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 .
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive to overcome restrictions requirement of 12/08/2025. Accordingly, the restrictions requirement of 12/08/2025 is withdrawn. Claims 1-23 will be examined.
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.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 15, claim 15 recite limitations “the reactor enclosure” in line 2 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim languages “the complete” appear for the first time, however, read as though they have already been recited. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
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 (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.
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, 3-4, 7, 10, 17-18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaine – Translate_FR3109443A1.
As to claim 1, Jaine teaches a leak detection system 100 comprising a leak detection apparatus (fig.1) comprising an electrode mesh 101, 102 and an insulative layer 103 associated with the electrode mesh 101, 102, wherein the insulative layer 103 is engageable with a conducting fluid containing component 111 (page 2 and fig.1,7 and page 4: the fluid can be formed by water, coolant, oil or battery electrolyte; battery electrolyte is conducting fluid; the tube 111 in which a fluid circulates is surrounded by a detection system 100 according to the invention. In this case, the detection system 100 can be extendable so as to be fitted onto the tube 111; thus “wherein the insulative layer is engageable with a conducting fluid containing component”), and wherein the electrode mesh 101, 102 is configured to output an electric signal responsive to a conducting fluid reaching the electrode mesh 101, 102 through the insulative layer 103 (page 3 and fig.1: when a fluid leak occurs, it passes through the first electrically conductive layer 101, then the electrically insulating and porous layer 103. The pores allow the fluid to pass. The fluid comes into contact with the ionic solution or the ionic solid. Thus, by crossing the electrically insulating layer 103, the fluid becomes an electrical conductor. The fluid then comes into contact with the second electrically conductive layer 102 (hence, the leak detection apparatus engaged with an exterior of the conducting fluid containing component). The current from the electric generator 104 then passes through the three layers 101, 102 and 103. In this case, the value of the resistance or the impedance 107 varies. This variation is then measured by the measuring device 108. A signal is then transmitted, for example to the on-board computer of the vehicle or to the management center of a nuclear power plant; thus “the electrode mesh is configured to output an electric signal responsive to a conducting fluid reaching the electrode mesh through the insulative layer”); and
a computing device configured to receive said electrical signal and associate said electrical signal with a leak event by correlating said electrical signal with a baseline electrical output of the electrode mesh (page 3: in an event of leak, the current from the electric generator 104 then passes through the three layers 101, 102 and 103, hence, value of the resistance or the impedance 107 varies and the value of the resistance or the impedance 107 is measured by measuring device (or computing device) 108; the applied current pass through the electrode meshes corresponds to “a baseline electrical output”; thus “a computing device configured to receive said electrical signal and associate said electrical signal with a leak event by correlating said electrical signal with a baseline electrical output of the electrode mesh; operating a leak detection apparatus engaged with an exterior of the conducting fluid containing component by generating a baseline electrical output therefrom; producing an electrical signal responsive to the conducting fluid reaching the leak detection apparatus; and determining a leak event by correlating said electrical signal with the baseline electrical output”).
As to claim 3, Jaine teaches the electrode mesh comprises a first electrode mesh 101, the leak detection apparatus further comprises a second electrode mesh 102, and the insulative layer 103 is arranged between the first electrode mesh 101 and the second electrode mesh 102 and electrically insulating the first electrode mesh 101 and the second electrode mesh 102 from one another (abstract and fig.1).
As to claim 4, claim 4 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, Jaine teaches the conducting fluid comprises a natural and/or artificial fluid with an electrical response, including one or more of a liquid metal, water, a nano fluid and/or another fluid (page 6: the fluid can be formed by water, coolant, oil or battery electrolyte. The detection system 100 can be applied to any field, such as that of the automobile or nuclear power plants; thus “the conducting fluid comprises a natural and/or artificial fluid with an electrical response, including one or more of a liquid metal, water, a nano fluid and/or another fluid”).
As to claim 23, claim 23 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 7.
