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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “the remaining lifespan” should be --a remaining lifespan-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 4, “measuring the enthalpy amount” should be --measuring an enthalpy amount-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 5, “the specific heat capacity” should be --a specific heat capacity-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 7, “the amount of entropy change” should be --an amount of entropy change-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 2, lines 2-3, “the reference temperature for nil ductility transition temperature (RTNDT) and the Upper Shelf Energy (USE)” should be --a reference temperature for nil ductility transition temperature (RTNDT) and an Upper Shelf Energy (USE)-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 3, line 2, “the inner surface” should be --an inner surface-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 3, line 5, “determining the RTNDT or the USE” should be -- determining a reference temperature for nil ductility transition temperature (RTNDT) or an Upper Shelf Energy (USE)-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis and properly define the acronyms.
In claim 3, lines 6-7, “the temperature and neutron fluence” should be -- temperature and neutron fluence-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 6, “QΔS represents the activation energy” should be --QΔS represents an activation energy-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 4, lines 6-7, “T is the operating temperature, TP is the peak temperature where the maximum enthalpy amount” should be --T is an operating temperature, TP is a peak temperature where a maximum enthalpy amount-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 8, “the smaller value” should be --a smaller value-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 10, “H0” should be --HO-- to be consistent with the equation in line 4.
In claim 4, lines 11-12, “the absolute value of the threshold entropy change or the threshold entropy” should be --an absolute value of a threshold entropy change or a threshold entropy-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 12, “the smaller value” should be --a smaller value-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 4, line 13-14, “|ΔS0| is the absolute value of entropy change” should be --|ΔS0| is an absolute value of entropy change-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 6, line 4, “determining the enthalpy amount of a pressure vessel surveillance test specimen” should be --determining an enthalpy amount of a pressure vessel surveillance test specimen-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 6, lines 6-7, “the measured enthalpy amount of the pressure vessel surveillance test specimen” should be --a measured enthalpy amount of the pressure vessel surveillance test specimen-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is indefinite because “R” is not defined. For examination purpose, --R is a non-zero constant-- is assumed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20220034831 A1; hereinafter “KIM”) in view of SHU et al. (CN 106644681 A; machine translation provided; hereinafter “SHU”).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches a method for diagnosing the remaining lifespan of a pressure vessel (i.e., “a method of diagnosing the lifetime of a structure”; see Abstract; “such as pressure vessels”; see [0003]) comprising the steps of:
preparing the pressure vessel (i.e., “preparing a structure to be measured”; see [0011]; “such as pressure vessels”; see [0003]);
measuring the enthalpy amount, changes in the enthalpy amount of the extracted calorimetric sample (i.e., “measuring the amount of exothermic or endothermic heat of the structure”; see [0011]), the specific heat capacity, or changes in the specific heat capacity of the extracted calorimetric sample;
determining the amount of entropy change in the calorimetric sample based on the measured enthalpy amount, the measured changes in enthalpy amount, the measured specific heat capacity, or the measured changes in the specific heat capacity (i.e., “the amount of entropy decrease at an arbitrary time is determined by an amount of exothermic or endothermic heat at the corresponding time”; see [0011]); and
determining the remaining lifespan of the pressure vessel based on the determined amount of entropy change in the calorimetric sample (i.e., “diagnosing the remaining lifetime of the structure from the measured amount of entropy decrease”; see Abstract).
KIM does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
extracting a calorimetric sample from the pressure vessel.
But SHU teaches:
extracting a calorimetric sample from the pressure vessel (i.e., “radiation control schema extracted periodically from the reactor pressure vessel out of irradiation inspection tube”; see translation p. 4, middle section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KIM by SHU, by utilizing an inspection tube and extracting a calorimetric sample (e.g., inspection tube) from the pressure vessel, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate the testing of the pressure vessel.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
KIM does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the pressure vessel refers to a pressure vessel comprising a nuclear reactor pressure vessel situated inside a nuclear reactor, or a pressure vessel that includes Type A pressure vessels as defined in Safety Inspection Notice 2020-43 in the Republic of Korea.
However, it is well-known or generally required to operate a nuclear facility in compliance with regulations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify KIM in view of SHU, such that the pressure vessel refers to a pressure vessel comprising a nuclear reactor pressure vessel situated inside a nuclear reactor, or a pressure vessel that includes Type A pressure vessels as defined in Safety Inspection Notice 2020-43 in the Republic of Korea, as claimed. The rationale would be to ensure the regulation compliance.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM in view of SHU and SHU et al. (GB 2577425 A; hereinafter “SHU ‘425”).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
KIM does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the step of determining the remaining lifespan of the pressure vessel is performed based on at least one of the reference temperature for nil ductility transition temperature (RTNDT) and the Upper Shelf Energy (USE).
But KIM further teaches:
determining the remaining life of the pressure vessel based on a reference enthalpy change value at end of life (i.e., “The relationship for diagnosing the remaining lifetime, tL may be defined as… HL is an amount of exothermic or endothermic heat at the end of life”; see [0011]).
