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 and Claim Status
1. Claims 1-8 are pending with claims 7-8 withdrawn. Claims 1-6 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
3. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b), Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Applicant does not provide any citation to a description in the specification that would enable one to practice the claimed invention without the step of “repeating the activating and the inactivating of” the moveable gripper coil. The specification clearly establishes that such a step is critical at [0081], which states: “That is, in the second exemplary embodiment, the holding operation of the intermediate portion is repeatedly driven while the lower end portion of the control rod drive mechanism is held, thereby removing foreign substances existing inside the second part (i.e., the foreign substances existing between the second latch plunger 1023 and the second latch pole 1024).” Applicant’s arguments are merely conclusory and do not provide any technical basis or citations from the specification that the steps recited in claim 1 alone can result in the removal of foreign substances.
4. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Claim 1 merely recites a list of process steps. There is no order of steps recited, i.e., the claim does not require a particular sequence of steps to be performed. That is, the recited step of “removing the foreign substances from the first part, the second part, or the third part by driving any of the first part, the second part, or the third part” as claimed can be recited at any point in the method before or after any of the other recited steps. Applicant argues that “DeWesse contains absolutely no teaching, suggestion or technical capability of driving electromagnetic coils while deliberately keeping the driving shaft fixed in place to actively purge debris,” (emphasis in original), but this is not required by the claim as recited in claim 1. Additionally, as disclosed in the specification and as recited in the claim, it is not coils that are driven but various latches. Thus, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
5. Accordingly, the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 103 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention as recited in claim 1 without a step of “repeating the activating and the inactivating of” the moveable gripper coil , which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claims. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). 7. As disclosed in the specification (see [0079-0083] of the published application in US 2024/0038407), the step of “removing the foreign substances” is accomplished by “the holding operation of the intermediate portion is repeatedly driven while the lower end portion of the control rod drive mechanism is held” (see [0081]). The repetitive activation/deactivation of the stationary gripper coil is performed “while the lower end portion of the control rod drive mechanism is held” ([0081]) by activation of the stationary gripper coil so that the first part holds the lower portion of the driving shaft ([0080]).
8. Accordingly, the essential steps necessary to accomplish the “removing the foreign substances” have been omitted from claim 1 and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would be unable to practice the full scope of claim 1.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
10. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are as explained above in paragraphs 3-5.
11. Any claim not explicitly mentioned above is rejected because it depends on a rejected claim.
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 (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.
For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that 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, 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.
12. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeWesse, US 3,992,255 in view of Gunther “Aging Assessment of the Westinghouse PWR Control Rod Drive System.”
13. Regarding claim 1, DeWesse discloses a method of operating a control rod drive mechanism (Fig. 2) comprising a driving shaft (50) including a plurality of teeth (see Fig. 2) and disposed in a vertical direction in the control rod drive mechanism (see Fig. 2), a first part (44) configured to hold or release a lower end portion of the driving shaft depending on whether a stationary gripper coil (41) is activated, a second part (32) configured to hold or release an intermediate portion of the driving shaft depending on whether a movable gripper coil (31) is activated, and a third part (22) configured to move the second part in the vertical direction depending on whether a lift coil (21) is activated, the method comprising: activating at least one of the stationary gripper coil, the movable gripper coil, and the lift coil and driving the first part, the second part, or the third part in a state in which the driving shaft is not able to move (column 5, lines 3-37: all of the coils in the drive are activated during normal operation, causing latching of the drive rod, thereby preventing movement); allowing the first part to hold the lower end portion of the driving shaft in a state in which the stationary gripper coil is activated (column 5, lines 3-7); and activating the moveable gripper coil so that the second part holds the intermediate portion of the driving shaft (column 3, lines 60-66).
DeWesse does not explicitly disclose removing foreign substances from the control rod drive mechanism, although a skilled artisan would expect such an action to be undertaken so as to ensure proper operation of the control rod drive mechanism, which is essential to ensuring safe operation of the nuclear reactor. Gunther discloses a method of removing foreign substances from a control rod drive mechanism of the type disclosed by DeWesse (see Fig. 2.5 on p. 2-7) comprising removing the foreign substances from the first part, the second part, or the third part (see Table B.4, Item 6 on p. B-10: “Small particle debris caused a stuck rod. A manual shutdown ensued during which the problem cleared.” Accordingly, manual shutdown of the reactor removed the debris (foreign substance) from the control rod drive mechanism.”) One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the step of removing debris from a control rod drive mechanism in the method of operating a control rod drive mechanism of DeWesse for the predictable purpose of preventing latch wear and drive rod binding (see pp. xii, 3-2, 3-8).
12. Regarding claims 2-5, DeWesse as modified by Gunther makes claim 1 obvious. DeWesse further discloses steps of:
inactivating the movable gripper coil so that the second part releases the intermediate portion of the driving shaft;
repeating the activating and the inactivating the movable gripper coil;
inactivating the stationary gripper coil so that the first part releases the lower end portion of the driving shaft; and
repeating the activating and the inactivating the stationary gripper coil (see column 5, lines 8-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) explained above, claim 2 is an intervening claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose the “removing the foreign substances” from a control rod drive mechanism by the steps recited in claims 1-3.
The following claim amendments are suggested to place the application in condition for allowance:
A method of removing foreign substances from a control rod drive mechanism comprising a driving shaft including a plurality of teeth and disposed in a vertical direction in the control rod drive mechanism, a first part configured to hold or release a lower end portion of the driving shaft depending on whether a stationary gripper coil is activated, a second part configured to hold or release an intermediate portion of the driving shaft depending on whether a movable gripper coil is activated, and a third part configured to move the second part in the vertical direction depending on whether a lift coil is activated, the method comprising:
activating the stationary gripper coil and holding the lower end portion of the driving shaft stationary by the first part;
activating the movable gripper coil so that the second part holds the intermediate portion of the driving shaft;
inactivating the movable gripper coil so that the second part releases the intermediate portion of the driving shaft;
removing the foreign substances from the first part, the second part, or the third part by repeating the activating and the inactivating of the moveable gripper coil while activating the stationary gripper coil and holding the lower end portion of the driving shaft stationary by the first part is performed
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights