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 claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 4/21/26 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/21/26.
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 4-6 and 12-15 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 4 recites that the drain tank section comprises an internal barrier that physically separates the critical region from the subcritical region. However, this conflicts with parent claim 3, which recited that the drain tank section was defining a subcritical region. Therefore, the subcritical region of the drain tank cannot comprise a barrier that houses, and physically separates, a critical region and a subcritical region because the drain tank was previously defined as allegedly distinct from the critical region.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons as immediately 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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US20150243376A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, Wilson discloses (figs. 1-2) an integral molten salt nuclear reactor (“molten salt fission reactor,” title) comprising a drain tank section (including 220) configured to hold a volume of fuel salt; a reactor section (e.g., including at least core 208) configured to receive the volume of fuel salt from the drain tank and heat the fuel salt through fission reactions; and a heat exchange section (216) configured to receive a flow of the heated fuel salt from the reactor section and remove heat therefrom; wherein the drain tank section, the reactor section, and the heat exchange section are each sections of a common, integrally constructed vessel (202, fig. 2); the reactor section and the heat exchange section collectively define a critical region of the vessel, and the drain tank section defines a subcritical region of the vessel (the manner in which portions of a physical structure are “defined” is not patentably limiting; the skilled artisan can draw different lines or encircle different parts of fig. 2 of Wilson and call them “critical regions” or “subcritical regions”; the term “region” is akin to the term “portion”—it is not a distinct structure with defined boundaries); wherein the drain tank section comprises an internal barrier (e.g., 222, although this is complicated by the indefiniteness rejection above) that physically separates the critical region from the subcritical region; further comprising a heat exchanger (e.g., 218) arranged in the heat exchange section (216) and fluidly coupled with a coolant salt (“molten salt fission reactor,” title), gas and/or other heat transfer fluid, the coolant salt and/or a gas being configured to receive heat from the heated fuel salt at the heat exchange section (this is how heat exchange works); further comprising one or more control rods (“neutron absorbers (such as Boron Carbide (B4C) placed in the dump tank to further ensure that any nuclear reactions cease,” 49) extendable into the reactor section (neutron poisons may be incorporated into the fuel section, ¶ 39; Examiner notes that nearly all commercial nuclear reactors have control rods insertable into the fission section of the reactor to prevent out-of-control chain reactions).
Regarding claims 11-15, Wilson discloses (figs. 1-2) an integral molten salt nuclear reactor (“molten salt fission reactor,” title) comprising a common, integrally constructed vessel (202, fig. 2) defining a critical region and a subcritical region (the manner in which portions of a physical structure are “defined” is not patentably limiting; the skilled artisan can draw different lines or encircle different parts of fig. 2 of Wilson and call them “critical regions” or “subcritical regions”; the term “region” is akin to the term “portion”—it is not a distinct structure with defined boundaries), wherein the critical region defines a critical volume for fission reactions (e.g., including at least core 208) and for the circulation of a fuel salt therethrough, wherein the subcritical region defines a subcritical volume for the storage of the fuel salt away from a reactor core, and wherein, in response to a shutdown event, the fuel salt is passively transferable from the critical volume to the subcritical volume; wherein the subcritical region comprises a drain tank section (including 220) having an internal barrier (e.g., 222, although this is complicated by the indefiniteness rejection above) that physically separates the critical volume from the subcritical volume; wherein the internal barrier defines a fuel salt passage (e.g., 222, although this is complicated by the indefiniteness rejection above) configured to allow the passive transfer of the fuel salt in response to the shutdown event; wherein the fuel salt passage is pressurizable to maintain the fuel salt in circulation in the critical region during the undergoing of the fission reaction by the fuel salt (this is a capable-of limitation; Wilson’s passage is structurally capable of being pressurized); wherein the critical volume is adapted to permit circulation of the fuel salt through the critical region by convection (the critical volume is capable of this intended use limitation).
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 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of KR764 (KR10-2495764B11).
Regarding claims 5-6, Wilson anticipates all the elements of the parent claim 4, and Wilson further discloses wherein the internal barrier (e.g., 222, although this is complicated by the indefiniteness rejection above) defines a fuel salt passage configured to allow a flow of fuel salt therethrough for dumping of the fuel salt into the subcritical region, wherein in an operational state, the fuel salt is maintained in the critical region by the internal barrier and an inert gas pressure held in the fuel salt passage (“an inert and controlled atmosphere,” ¶ 20), and in a non-operational state (“a problem were to occur with the reactor,” ¶ 49), the inert gas pressure held in the fuel salt passage is equalized, allowing the fuel salt to exit the critical region and flow, gravitationally, into the drain tank section (“Dump tank 220 may be coupled, e.g., via connection 222. For example, with a molten salt fuel, by providing the dump tank below the reactor vessel, the fuel is able to passively drain into the dump tank simply using gravity,” ¶ 49).
Wilson does not explicitly state that the passage/barrier is adapted for loading of the fuel salt into the critical region. KR764 does.
KR764 is in the same art area of integral molten salt reactors and teaches (see the pressure control system shown in the lower half of Fig. 1) a subcritical region (e.g., including drain tank 200) below a critical region (e.g., including RV 100) wherein the fuel salt may be loaded into the critical region: see highlights on mid-page 6—e.g., “the molten salt in the drain tank 200 … flows into the molten salt flow space 311.” Following an accident, the molten salt from critical region including RV 100 flows into the drain tank 200, and when the accident is over, the pressure is adjusted again so that the molten salt flows backwards out of the drain tank and back into the RV 100.
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the inert gas system of KR764 because, as explained by KR764 (page 6), “When an accident occurs in the molten salt reactor 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention, the molten salt in the reactor vessel 100 flows into the drain tank 200, and when the accident ends, the molten salt accommodated in the drain tank 200 Since [salt] can be accommodated in the reactor vessel 100 again, the molten salt can be reused.” This is an improvement over conventional molten salt reactors wherein the discharged molten salt “cannot be flowed back to the container after the accident is over…cannot be reused,” page 2. Wilson appears to fall into this category: as shown in Fig. 2 by the one-way dump line 222 and as described in ¶ 49, following an accident, it does not appear that Wilson’s molten salt can be reused. The capability to reuse this molten salt would have been an improvement over Wilson’s one-way design.
Regarding claim 10, Wilson anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly teach the claimed inert gas lines. KR764 does. KR764 teaches a pair of inert gas lines (310/320), including a first inert gas line configured to deliver inert gas into the reactor (100) and/or the heat exchange region, and a second inert gas line configured to deliver inert gas into the drain tank section (200), wherein in an operational state, the pair of inert gas lines are operable to cause a pressure of inert gas in the drain tank section to be higher than a pressure of inert gas in the reactor and/or the heat exchange region, and in a non-operational state, the pair of inert gas lines are operable to cause the pressure of inert gas in the drain tank section to be lower than the pressure of the inert gas in the reactor and/or the heat exchange region (following an accident, the inert gas system adjusts the pressure so that molten salt from reactor vessel 100 flows into the drain tank 200, and when the accident is over, the pressure is adjusted again so that the molten salt flows backwards out of the drain tank and back into the reactor vessel 100, as explained mid-page 6).
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the inert gas system of KR764 because, as explained by KR764 (page 6), “When an accident occurs in the molten salt reactor 1 according to an embodiment of the present invention, the molten salt in the reactor vessel 100 flows into the drain tank 200, and when the accident ends, the molten salt accommodated in the drain tank 200 Since [salt] can be accommodated in the reactor vessel 100 again, the molten salt can be reused.” This is an improvement over conventional molten salt reactors wherein the discharged molten salt “cannot be flowed back to the container after the accident is over…cannot be reused,” page 2. Wilson appears to fall into this category: as shown in Fig. 2 by the one-way dump line 222 and as described in ¶ 49, following an accident, it does not appear that Wilson’s molten salt can be reused. The capability to reuse this molten salt would have been an improvement over Wilson’s one-way design.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wilson in further view of Young (US 20100124303).
Regarding claim 7, Wilson anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the vessel (202) is encompassed by an outer container (106) (“Reaction module 200 may be, e.g., reaction module 102 in FIG. 1,” ¶ 20) but does not explicitly describe the pressure in the ambient environment inside the containment vessel.
Young is in the same art area of nuclear reactors and teaches a sealed containment structure (54) that is held at a vacuum pressure about the reactor (52) contained therein. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the containment vacuum of Young because this “significantly reduces convective and conductive heat transfer through the containment gases,” as explained in ¶ 40.
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.
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 30-page foreign reference.
Prosecution Insights