And SHU ‘425 teaches:
determining the safety or life of the pressure vessel bases on RTNDT and USE (see S14 at p. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KIM in view of SHU, further in view of SHU ‘425, such that the step of determining the remaining lifespan of the pressure vessel is performed based on at least one of the reference temperature for nil ductility transition temperature (RTNDT) and the Upper Shelf Energy (USE), as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate the determination of the HL for calculating the remaining life tL of the pressure vessel.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
KIM does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the step of determining the remaining lifespan of the pressure vessel is conducted using the following lifespan diagnosis solution:
[Lifespan diagnosis solution]:
tL=k(HL/HO)[(TP-T)/TP]2exp[QΔS/R(1/T-1/TP)] or
tL=k(|ΔSL|/|ΔS0|)[(TP-T)/TP]2exp[QΔS/R(1/T-1/TP)]
where, k is a constant, QΔS represents the activation energy for entropy decrease, T is the operating temperature, TP is the peak temperature where the maximum enthalpy amount is released, HL is a threshold enthalpy amount determined by the smaller value between reaching the RTNDT of 93 °C and reaching the USE of 68 J for the pressure vessel or a surveillance test specimen, H0 is the enthalpy amount measured at any given time for the pressure vessel or a surveillance test specimen, |ΔSL| is the absolute value of the threshold entropy change or the threshold entropy, determined by the smaller value between reaching the RTNDT of 93oC and reaching the USE of 68 J for the pressure vessel or a surveillance test specimen, |ΔS0| is the absolute value of entropy change or entropy at any given time, and |ΔSL| and |ΔS0| are determined from the measured specific heat capacity or the measured changes in the specific heat capacity.
But KIM further taches:
an equation for determining remaining life based on the ratio of HL/Hi (se equation 6); and
relationship between entropy change (i.e., ΔS) and amount heat (i.e., ΔH) absorbed or released (see [0046]).
Based on KIM’s teachings above, the ratio HL/Hi in KIM’s equation 6 is the same as the ratio |ΔSL/ΔS0| by a mathematical manipulation.
Note that the HL (so as ΔSL) in KIM is an end-of-life threshold (see KIM, [0057]). On the other hand, ΔSL in the claim is an end-of-life threshold determined based on the smaller value between reaching the RTNDT of 93 °C and reaching the USE of 68 J for the pressure vessel or a surveillance test specimen.
However, the difference is just an optimization of ranges for determining the end-of-life conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify KIM in view of SHU and SHU ‘425, to provide the features of the of claim 4 as claimed (i.e., to provide tL=k(|ΔSL|/|ΔS0|)[(TP-T)/TP]2exp[QΔS/R(1/T-1/TP)] based on KIM’s equation 6), as a matter of mathematical manipulation of the ratio HL/Hi, and optimization of the ranges of RTNDT and USE thresholds for the end-of-life conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7 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, provided all other pending issues are resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3 and 7, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature of claim 3: “adjusting the determined RTNDT or USE by taking into account the temperature and neutron fluence at a 1/4 thickness location of the pressure vessel,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. KIM teaches correcting a predicted remaining life based on a difference between the measured compressive stress value and the predicted compressive value from the measured amount of exothermic or endothermic heat. But this is different from the above indicated feature. No prior art of record teaches or suggests the features as claimed.
Notes
Claims 6 distinguishes over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature: “determining the enthalpy amount of a pressure vessel surveillance test specimen using the lifespan diagnosis solution, and comparing the determined enthalpy amount with the measured enthalpy amount of the pressure vessel surveillance test specimen,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. KIM teaches measuring an amount of exothermic or endothermic heat, but does not teach determining the enthalpy amount of a pressure vessel surveillance test specimen using the lifespan diagnosis solution/equation. KIM teaches verifying the method by comparing the determined lifetime with a measured lifetime. KIM does not teach comparing the determined enthalpy amount with the measured enthalpy amount. No prior art of record teaches or suggests the features as claimed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guan et al. ("Study on Temper Embrittlement and Hydrogen Embrittlement of a Hydrogenation Reactor by Small Punch Test" Materials 2017, 10, 671) studies temper embrittlement and hydrogen embrittlement of a test block from a Cr1Mo1/4V hydrogenation reactor after ten years of service, by small punch test (SPT) at different temperatures, involving determining an energy transition temperature (Tsp) which corresponded to the ductile-brittle transition temperature of the Charpy impact test.
Vuiart et al. ("A Versatile Methodology for Reactor Pressure Vessel Aging Assessments" NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING · VOLUME 196 · 455–477 · APRIL 2022) teaches a versatile calculation scheme for reactor pressure vessel (RPV) aging assessments, involving using the Norgett-Robinson-Torrens dpa model and the Athermal Recombination Corrected dpa model to compute (fast and non-fast) neutron fluence as well as dpa rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights