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 with traverse of Species A1 (core assembly with lock plates and pin strip rails), B1 (FIGS. 3-4), C1 (FIGS. 5A-C), D1 (masking sleeve openings at same height), E1 (closed bottom flow stacks), and F1 (orifice plate) in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that (A) the features of Species A are not claimed, (B) the claims are generic to the species of Species B, (C) the features of Species E are not claimed, (D) the features of Species H are not claimed, and (E) there is no serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding grounds (A), (C), and (D), restriction on species disclosed, but not claimed, is proper as indicated in at least MPEP 806.04(e), 806.04(h), and 808.01(a). Additionally, there is a search burden for the identified species as discussed below.
Regarding ground (B), as best understood by Examiner, claim 12 is directed towards Species B2 (see [0058]). Thus, the application includes claims limited to a single disclosed embodiment. Nevertheless, restriction on species disclosed, but not claimed, is proper as indicated in at least MPEP 806.04(e), 806.04(h), and 808.01(a). Additionally, there is a search burden for the identified species as discussed below.
Regarding ground (E), there is a search burden for the identified species because the species require a different field of search e.g., employing different search queries (directed towards the different core assemblies in Species A1 vs. A2; directed towards the different nozzles in Species B1 vs. B2; directed towards the different sodium flow control systems in Species C1 vs. C2; directed towards the different masking sleeve opening arrangements in Species D1 vs. D2; directed towards the different flow stack bottoms in Species E1 vs. E2; directed towards the different flow control assemblies in Species F1 vs. F2 vs. F3 vs. F4 vs. F5); and the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species (art teaching a core assembly utilizing lock plates and pin strip rails would not necessarily also teach a core assembly utilizing a filtering element in lieu of lock plates and pin strip rails; art teaching a nozzle as shown in FIG. 3 would not necessarily also teach a nozzle as shown in FIG. 7; art teaching a sodium flow control system as shown in FIGS. 5A-C would not necessarily also teach a sodium flow control system as shown in FIGS. 8A-D; art teaching openings of a masking sleeve at a same height would not necessarily also teach openings of a masking sleeve at different heights; art teaching a flow stack having a closed bottom end would not necessarily also teach a flow stack having an open bottom end; art teaching a flow control assembly that is an orifice plate would not necessarily teach a flow control assembly that is discrete filters, a packing bed, a labyrinthine element, and/or a metal wool or filter packed into the flow stack).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species F2-F5), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species B2), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species D2), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species C2), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending in the application with claims 5-9, 12, 14-15, and 18 withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 10-11, 13, and 16-17 are examined herein.
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. Therefore, the “inlet guide pin secured to a core assembly” in claim 11 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “506” has been used to designate both “an outer housing” of the “flow stack 504” ([0047]) and “a generally cylindrical housing” of the “masking sleeve 502” ([0050]). Additionally, reference character “506” would appear to be identifying different features in Figure 4 vs. Figure 5B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “506” (see e.g., [0047]) and “512” (see e.g., [0050]) have both been used to designate the “outer housing of the flow stack”.
The drawings are further objected to because reference character “508” would appear to be identifying different features in Figure 4 vs. Figures 5A-C.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 10-11, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for a masking element and a flow stack for a nozzle of nuclear reactor core assembly, does not reasonably provide enablement for such an apparatus for any generic structure, such as non-nuclear reactor structures. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Broad independent claim 1 allows for an “apparatus” for any structure, including another nuclear reactor structure, such as a debris filter (see Wilson below) or heat exchanger, or a non-nuclear structure (see Christenson below). While the specification provides support for a “masking element” and a “flow stack” for controlling coolant flow through a nozzle of a reactor core assembly (see [0002]-[0005], [0034]), there is no disclosure directed towards use of these claimed features in another nuclear reactor structure or in a non-nuclear structure. The disclosure is silent as to how the features could be used in other non-nuclear systems and therefore does not provide enablement of the claimed “apparatus” with non-nuclear systems. The disclosure does not allow the skilled artisan to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the broad claim 1. Thus, the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the extremely broad claims. Federal Circuit precedent has shown that claims which are broad enough to encompass significant non-enabled subject matter will be found non-enabled:
Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 997-1000 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Because the asserted claims are broad enough to cover both movies and video games, the patents must enable both embodiments”).
Automotive Technologies Intern., Inc. v. BMW of North America Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[d]isclosure of only mechanical side impact sensors does not permit one skilled in the art to make and use the invention as broadly as it was claimed, which includes electronic side impact sensors”).
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 905–09 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim covering two types of syringe holders was not enabled by description of only one of the syringe holders).
In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (the full scope of the claimed invention must be enabled).
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4, 10-11, 13, and 16-17 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 recites “the flow stack comprises ... a flow control assembly disposed within the flow stack”. It is unclear how a component (i.e., the “flow control assembly”) of the “flow stack” can be disposed within the “flow stack”. How can something be disposed within itself?
The term “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the masking element comprises a plurality of masking elements and wherein the flow stack comprises a plurality of flow stacks”. It is unclear if the claim requires that each of the “plurality of masking elements” has the same structure as the structure of the “masking element” recited in claim 1, and, similarly, if the claim requires that each of the “plurality of flow stacks” has the same structure as the structure of the “flow stack” recited in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the flow stack wall comprises an outer housing and the outer housing defines an outlet at a first end of the outer housing”. It is unclear what distinguishes a “wall” from a “housing” and the scope of the structure(s) encompassed by the “wall” and “housing” are unclear.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 10-11, 13, and 16-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN Publication No. 207489486 (“Anderson”).
