DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 1-2, 7-10, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guidez (FR 3,015,665 A1).
Guidez teaches a system comprising a primary sodium pump (4, 10) configured to circulate primary sodium coolant within a reactor vessel (2). A bypass pipe (20) is fluidly coupled to pump discharge at a first bypass end (39), and has a second bypass end (21, 22). An instrument tank (11) is coupled to a reactor head (25) at a first instrument tank end, and has a second instrument tank end open to a pool of sodium within the reactor vessel. An instrument module (24) is insertable through an aperture in the reactor head into the instrument tank (11). The instrument module (24) is selectively coupled to the second bypass end (21, 22) at a coupling (e.g., radial support provided by the bypass pipe 20 constitutes a coupling). The instrument module comprises instruments (32, 33) configured to measure a characteristic of sodium.
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.
Claims 3-4, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guidez (FR 3,015,665 A1) as applied to claims 1-2 above.
Claims 3-4
Sensing pressure at different reactor powers is within the skill level of the artisan. Thus, modification of Guidez to have sensed pressure at reactor powers up to 20% and greater than 20%, to enhance knowledge about reactor operating conditions, 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 14
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that instruments can be located at various locations, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain locations in light of the specific nuclear reactor design and size. Furthermore, optimal placement of instruments in a nuclear reactor is within the skill level of the artisan. Thus, modification of Guidez to have located the instrument module within 15 feet of the reactor head, to provide optimal placement in a particular reactor design, 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 18
It is within the skill level of the artisan to provide an outlet to allow gas to exit an area in order to remove harmful gas from reactor coolant and/or reduce overpressure. Thus, modification of Guidez to have included an opening in the instrument module to allow gas to exit therefrom, in order to remove gas from reactor coolant and/or reduce overpressure, 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guidez (FR 3,015,665 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Melnikov ("Experimental study of using microwave reflex-radar level gauges for liquid metal coolants", Nuclear Energy and Technology 8, no. 3 (2022): 219-223).
Melnikov shows that it is well known in the art to use radar to detect a fluid level in a nuclear reactor. Thus, modification of Guidez to have employed radar to detect fluid level, in order to obtain an accurate measurement, as suggested by Melnikov, 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 radar detector (claim 17).
an opening in the instrument module to allow gas to exit therefrom (claim 18).
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.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is unclear in its meaning. The following Title is suggested:
“System Including A Bypass Pipe That Routes Some Sodium Coolant From A Primary Pump Discharge Upward To Sodium Measuring Instruments Located Near A Nuclear Reactor Head”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 11, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information.
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