DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election of Invention I along with Species A1 and B1, without traverse, in the Reply filed 14 July 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-22 are pending. The elected Invention/Species encompasses claims 1-4. Thus, claims 5-22 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention/Species.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 1-4 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “a concentration suitable for controlling a neutronic reactivity of the nuclear reactor” is unclear. The dividing boundary between a suitable concentration and a non-suitable concentration (for controlling neutronic reactivity of a nuclear reactor) is unknown and unclear. Nor is it clear to whom or what component the concentration is deemed suitable, especially with regard to “controlling a neutronic reactivity of the nuclear reactor”.
The claim does not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement, especially with regard to the term “suitable”. 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 4
The skilled artisan would recognize gadolinium oxide as being insoluble in water. Thus, it is unclear how the subject matter of claim 3 is further limited.
Review
Since the 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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeon (US 2010/0239062).
Claim 1
Yeon (cited via IDS) teaches a method of circulating coolant through a nuclear reactor (Abstract; Figures). A composition of the coolant comprises water (Figure 1; claim 1; paragraphs [0013-0018, 0032, 0036, 0038, 0051]). The composition also comprises gadolinium (claims 1-4; [0032-0038]). The gadolinium (a known neutron absorber) would contribute to controlling neutronic reactivity in the nuclear reactor.
Claim 2
Yeon teaches that the gadolinium is present at a mass fraction of 150 parts per million or less based on the total weight of the coolant composition [0036].
Claim 3
Yeon teaches gadolinium in a form of gadolinium oxide (claims 4 and 7; [0035]).
Claim 4
Note Yeon at [0038] and [0051]. Regardless, gadolinium oxide is inherently insoluble in water.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “a concentration suitable for controlling a neutronic reactivity of the nuclear reactor” is unclear (as discussed above). An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because “nano particles” should be “nanoparticles”. The following Title is suggested: “Gadolinium oxide nanoparticles used in primary coolant to control reactivity in a nuclear reactor”.
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