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 .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 5, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “the” is misspelled as “he.” Claims 16 is objected to because of the following informalities it repeats the triangular array limitation already present in claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
3. Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 8 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). Additionally, claim 9 is a substantial duplicate of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
6. Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the air inlets situated at the bottoms of the casks.”
6. Regarding claim 3, the recitation “the air flow channels have a plurality of air inlets situated in the sides of the pad” is unclear because it seems to require that each air flow channel has a plurality of air inlets. Additionally, the recitation “the sides” should refer to “the peripheral sides.” It is further unclear whether each air flow channel has inlets on each side of the pad. It is additionally unclear how many air outlets each air flow channel has and where such outlets are in the structure of the pad.
7. Regarding claim 4, it is unclear how the features of the receptacles structurally relate to the features of the pad previously introduced in claim 3. Does the bottom support surface correspond to the bottom of the pad? It is also unclear what the recitation “the receptacles arranging he casks in a triangular array” means. There is no antecedent basis for “the air outlets of the pad.”
8. Regarding claim 5, it is unclear how the layers of the storage pad structurally related to the features of the pad previously introduced in claim 3. Is the top layer the same as the top? There is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the peripheral air flow channels.” It is unclear what is meant by the middle layer “having the airflow channels.”
9. Claims 15-18 recite the same limitations as claims 1-5 so they are rejected for the same reasons. Additionally, in claim 15, there is no antecedent basis for “the air inlets situated at the bottom of the casks.”
10. Regarding claims 6, 14, and 18, the recitation “wherein the air inlets in the sides of the pad are less in number than the air inlets of the casks” fails to adequately delimit the structure of the claim. It is noted that this relationship is neither depicted in the drawings nor further described in the specification, so one cannot interpret the claims in light of the specification. It is unclear whether the claim requires that a total number of air inlets in the sides of the pad is less than a total number of cask air inlets or whether the pad air inlets number less than a number of air inlets on a single cask.
Additionally, claim 14 is rejected as indefinite because it uses the relative and subjective term “substantially.” In the context of the claim, one would be unable to determine whether a number is “substantially less than” another number.
11. Regarding claims 7, 8, 9, and 10, claim 7 is directed to “a storage pad on which dry storage casks can reside,” i.e., a pad for the purpose of supporting casks. However, claims 7, 8, 9, 10 contain directed to structural aspects of a combination of the pad and casks, making them incompatible with the preamble of claim 7. These limitations are “that provide ambient air to a plurality of air inlets situated at bottoms of the casks” in claim 7 and all of claims 8, 9, and 10. It is therefore unclear whether the limitations of claims 7-10 are required elements of the claim or whether they merely are directed to the intended use of the pad.
12. Claims 11-13 recited limitations that are present in claims 3-5 so they are rejected for the same reasons as explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
13. 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.
14. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng, CN 110867269.1
17. Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a ventilated storage system (see Fig. 1) for efficiently storing hazardous nuclear material (“The invention relates to the field of dry fuel dry storage of nuclear power plants, in particular to a vertical storage module for dry fuel dry storage.”), the system comprising: a plurality of dry storage casks (200) having the hazardous nuclear material (“spent fuel storage tank 200”), each cask having a ventilated overpack (100) with air inlets on the bottom and air outlets on the top so that ambient air flows into the air inlets, through the overpack, and out of the air outlets for cooling the hazardous nuclear material (see Fig. 9); and a storage pad (300) on which the casks sit, the pad having a plurality of air flow channels (305; Fig. 3) that provide air to the air inlets situated at the bottoms of the casks.
18. Claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blackbourn et al., GB 2 337 722. 2
19. Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 11, Blackbourn discloses a ventilated storage system (see Figs. 1-5) for efficiently storing hazardous nuclear material (p. 1, lines 3-4), the system comprising: a plurality of dry storage casks (400) having the hazardous nuclear material, each cask having a ventilated overpack (450) with air inlets (530) on the bottom and air outlets (532) on the top so that ambient air flows into the air inlets, through the overpack, and out of the air outlets for cooling the hazardous nuclear material (pp. 4-5); and a storage pad on which the casks sit (110), the pad having a plurality of air flow channels (470) that provide air to the air inlets situated at the bottoms of the casks (Figs. 4-5, p. 4), wherein the storage pad comprises: a top that can support the casks (Fig. 2); a bottom (Fig. 4); a plurality of peripheral sides extending between the top and the bottom (Fig. 2); and wherein the air flow channels have a plurality of air inlets (170) situated in the sides of the pad and wherein the air channels extend horizontally through the pad and vertically through the pad to air outlets under the casks (see Figs. 4-5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
20. 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.
21. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
22. 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.
23. Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, CN 110867269 or Blackbourn et al., GB 2 337 722.
24. Regarding claims 2 and 9, Cheng and Blackbourn both disclose the system of claims 1 and 8. Both Cheng and Blackbourn disclose a square lattice array of casks (see Cheng at Figs. 11-14 and Blackbourn at Figs. 1-3). However, it is known that for circle packing, the hexagonal/triangular array is more compact than the square array.3 Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply a hexagonal/triangular array to the storage systems of Cheng and Blackbourn for the purpose of maximizing the number of casks stored in a given area. In other words, such a modification would reduce the area necessary to store the casks.
25. Claims 3-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, CN 110867269 in view of Blackbourn et al., GB 2 337 722.
26. Regarding claims 3 and 11, Cheng anticipates the system of claims 1 and 7 and further discloses a system wherein the pad comprises: a top that supports the casks; a bottom; a plurality of peripheral sides extending between the top and the bottom (see Figs. 1-3 and 11); wherein the ai flow channels have a plurality of air inlets (302) wherein the air channels extend horizontally through the pad and vertically through the pad to air outlets under the casks (see Fig. 9). Cheng’s air inlets are on a top surface of the pad. Blackbourn teaches an analogous system (see rejection under 102 above) wherein the air flow channels have a plurality of air inlets situated in the sides of the pad (170 in Figs. 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Blackbourn to the system of Cheng for the predictable purpose of reducing the spacing between casks on the top of the pad (compare Fig. 11 of Cheng to Fig. 1 of Blackbourn).
27. Regarding claims 4 and 12, Cheng as modified by Blackbourn makes claims 3 and 11 obvious. Cheng further discloses a system wherein the pad comprises a plurality of circular receptacles having a bottom support surface and a circular vertical side wall, the receptacles receiving and supporting respective casks, and the bottom support surface comprising the air outlets of the pad (see Figs. 1-3). Cheng discloses a square lattice array of casks (see Cheng at Figs. 11-14). However, it is known that for circle packing, the hexagonal/triangular array is more compact than the square array.4 Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply a hexagonal/triangular array to the storage system of Cheng for the purpose of maximizing the number of casks stored in a given area. In other words, such a modification would reduce the area necessary to store the casks.
28. Regarding claims 5 and 13, Cheng as modified makes claim 4 obvious, Cheng as modified by Blackbourn further discloses a system wherein the storage pad comprises three layers including a top layer having he circular receptacles, a middle layer situated under and supporting the top layer and having the airflow channels and the peripheral air flow inlets creating a ventilation air chamber, and a bottom layer situated under and supporting the middle layer (see Figs. 2 and 9 of Cheng and Fig. 1 of Blackbourn). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Blackbourn to the system of Cheng for the reason stated above.
29. Regarding claims 6 and 14, Cheng as modified by Blackbourn makes claim 3 obvious. Neither Cheng nor Blackbourn explicitly disclose how many air inlets their overpacks contain. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to design the air flow paths in the system of Cheng to achieve adequate air flow for heat removal. Accordingly, it is within the level of skill in the art to select an appropriate number of air inlets in the pad and in the overpacks as well as an appropriate size of each to optimize heat removal from the nuclear material in the casks. MPEP 2143.03(1).
30. Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackbourn et al., GB 2 337 722.
31. Regarding claim 15, Blackbourn discloses a ventilated storage system (see Figs. 1-5) for efficiently storing hazardous nuclear material (p. 1, lines 3-4), the system comprising: a plurality of dry storage casks (400) having the hazardous nuclear material, each cask having a ventilated overpack (450) with air inlets (530) on the bottom and air outlets (532) on the top so that ambient air flows into the air inlets, through the overpack, and out of the air outlets for cooling the hazardous nuclear material (pp. 4-5); and a storage pad on which the casks sit (110), the pad having a plurality of air flow channels (470) that provide air to the air inlets situated at the bottoms of the casks (Figs. 4-5, p. 4), wherein the storage pad comprises: a top that can support the casks (Fig. 2); a bottom (Fig. 4); a plurality of peripheral sides extending between the top and the bottom (Fig. 2); and wherein the air flow channels have a plurality of air inlets (170) situated in the sides of the pad and wherein the air channels extend horizontally through the pad and vertically through the pad to air outlets under the (see Figs. 4-5).
Blackbourn discloses a square lattice array of casks (Figs. 1-3). However, it is known that for circle packing, the hexagonal/triangular array is more compact than the square array.5 Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply a hexagonal/triangular array to the storage system of Blackbourn for the purpose of maximizing the number of casks stored in a given area. In other words, such a modification would reduce the area necessary to store the casks.
32. Regarding claim 18, Blackbourn makes claim 15 obvious. Blackbourn does not explicitly disclose how many air inlets their overpacks contain. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to design the air flow paths in the system of Blackbourn to achieve adequate air flow for heat removal. Accordingly, it is within the level of skill in the art to select an appropriate number of air inlets in the pad and in the overpacks as well as an appropriate size of each to optimize heat removal from the nuclear material in the casks. MPEP 2143.03(1).
33. Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, CN 110867269 in view of Blackbourn et al., GB 2 337 722.
