in the art such as vapor deposition coating after the fuel has been distributed on each of cylinders 12,” col. 2, ll. 53-68.
A purpose for this teaching is, as explained by Bingham (col. 2, ll. 64-68), that the coatings applied in this manner provide protection for each piece of the entire element. As understood by the ordinary skilled artisan, a coating of Bingham’s exemplary zirconium carbide will protect each layer of the fuel element from fission product corrosion, a widespread problem in nuclear reactors.
The combination of the coating of Bingham with the fuel plate of Malloy would have produced a fuel plate having a fuel region with a fuel embedded within a matrix material and a coating over the fuel region, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Malloy, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Bingham’s coating with Malloy's fuel plate would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a coated fuel plate. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as explained by Bingham (col. 2, ll. 64-68), that the coatings applied in this manner provide protection for each piece of the entire element. As understood by the ordinary skilled artisan, a coating of Bingham’s exemplary zirconium carbide will protect each layer of the fuel element from fission product corrosion, a widespread problem in nuclear reactors.
Regarding claim 24, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Bingham additionally teaches wherein propellant flows through the core to extract heat from the core and to provide thrust for rocket propulsion (“the heated gas may be directed through a nozzle for rocket propulsion applications,” col. 3, ll. 32-34). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the core with a propellant for rocket propulsion as suggested by Bingham in order to power a rocket, as taught by Bingham in col. 3, ll. 32-34.
Regarding claim 25, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Bingham additionally teaches the propellant, as cited above, but does not suggest a particular material for the propellant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used hydrogen, ammonia, water, carbon dioxide, air, helium, or xenon for the propellant material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, Examiner notes that the listed materials are typical for nuclear powered rockets.
Regarding claim 26, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Malloy further discloses wherein a working fluid (“gas,” abstract) flows through the core and extracts heat from the core with the heat being used for electrical power generation (“The coolant is then directed to a power conversion device that converts the heat into useful energy,” col. 3, ll. 39-41).
Regarding claim 27, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim including the working fluid, as cited above, but does not suggest a particular material for the fluid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used hydrogen, ammonia, water, carbon dioxide, air, helium, or xenon for the fluid material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, Examiner notes that the listed materials are typical for nuclear powered reactor fluids.
Regarding claim 28, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Bingham additionally teaches wherein a working fluid extracts heat from the core with the heat being used for electrical power generation (“The coolant is then directed to a power conversion device that converts the heat into useful energy,” col. 3, ll. 39-41).
Regarding claim 29, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Examiner notes that this is an intended use claim as currently drafted. The electrical power generation taught by modified Malloy is capable of being used in a power cycle such as an expanding gas cycle, a Brayton cycle, or other methods such as a Rankine cycle or thermoelectric generation.
Regarding claim 30, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Examiner notes that this is an intended use claim as currently drafted. Examiner notes that this is an intended use claim as currently drafted. The electrical power generation taught by modified Malloy is capable of being used with a thermoelectric converter for electrical power generation without utilizing a working fluid.
Regarding claim 31, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Bingham additionally teaches wherein a working fluid is used to extract heat from the core and wherein the working fluid is used to provide heat (“The coolant is then directed to a power conversion device that converts the heat into useful energy,” col. 3, ll. 39-41).
Regarding claim 32, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim, including the working fluid, as cited above, but does not suggest a particular material for the fluid. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used hydrogen, ammonia, water, carbon dioxide, air, helium, or xenon for the fluid material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Moreover, Examiner notes that the listed materials are typical for nuclear powered reactor fluids.
Regarding claim 33, the above-described combination of Malloy with Bingham teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Examiner notes that the phrase “in order to generate…” is an intended use phrase as currently drafted. Malloy further discloses where moderator, reflector, or gap thicknesses are varied (e.g., in Fig. 2, numerous gaps around the elements 10 are shown, and some are larger than others) in order to generate a specific neutron field outside of the plurality of subcores (Malloy’s reactor is capable of fulfilling this intended use).
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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