The following rejections are based on the machine translation provided with the attached PTO-892.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 4, 5A-C) discloses an apparatus (500) comprising:
a core support structure (400) ([0008], [0039]);
a masking element (502) defining at least one masking element opening (508) disposed at a first height (“H1”) of the masking element, wherein the masking element is disposed on a first side (e.g., a bottom side) of the core support structure ([0008], [0042]); and
a flow stack (504) configured to mate with the masking element ([0008], [0039], [0044]), wherein the flow stack comprises:
a wall (512) defining a plurality of flow stack inlets (510), wherein at least one of the plurality of flow stack inlets is configured to align with the at least one masking element opening when the flow stack is mated with the masking element ([0008], [0042]-[0044]); and
a flow control assembly (516) disposed within the flow stack, wherein the flow control assembly comprises a plurality of spaced orifice plates (518) configured to restrict a flow of fluid within the flow stack ([0008], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Anderson discloses each plate of the plurality of orifice plates defines at least one orifice (520) therethrough (FIG. 5C, [0008], [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Anderson discloses the flow stack comprises a height (“HF”), and wherein the plurality of orifice plates are disposed at predetermined locations along the height, and wherein at least one of the plurality of flow stack inlets is disposed between each of the plurality of orifice plates (FIG. 5C, [0008], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Anderson discloses a first flow stack inlet of the plurality of flow stack inlets comprises a diameter greater than a diameter of a second flow stack inlet of the plurality of flow stack inlets (FIGS. 5A, 5C, [0008], [0043]).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Anderson discloses the masking element is secured to the core support structure (FIG. 4, [0040], [0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Anderson discloses the core support structure is configured to receive an inlet guide pin secured to a core assembly in a position substantially aligned with the masking element ([0010]).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Anderson discloses the masking element comprises a plurality of masking elements and wherein the flow stack comprises a plurality of flow stacks ([0010], [0040], [0044]).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Anderson discloses the flow stack wall comprises an outer housing (512, also referred to as 506 in [0039]) and the outer housing defines an outlet at a first end (e.g., a top end) of the outer housing (FIGS. 5A, 5C, [0011], [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Anderson discloses the flow stack is disposed within the masking element when the flow stack is mated with the masking element (FIG. 4, [0011], [0039]-[0040], [0044]).
Claims 1-3, 10-11, and 16-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 4,684,496 (“Wilson”).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1-4) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a core support structure (14) (3:59-66);
a masking element (12) defining at least one masking element opening (32) disposed at a first height of the masking element, wherein the masking element is disposed on a first side (e.g., a top side) of the core support structure (4:16-25); and
a flow stack (42) configured to mate with the masking element (4:46-50, 5:25-36), wherein the flow stack comprises:
a wall (46) defining a plurality of flow stack inlets (54), wherein at least one of the plurality of flow stack inlets is configured to align with the at least one masking element opening when the flow stack is mated with the masking element (4:62-5:6); and
a flow control assembly disposed within the flow stack, wherein the flow control assembly comprises a plurality of spaced orifice plates (48) configured to restrict a flow of fluid within the flow stack (6:14-22).
Regarding claim 2, Wilson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson discloses each plate of the plurality of orifice plates defines at least one orifice (70) therethrough (FIG. 4, 6:14-22).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Wilson discloses the flow stack comprises a height, and wherein the plurality of orifice plates are disposed at predetermined locations along the height, and wherein at least one of the plurality of flow stack inlets is disposed between (e.g., horizontally between) each of the plurality of orifice plates (FIGS. 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Wilson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson discloses the masking element is secured to the core support structure (FIG. 1, 5:13-24).
Regarding claim 11, Wilson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson discloses the core support structure is configured to receive an inlet guide pin (60) secured to a core assembly (10) in a position substantially aligned with the masking element (FIGS. 1-3, 5:13-24).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson discloses the flow stack wall comprises an outer housing (46) and the outer housing defines an outlet at a first end (e.g., a top end) of the outer housing (FIGS. 2-3, 4:19-25, 4:67-5:6).
Regarding claim 17, Wilson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson discloses the flow stack is disposed within the masking element when the flow stack is mated with the masking element (FIGS. 2-3, 4:46-50).
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2010/0258193 (“Christenson”).
Regarding claim 1, Christenson (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1A, 2A, 3A-C) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a core support structure (64, 68) ([0044]-[0045], [0047]);
a masking element (76) defining at least one masking element opening (86) disposed at a first height of the masking element, wherein the masking element is disposed on a first side (e.g., a left side in FIGS. 3A-C) of the core support structure ([0047]); and
a flow stack (10) configured to mate with the masking element ([0044], [0046]), wherein the flow stack comprises:
a wall (12) defining a plurality of flow stack inlets (18), wherein at least one of the plurality of flow stack inlets is configured to align with the at least one masking element opening when the flow stack is mated with the masking element ([0049]); and
a flow control assembly (19) disposed within the flow stack, wherein the flow control assembly comprises a plurality of spaced orifice plates (34) configured to restrict a flow of fluid within the flow stack ([0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Christenson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Christenson discloses each plate of the plurality of orifice plates defines at least one orifice (22) therethrough (FIGS. 1, 2A, [0040]).
Regarding claim 10, Christenson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Christenson discloses the masking element is secured to the core support structure (FIGS. 3A-C, [0047]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Christenson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Christenson discloses the core support structure is configured to receive an inlet guide pin (e.g., “stem connection detent”) secured to a core assembly (e.g., “valve handle”, “positioner”) in a position substantially aligned with the masking element ([0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Christenson discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Christenson discloses the flow stack wall comprises an outer housing (44) and the outer housing defines an outlet (20) at a first end (e.g., a right end in FIG. 1A) of the outer housing (FIG. 1A, [0043]).
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).
Application Status Information
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
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 Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646