DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 22 April 2026. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 23-33 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 23-28 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (JP2022182545A) in combination with Watanabe (EP2728584B1) and Kolbe (“Survey of insulation used in nuclear power plants and the potential for debris generation”, No. NUREG/CR--2403-Suppl. 1, Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (USA), 1982).
Aso discloses (e.g., Figure 10) an internal shield (4) encompassing a reactor vessel (21) and a drain tank (3). A reactor enclosure (11) encompasses the internal shield. The internal shield inherently insulates a first thermally insulative region therein. The reactor enclosure inherently insulates a second thermally insulative region therein. Aso also discloses a moderator (222), pump, reactor access vessel (53), and a loop.
Watanabe shows (e.g., Figure 7) that it is well known in the art to have concrete structure (50) (e.g., a conventional concrete reactor building) house a reactor enclosure (52) (e.g., containment). The concrete structure inherently insulates a third thermally insulative region therein.
Modification of Aso to have employed a concrete structure (e.g., a conventional concrete reactor building) to enhance shielding safety, as suggested by Watanabe, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Kolbe shows that it is well known in the art to have different insulation materials applied at different locations of a nuclear reactor plant (e.g., page B-1). The reactor vessel area utilizes high-temperature reflective metal insulation (RMI) designed for extreme radiation and heat. The containment building area uses a mix of RMI, fiberglass, and/or calcium silicate insulation. The reactor building area employs insulation specifically designed for large structural surfaces, often prioritizing energy codes, fire resistance, and structural integrity over maximum R-value when compared to the other mentioned areas. In review, as expected, the area nearest the reactor core needs the highest R-value insulation (to maintain primary coolant system temperature and protect components), while the area farthest from the reactor core needs the lowest R-value insulation. The skilled artisan would understand that high R-value insulation is used in the reactor vessel area, medium R-value insulation is used in the containment building area, and low R-value insulation is used in the reactor building area.
Further modification of Aso to have conventionally employed high R-value insulation in the reactor vessel area, medium R-value insulation in the containment building area, and low R-value insulation in the reactor building area, as suggested by Kolbe, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modifications to Aso would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso in combination with Watanabe and Kolbe as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US NRC, “Potential for Teflon® Material Degradation in Containment Penetrations, Mechanical Seals and Other Components”, NRC Information Notice 2014-04, ML13330B698, March 2014 (hereafter NRC).
It is well known in the art that a nuclear reactor plant to employ many different insulative materials (e.g., Kolbe). NRC shows that it is well known in the art to have nuclear containment structure comprise polytetrafluoroethylene as insulative material. Further modification of Aso to have conventionally had the internal shield comprise polytetrafluoroethylene as an insulative material, as suggested by NRC, to provide desired insulation, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso in combination with Watanabe and Kolbe as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Wilson (US20150243376).
Wilson shows that it is well known in the art to have reactor structure formed from stainless steel material [0020, 0022]. Stainless steel is known in the art to provide strength and enhance corrosion protection. Further modification of Aso to have used stainless steel material for reactor structure (e.g., internal shield, reactor enclosure, etc.) as suggested by Wilson, to ensure strength and corrosion protection, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the previous combination of references.
Applicant argues that Aso discloses only two containment components whereas claim 23 includes an internal shield, a reactor enclosure, and a concrete structure.
As noted in the above rejection, Aso discloses an internal shield (4) encompassing a reactor vessel (21) and a drain tank (3). A reactor enclosure (11) encompasses the internal shield. Watanabe is relied upon for the concrete structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights