DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request for continued examination (RCE) filed 18 August 2026 has been entered. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 23-35 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 § 112
Claims 23-35 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 23 and 34-35
The claim 23 phrase “the internal shield is configured to insulate the first thermally insulative region within a first temperature range” is unclear. The phrase can be interpreted as “the internal shield is configured to provide at least some insulating value to the first thermally insulative region while the first thermally insulative region is in a first temperature range”. The phrase can also be interpreted as “the internal shield is configured to insulate the first thermally insulative region during a first temperature range”. Nevertheless, all thermal insulation can provide some insulating value, regardless of the temperature range. It follows that it is also unclear how the phrase further limits the system structure. It is noted that the phrase does not require that “the internal shield is configured to insulate the first thermally insulative region to maintain the first thermally insulative region within a first temperature range during nuclear reactor operation”. For the same reasons, the phrases “the reactor enclosure is configured to insulate the second thermally insulative region within a second temperature range” and “the concrete structure is configured to insulate the third thermally insulative region within a third temperature range” are likewise unclear.
The claim 23 phrases “the second temperature range less than the first temperature range” is unclear. Likewise, the phrase “the third temperature range less than the second temperature range” is unclear. These phrases allow for the second range to be a smaller range (D to Q) inside the larger first range (A to Z), and the third range to be an even smaller range (G to M) inside the second range (D to Q). As a result, the claim also allows for the same insulation strength (R-value; and type) to be used in each range. It follows that it is unclear how these phrases further limit the system structure.
Claims 34-35 contain unclear phrases that are discussed above with regard to claim 23. Thus, these claims are unclear for the same reasons.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 23-28 and 31-33, as best understood, 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).
These claims have not been amended. Thus, the reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 18 May 2026 remain, and are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim 29, as best understood, 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).
This claim has not been amended. Thus, the reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 18 May 2026 remain, and are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim 30, as best understood, 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).
This claim has not been amended. Thus, the reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 18 May 2026 remain, and are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim 35, as best understood, is 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), heat exchanger (22, 23, 231), pump (232), 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Aso's reactor room (11) does not constitute a reactor enclosure. Applicant specifically argues that “The skilled artisan would not reasonably interpret Aso's reactor room (11) as being equivalent to the reactor enclosure of claim 23 . . . Aso's reactor room 11 is described, and depicted, as one of many rooms in a building” (Remarks at page 10).
The examiner maintains, and has provided evidence of record, that Aso's reactor room (11) constitutes a reactor enclosure. The skilled artisan knows that a nuclear plant has “many rooms in a building”, and that the reactor room (which encloses the reactor core) is one of those many rooms. Aso specifically states that the reactor is installed in the reactor room. If Applicant’s “reactor enclosure” is to be structurally different from Aso's reactor room then the alleged structural differences should be positively recited (and not be obvious).
Additional Comment
Claims 23 and 35 imply that: (1) an internal shield encompasses a reactor vessel configured to contain a reactor core; and (2) a reactor enclosure encompasses the internal shield and a heat exchanger. These claims allow for the reactor core to constitute the heat exchanger. Regardless, the broadly recited “heat exchanger” reads on any object that can transfer heat. A nuclear reactor plant includes many of these objects. These claims even allow for the recited “heat exchanger” to read on a simple metal bolt, which can conduct heat and transfer it between points.
Further Comment
Despite its indefiniteness (as noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections), claim 34 (as best understood) has not been rejected based on prior art. Nevertheless, it should be understood that clarification of the application (via claim amendment) may necessitate a future prior art rejection thereof.
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