34. Regarding claim 15, Cheng discloses a ventilated storage system (see Fig. 1) for efficiently storing hazardous nuclear material (“The invention relates to the field of dry fuel dry storage of nuclear power plants, in particular to a vertical storage module for dry fuel dry storage.”), the system comprising: a plurality of dry storage casks (200) having the hazardous nuclear material (“spent fuel storage tank 200”), each cask having a ventilated overpack (100) with air inlets on the bottom and air outlets on the top so that ambient air flows into the air inlets, through the overpack, and out of the air outlets for cooling the hazardous nuclear material (see Fig. 9); and a storage pad (300) on which the casks sit, the pad having a plurality of air flow channels (305; Fig. 3) that provide air to the air inlets situated at the bottoms of the casks, wherein the pad comprises a top that supports the casks; a bottom; a plurality of peripheral sides extending between the top and the bottom (see Figs. 1-3 and 11); wherein the ai flow channels have a plurality of air inlets (302) wherein the air channels extend horizontally through the pad and vertically through the pad to air outlets under the casks (see Fig. 9). Cheng’s air inlets are on a top surface of the pad. Blackbourn teaches an analogous system (see rejection under 102 above) wherein the air flow channels have a plurality of air inlets situated in the sides of the pad (170 in Figs. 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Blackbourn to the system of Cheng for the predictable purpose of reducing the spacing between casks on the top of the pad (compare Fig. 11 of Cheng to Fig. 1 of Blackbourn).
Cheng discloses a square lattice array of casks (Figs. 11-14). However, it is known that for circle packing, the hexagonal/triangular array is more compact than the square array.6 Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply a hexagonal/triangular array to the storage system of Cheng for the purpose of maximizing the number of casks stored in a given area. In other words, such a modification would reduce the area necessary to store the casks.
35. Regarding claim 16, Cheng as modified by Blackbourn makes claim 15 obvious. Cheng further discloses a system wherein the pad comprises a plurality of circular receptacles having a bottom support surface and a circular vertical side wall, the receptacles receiving and supporting respective casks, and the bottom support surface comprising the air outlets of the pad (see Figs. 1-3). Cheng discloses a square lattice array of casks (see Cheng at Figs. 11-14). However, it is known that for circle packing, the hexagonal/triangular array is more compact than the square array.7 Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply a hexagonal/triangular array to the storage system of Cheng for the purpose of maximizing the number of casks stored in a given area. In other words, such a modification would reduce the area necessary to store the casks.
36. Regarding claim 17, Cheng as modified makes claim 16 obvious, Cheng as modified by Blackbourn further discloses a system wherein the storage pad comprises three layers including a top layer having he circular receptacles, a middle layer situated under and supporting the top layer and having the airflow channels and the peripheral air flow inlets creating a ventilation air chamber, and a bottom layer situated under and supporting the middle layer (see Figs. 2 and 9 of Cheng and Fig. 1 of Blackbourn). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Blackbourn to the system of Cheng for the reason stated above.
37. Regarding claim 18, Cheng as modified by Blackbourn makes claim 15 obvious. Neither Cheng nor Blackbourn explicitly disclose how many air inlets their overpacks contain. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to design the air flow paths in the system of Cheng to achieve adequate air flow for heat removal. Accordingly, it is within the level of skill in the art to select an appropriate number of air inlets in the pad and in the overpacks as well as an appropriate size of each to optimize heat removal from the nuclear material in the casks. MPEP 2143.03(1).
38. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng, CN 110867269 in view of Pfeifer et al., US 2019/0131024.
39. Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Cheng and Blackbourn disclose or make obvious the pad of claim 8. Pfeifer teaches an overpack made, in substantial part, of a plurality of metals, and without concrete ([0015]). Pfeifer teaches that it’s overpack is advantageously smaller than overpacks using concrete, providing the motivation one would need to combine it with the storage systems of Cheng or Blackbourn.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Cited by Applicant on IDS dated 08/25/25. Any text citations refer to English translation attached hereto.
2 Also cited by Applicant on IDS dated 08/25/25.
3 For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing; https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CirclePacking.html; Peikert, Ronald, et al. "Packing circles in a square: a review and new results." System Modelling and Optimization: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP Conference Zurich, Switzerland, September 2–6, 1991. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007.
4 For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing; https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CirclePacking.html; Peikert, Ronald, et al. "Packing circles in a square: a review and new results." System Modelling and Optimization: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP Conference Zurich, Switzerland, September 2–6, 1991. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, attached hereto.
5 For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing; https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CirclePacking.html; Peikert, Ronald, et al. "Packing circles in a square: a review and new results." System Modelling and Optimization: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP Conference Zurich, Switzerland, September 2–6, 1991. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007.
6 For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing; https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CirclePacking.html; Peikert, Ronald, et al. "Packing circles in a square: a review and new results." System Modelling and Optimization: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP Conference Zurich, Switzerland, September 2–6, 1991. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007.
7 For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing; https://mathworld.wolfram.com/CirclePacking.html; Peikert, Ronald, et al. "Packing circles in a square: a review and new results." System Modelling and Optimization: Proceedings of the 15th IFIP Conference Zurich, Switzerland, September 2–6, 1991. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, attached hereto.