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 Group I and Species C, subspecies C2 in the reply filed on 9 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9 April 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 24 January 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 requires that the hardness of an insertion body and a die is 2 to 5 times greater than that of a mean hardness of preliminary cladding. This limitation is indefinite.
The skilled artisan recognizes that several different hardness scales may be used, for example, Mohs, Rockwell A, Rockwell B, Rockwell C, Vickers microhardness, etc. Each of these hardnesses is considered to have unique units and some of these are arbitrary units. The limitation of claim 11 assigning a precise value to a product of two hardnesses measurements, with no type of hardness units or scale being claimed, is effectively meaningless. The point of infringement of claim 11 cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the extension line of the outer surface of the front end portion." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Up to this point, no such an extension line is mentioned. It is not clear what extension line is “the” extension line and whether this is a physical feature, or a hypothetical construct used only for angle measurement. No context is given as to what is “the” extension line and no indication is given as to what it includes or excludes. The point of infringement of claim 13 cannot be determined, and the claim is indefinite.
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, and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5483563 A (hereinafter “Herb”), in view of US 20160273683 A1 (hereinafter “Silveira”).
Regarding claim 1, Herb teaches a method of making a multilayered zirconium alloy tubing for nuclear fuel cladding (See title and SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION and DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION). Herb teaches that a typical cladding includes a zirconium layer either inside or outside a base layer, or a zirconium layer between two zirconium alloys called triplex (BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION). Herb teaches that the invention includes ice blasting the material to ensure a strong bond in the fabrication (SUMMARY or Fig 2 or claim 2).
Herb teaches that the cladding is made by interfitting tubes and bonding them together (see claim 2, Fig. 2 and Examples 1 and 2). Herb teaches that the annulus of the assembled billet is sealed by welding and the billet is extruded to the desired tube (Example 2, Fig 2). Herb teaches that zirconium alloy components are assembled into such billets and extruded (Example 2). Herb teaches that in the invention at least one tube may include zirconium alloy (claim 4, EXAMPLES 1 and 2).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan practicing the invention of Herb to have created a triplex structure and to have chosen zirconium alloy for the layers, because Her teaches that these are typical products in the field of nuclear fuel cladding (see BACKGROUND, and EXAMPLES 1 and 2).
Herb does not teach a bullet shaped insertion body is included in the processing of the tubeshell. Herb does not describe the extrusion process particularly.
Silveira teaches a process of making a multilayer pipe (see title). Silveira teaches that the process includes joining multiple pipes with one forming step (see [0011]-[0013]). Silveira teaches that the process includes paling a mandrel into the inner pipe (see BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION, [0014] and Fig 1). Silveira teaches that the mandrel has a shape with a chamfer at the end (See Fig. 1). The Mandrel of Silveira (Fig 1) meets the limitation of being a “bullet shape” by the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2111.
Silveira teaches that the process is suitable to various compositions including steel, zirconium alloys and other alloys (see [0019]-[0020]). Silveira teaches that this method is performed on one production line and has good metallurgical bonding in the finished seamless multilayer pipe (See [0011]-[0014]).
It would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have practiced the method of Herb, and to have further applied the process of Silveira (see BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION and Fig. 1) for working the billet, because Silveira teaches that this is performed on one production line and has good metallurgical bonding in the finished seamless multilayer pipe (See [0011]-[0014]).
Silveira teaches that the drawing process pulls the tube and forces the tube through a die (See BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION and Fig 1), meeting the limitation for applying “given” force. Silveira teaches that the diameter is reduced (see [0036]).
Regarding claim 7, Silveira teaches that the mandrel has a shape with a chamfer at the end (See Fig. 1). This is considered to meet all shape limitations of claim 7. Silveira teaches that the mandrel is on the end of a connecting rod (see [0040] and Fig 1). Thus the smaller end is inserted first.
Regarding claim 8, Silveira teaches forcing through a die (See Fig 1 and BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION).
Regarding claim 9, Silveira teaches the die having the through hole at either end, wherein the die reduces in diameter, and wherein the two are joined by an incline section of decreasing diameter (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Silveira teehees drawing the tube through the die (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that the claim is indefinite. Silveira teaches that the Mandrel and die force deformation and a reduction in diameter of the pipe ([0036]-[0040]). Thus inherently the tooling is harder than the pipe that is drawn.
Regarding claim 12, Silveira teaches that the equipment is lubricated prior to the drawing (See [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that the claim is indefinite. Silveira teaches that the mandrel has a shape with a chamfer at the end (See Fig. 1). It is believed that this meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Silveira does not teach a relative height ratio of the front end of the mandrel to that of the entire mandrel. However the shape of the mandrel, by itself, is not considered to patentably distinguish over the mandrel used in the process of Silveira. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The mere change in shape of the part sued for the same purpose of drawing multilayered pipes through a die for diameter reduction is not consider to materially change or affect the process. The shape would have been decided by the skilled artisan as a design choice.
Regarding claims 15-16, Herb teaches that he tubes are prepared by machining and that a surface of the metal is ice blasted (See EXAMPLES 1 and 2, and the Fig 2). This meets the limitation of polishing. Silveira teaches that the tubes are lubricated (see [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
NO claims are allowed. No art rejection is made for claims 4, 5, and 19.
Claims 4, 5, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the method of claim 4, requiring all of the limitations of claim 1 and further after the step of thickness reduction, forming a zirconium nitride layer on at least one of the interfaces between the zirconium alloy tube and the inner tube or the between the zirconium alloy tube and the outer tube. The combination of elements appears to be novel in the art. Claims 5 and 19 depend from claim 4 and include all limitations thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160207086 A1 teaches a method of forming multilayer pipe with a mandrel by an expansion process. US 12068083 B2 and US 12651673 B2 represent applicant’s prior work in the field of multilayered tube for nuclear cladding. US 4838063 A teaches a method of making multilayered tubes using reducing dies. US 3598156 A is representative of prior art using expansion of multilayered tube stock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights