DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election of Invention I and Species B without traverse in the Reply filed 31 October 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-22 are pending, since claims 4 and 10 have been canceled. The features in claims 11 and 22 are not covered by the elected Species (Figures 3-5). Thus, the elected Invention/Species encompasses claims 1-3, 5-9, and 21. Claims 11-20 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s) and/or Species. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3, 5-9, and 21 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.
Claim 1
It is unclear what constitutes a “reactor vessel”. For example, it is unclear whether the vessel contains a reactor core, nuclear reactor fuel, or something else. It is unclear what recited feature distinguishes a reactor vessel from a conventional vessel. As best understood, a “reactor vessel” is just a vessel with a different label.
It is unclear what constitutes a “molten salt reactor vessel”. For example, it is unclear whether the vessel is made of salt, whether the vessel contains molten salt, whether “molten salt reactor” is merely a vessel label, or something else.
The phrase “operation of the molten salt reactor vessel” is unclear. It is unclear how a fixed vessel structure can carry out an active operation.
The phrase “the internal shield or vessel configured to maintain the first thermally insulated region above a melting temperature of the molten salt” is unclear. It is unclear how the fixed structure of a shield or vessel can continually maintain a temperature. It would appear that the shield or vessel would require a heater to maintain a temperature. Thus, it is unclear whether the shield or vessel contains a heater therein.
The use of “second component” when there is no mention of a “first component” is unclear and confusing. The use of “second component” implies that there is a “first component” in the same claim. However, claim 1 lacks mention of a “first component”. The claim is also unclear as to what could constitute the first component. Thus, the claim appears to be incomplete.
Claim 2
It is unclear what constitutes “about the first thermally insulative region”. It is unclear whether “about” means any location exterior of the first thermally insulative region, an area surrounding the first thermally insulative region, or something else. It is unclear whether “about” allows for insulation to be on piping in the area of the first thermally insulative region. It is unclear whether there is insulation (e.g., polytetrafluoroethylene) located on the exterior surface of the shield.
Claim 5
The phrase “encompassing the internal shield or vessel and the third component” is unclear. It is unclear which scenarios the phrase is intended to cover. For example, it is unclear whether the phrase can be interpreted to cover any of: (1) encompassing the internal shield and the third component; (2) encompassing the vessel and the third component; or (3) encompassing the internal shield alone. It is uncertain whether specification provides support for each scenario. The confusing phrase is indefinite.
Claim 7
The phrase “one or both of the internal shield or vessel and the reactor enclosure” is unclear. It is unclear which scenarios the phrase is intended to cover. The confusing phrase is indefinite.
Claims 5 and 7
The phrase “or vessel” is uncertain. It is unclear whether the “vessel” in said phrase differs from the “molten salt reactor vessel”.
Claim 8
The claim improperly depends on itself.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim 1 Interpretation
It is noted that neither “molten salt” nor a “reactor” are positively recited. A conventional nuclear reactor has a containment (i.e., shield) that encompasses a reactor pressure vessel. A component (e.g., heat exchanger) is conventionally located outside this vessel. The vessel and component are conventionally surrounded by the containment. Thus, broad claim 1 reads on a well-known nuclear reactor arrangement. Such a conventional nuclear reactor arrangement is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
590
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abbott (US20170316840).
Abbott teaches (e.g., Figure 1) a component (110) fluidly coupled with a vessel (104, 106), and they are encompassed by a shield (118).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson (US20150243376).
Wilson teaches (e.g., Figure 2) a component (212, 216, 220) fluidly coupled with a vessel (204), and they are encompassed by a shield (202).
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aso (JP2022182545A).
Aso teaches (e.g., Figure 10) a reactor vessel (21), a drain tank (3), a shield (4), a reactor access vessel (53), a loop, and a reactor enclosure (11). A first thermally insulative region is located between the reactor vessel (21) and the shield (4). An insulative barrier fluid is about the first thermally insulative region. A second thermally insulative region is located between the shield and the reactor enclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (JP2022182545A) as applied to claim 6 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. Modification of Aso to have used stainless steel material for reactor structure (e.g., shield, vessel, or reactor enclosure) 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso (JP2022182545A) as applied to above claims, and further in view of Watanabe (EP2728584B1).
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 defines a trench. A (third) thermally insulative region is between the reactor enclosure and the concrete structure.
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. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
a fluid defining an insulative barrier about the first thermally insulative region (claim 2).
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.” 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 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).
Interview Information
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.
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