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 an LiPb coolant in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/26/2026.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because they are too blurry to see the reference numeral labels. Please submit a clearer copy of the Drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 47a.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: for proper subject-verb agreement, “comprising” should be “comprises.” Claim 19 repeatedly recites “blanket” when it should recite the plural “blankets.” 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.
Claims 1–15 and 17–20 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationships among the front side flow path, first wall, supply path, internal tank, and discharge path. Claim 1 recites the following descriptors:
“front” and “behind” (line 3)
“front” and “outside” (line 4)
“internal,” “behind,” and “front” (line 5)
“front” (twice, line 6)
“internal” and “outside” (line 8)
These descriptors denote relative arrangements of features. However, because no initial frame of reference is set, these terms are indefinite. It is unclear what the “front side flow path” is “front” relative to. It is unclear what is meant by the flow path being “behind” the first wall—this could be any side of the first wall. It is unclear what the tank is “internal” relative to. Examiner suggests first establishing a frame of reference, and then using terms like “radially outward” to describe where subsequent components are located relative to each other.
Claims 19-20 are similarly rejected for substantially the same indefinite relative language described above.
Claims 3-5 recite that the “inflow holes communicate” in a direction. “Communicate” is unclear because holes cannot communicate. Additionally, as shown in Figure 4, the holes 45a have a vertical and a horizontal dimension, and so it is further unclear how they “communicate” in an “intersecting” or “horizontal” or “away” direction.
Claims 7-10 recite that the “communication holes communicate” in a direction. “Communicate” is unclear because holes cannot communicate. Additionally, as shown in Figure 4, the holes 43a have a vertical and a horizontal dimension, and so it is further unclear how they “communicate” between adjacent tanks or in an “intersecting” or “horizontal” or “away” direction.
Claims 19-20 are similarly rejected for substantially the same “communicating” language described above.
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.
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 1–15 and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golfier (“Progress on the TAURO blanket system” cited via IDS) in view of “JP673” (JP6732670B21).
Regarding claim 1, Golfier discloses a nuclear fusion reactor blanket (fig. 1) comprising: a first wall (the wall adjacent the vertical written word plasma in the left-hand fig. 1); a front side flow path (see incoming [downward arrow] flow that turns and goes downward into the blanket near the p of plasma) disposed behind the first wall and extending along the first wall; a supply path (see incoming [downward arrow] flow of Pb-17Li) that supplies a coolant to the front side flow path from an outside of the blanket; an internal tank (see the partitioned tank cut-away view near the a of plasma) disposed behind the front side flow path; a front side wall (e.g., the first of the several partitions in the above-mentioned cut-away view) that has an inflow hole (see where the arrows change directions) communicating between the front side flow path and the internal tank; and a discharge path (see upward Pb-17Li arrows) that discharges the coolant from the internal tank to the outside of the blanket.
Golfier does not explicitly disclose that each partition wall has a plurality of holes.
JP673 does. JP673 is in the same art area of cooling arrangements for first walls of nuclear fusion reactors and teaches using partition plates that have multiple holes (fig. 11: first plate within 130a showing three horizontal coolant arrows about to enter three separate axially separated holes + second plate within 130b showing three horizontal coolant arrows having just excited the second plate that has three separate axially spaced exit holes) to allow for multiple paths for coolant flow. The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have utilized the plural coolant holes, as taught by JP673, within the coolant plates of Golfier in order to, as explained by JP673 (see highlights on lower page 8), that having additionally cooling paths will “enhance the cooling performance.”
Regarding claims 2-15 and 17-18, modified Golfier teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Golfier further teaches wherein the plurality of inflow holes (plural holes in the first plate as modified above by JP673) are arranged along the front side flow path (Golfier, see arrows showing horizontal coolant flow relative to the first wall, as described in response to claim 1), the plurality of inflow holes (plural holes in the first plate as modified above by JP673) communicate in a direction intersecting a direction in which the first wall extends (Golfier, see arrows showing horizontal coolant flow relative to the first wall, as described in response to claim 1), the plurality of inflow holes (plural holes in the first plate as modified above by JP673) communicate in a horizontal direction (Golfier, see arrows showing horizontal coolant flow relative to the first wall, as described in response to claim 1), the plurality of inflow holes (plural holes in the first plate as modified above by JP673) communicate in a direction away from the first wall (Golfier, see arrows showing horizontal coolant flow relative to the first wall, as described in response to claim 1), the first wall is disposed to face nuclear fusion plasma (the wall adjacent the vertical written word plasma in the left-hand fig. 1), a partition wall (“second plate” as modified above by JP673) that divides an inside of the internal tank into a plurality of tanks and that has a plurality of communication holes (plural holes in the second plate as modified above by JP673) communicating between adjacent tanks, the plurality of communication holes (plural holes in the second plate as modified above by JP673) communicate in a direction intersecting a direction in which the first wall extends (Golfier, see arrows showing horizontal coolant flow relative to the first wall, as described in response to claim 1), the plurality of communication holes (plural holes in the second plate as modified above by JP673) communicate in a horizontal direction (Golfier, see arrows showing horizontal coolant flow relative to the first wall, as described in response to claim 1), the plurality of communication holes (plural holes in the second plate as modified above by JP673) communicate in a direction away from the first wall (Golfier, see arrows showing horizontal coolant flow relative to the first wall, as described in response to claim 1), a housing (“SiC/SiC” structure, fig. 1) that accommodates the front side flow path, the internal tank, and the supply path (as shown in fig. 1), the housing comprising a structural material containing SiC or a SiC composite material (“SiC/SiC”), the front side wall comprising a structural material containing SiC or a SiC composite material (“SiC/SiC”), the partition wall comprising a structural material containing SiC or a SiC composite material (“SiC/SiC”), wherein the coolant is a fluid containing lithium lead (“Pb-17Li”), the first wall comprises tungsten (“tungsten alloy as armor material,” § 4.1, second paragraph), and at least one of the supply path and the discharge path comprises a pipe material including a structural material containing SiC or a SiC composite material (“SiC/SiC”).
Regarding claim 19, Golfier discloses a nuclear fusion reactor comprising: a vacuum vessel (“vacuum vessel,” § 1, first paragraph); and a plurality of blankets (fig. 1 ) arranged along an inside of the vacuum vessel, wherein at least one of the plurality of blanket comprises: a first wall (the wall adjacent the vertical written word plasma in the left-hand fig. 1); a front side flow path (see incoming [downward arrow] flow that turns and goes downward into the blanket near the p of plasma) disposed behind the first wall and extending along the first wall; a supply path (see incoming [downward arrow] flow of Pb-17Li) that supplies a coolant to the front side flow path from an outside of the vacuum vessel; an internal tank (see the partitioned tank cut-away view near the a of plasma) disposed behind the front side flow path; a front side wall (e.g., the first of the several partitions in the above-mentioned cut-away view) that has an inflow hole (see where the arrows change directions) communicating between the front side flow path and the internal tank; and a discharge path (see upward Pb-17Li arrows) that discharges the coolant from the internal tank to the outside of the vacuum vessel.
Golfier does not explicitly disclose that each partition wall has a plurality of holes.
JP673 does. JP673 is in the same art area of cooling arrangements for first walls of nuclear fusion reactors and teaches using partition plates that have multiple holes (fig. 11: first plate within 130a showing three horizontal coolant arrows about to enter three separate axially separated holes + second plate within 130b showing three horizontal coolant arrows having just excited the second plate that has three separate axially spaced exit holes) to allow for multiple paths for coolant flow. The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have utilized the plural coolant holes, as taught by JP673, within the coolant plates of Golfier in order to, as explained by JP673 (see highlights on lower page 8), that having additionally cooling paths will “enhance the cooling performance.”
Regarding claim 20, modified Golfier teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Golfier further teaches wherein at least one of: a heat exchanger (“a heat exchanger,” § 5) that recovers heat from the coolant discharged via the discharge path; and a pump (“a Pb-17Li pump,” § 5) that supplies the coolant discharged via the discharge path to the supply path.
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
1 See attached 64-page foreign reference with Examiner highlights.
Prosecution Insights