As to claims 17-18, claims 17-18 are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 3.
As to claim 20, Jaine further teaches the determining of the leak further comprises determining a location of the leak event relative to a geometry of the conducting fluid containing component 111 (pages 3-4 and fig.1-7: it is possible to locate a fluid leak on a large detection surface of tube shape 111 in which a fluid circulates is surrounded by a detection system 100; thus “the determining of the leak further comprises determining a location of the leak event relative to a geometry of the conducting fluid containing component”).
As to claim 10, Jaine further teaches electrode mesh 101 defines a multiplexer configuration including one or more layers of linearly pixelated electrodes 101 (figs.5-6), and the electrode mesh 101 is configured to output signal indicative of a location of the leak event relative to the fluid containing component 111 (pages 3-4 and fig.1-7: it is possible to locate a fluid leak on a large detection surface of tube shape 111 in which a fluid circulates is surrounded by a detection system 100; thus “electrode mesh defines a multiplexer configuration including one or more layers of linearly pixelated electrodes, and the electrode mesh is configured to output signal indicative of a location of the leak event relative to the fluid containing component”).
In an alternative, claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhatti – US 20050092070.
As to claim 1, Bhatti teaches a leak detection system (fig.2 and fig.6 and [0047]) comprising a leak detection apparatus 50 comprising an electrode mesh 52, 54 and an insulative layer 60 associated with the electrode mesh 52, 54, wherein the insulative layer 60 is engageable with a conducting fluid containing component 42, and wherein the electrode mesh 52, 54 is configured to output an electric signal responsive to a conducting fluid reaching the electrode mesh 52, 54 through the insulative layer 60; and a computing device (external circuit of fig.6) configured to receive said electrical signal and associate said electrical signal with a leak event by correlating said electrical signal with a baseline electrical output of the electrode mesh ([0017]: When dry, the wicking material 60 is insulative in nature to establish a high-resistance electrical path between the screens 52 and 54; when moistened by leaking coolant at the pipe joint, the crystalline salt dissolves, forming a highly ionic low-resistance electrical path between the screens 52 and 54; The screens 52 and 54 may be formed of copper or aluminum for example, and are coupled to an external circuit such as depicted in FIG. 6 by the external conductors 56 and 58, respectively; [0020]: As the wicking material 114 moistens due to a coolant leak, the combined electrical resistance decreases, and a circuit such as depicted in FIG. 6 coupled to the conductor bars 116, 118 via wires 120, 122 detects the resistance drop as an indication of coolant leakage; hence, a resistance drop/decrease means that there is a baseline electrical output of the electrode mesh before an event of leakage; thus “a computing device configured to receive said electrical signal and associate said electrical signal with a leak event by correlating said electrical signal with a baseline electrical output of the electrode mesh”).
As to claim 17, in an alternative, claim 17 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1 rejected under 102(a)(1) rejection using reference of Bhatti as shown above.
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 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 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 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaine – Translate_ FR3109443A1.
As to claim 5, embodiment of fig.1 of Jaine does not explicitly teach the first electrode mesh generates the electrical signal responsive to the conducting fluid reducing a resistance between the first electrode mesh and the second electrode mesh.
However, another embodiment of Jaine teaches a resistance measuring device electrically coupled via connections 170 and 172 to the first and second electrical conducting grids 70, 72. When a liquid passes through the foam layer 80 positioned between the first and second electrical conducting grids 70, 72, the measured resistance decreases. When the resistance measured is below a predetermined threshold, the system is built and arranged to output a leak alert signal (page 2).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify embodiment of fig.1 of Jaine with another embodiment of Jaine to include the first electrode mesh generates the electrical signal responsive to the conducting fluid reducing a resistance between the first electrode mesh and the second electrode mesh, to detect leakage of conducting fluid (page 2).
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 3-5.
Claims 6 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaine and further in view of Applicant admitted prior art – US 20250191795A1 (hereinafter “AAPA”).
As to claim 6, Jaine teaches the detection system 100 can be applied to any field, such as that of the automobile or nuclear power plants (page 4), but it does not explicitly teach the conducting fluid comprises a fuel salt including a fissile material therein.
AAPA teaches process equipment may be used to carry a fissile molten salt material (which is “a fuel salt including a fissile material therein”) through along a “loop” between a reactor vessel, a pump, and a primary heat exchanger ([0002]: the “loop” also corresponds to “a radiation shielding encompassing the conducting fluid containing component”).
Since Jaine teaches Jaine teaches the detection system 100 can be applied to any field, such as that of the automobile or nuclear power plants (page 4) and figure 7 of Jaine shows a fluid leak detection system 100 in the form of a tube. In this example, the tube 111 in which a fluid circulates is surrounded by a detection system 100. In this case, the detection system 100 can be extendable so as to be fitted onto the tube 111 (page 4), it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaine with teaching of AAPA to include the conducting fluid comprises a fuel salt (as recited in claim 6); analyzing the electrical signal outside of a radiation shielding encompassing the conducting fluid containing component and the leak detection apparatus (as recited in claim 21), to monitor leakage of any fluid i.e. fuel salt to ensure reactor core is cooled safely.
As to claims 21-22, claims 21-22 are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaine and further in view of Marvin – Translate_DE 202018101539U1.
As to claim 8, Jaine does not explicitly teach the system further comprises a plurality of the leak detection apparatuses of claim 1, and the plurality of leak detection apparatuses is arranged in multi-node configuration with each leak detection apparatus associated with a different fluid containing component, all of which including the conducting fluid.
Marvin teaches a concept of: a plurality of such devices for detecting a leakage at a fluid-carrying section can be easily combined in order to be able to locate the location of a leak at a fluid-carrying section exactly (page 6).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaine with teaching of Marvin to include the system further comprises a plurality of the leak detection apparatuses of claim 1, and the plurality of leak detection apparatuses is arranged in multi-node configuration with each leak detection apparatus associated with a different fluid containing component, all of which including the conducting fluid (as recited in claim 8); each leak detection apparatus is configured to output a fluid containing component specific signal responsive the conducting fluid reaching the respective leak detection apparatus via the corresponding fluid containing component associated therewith (as recited in claim 9), to locate the location of a leak at a fluid-carrying section exactly (page 6).
As to claim 9, claim 9 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 8.
Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaine and AAPA further in view of Marvin – Translate_DE 202018101539U1.
As to claim 11, Jaine teaches a nuclear reactor system comprising a conducting fluid containing component 111 including a conducting fluid therein (page 4: detection system 100 can be applied to any field, such as that of the automobile or nuclear power plants; fig.7 shows the detection system 100 can be extendable so as to be fitted onto the tube 111; battery electrolyte is conductive fluid; thus “a nuclear reactor system comprising a conducting fluid containing component 111 including a conducting fluid therein”);
a leak detection apparatus 100 engaged with an exterior of the conducting fluid component 111 and configured to produce an electrical signal responsive to a detection of the conducting fluid at the leak detection apparatus (see reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1);
a computing device and configured to receive said electrical signal and associate said electrical signal with a leak event by correlating said electrical signal with a baseline electrical output of the leak detection apparatus (see reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1).
Jaine does not explicitly teach a radiation barrier at least partially encompassing the conducing fluid containing component and the leak detection apparatus; and a computing device, outside of the radiation barrier.
AAPA teaches process equipment may be used to carry a fissile molten salt material (which is “a fuel salt including a fissile material therein”) through along a “loop” between a reactor vessel (or “a radiation barrier”), a pump, and a primary heat exchanger ([0002]: the “loop” also corresponds to “a radiation shielding encompassing the conducting fluid containing component”; thus “the conducting fluid containing component comprises a reactor vessel or a piping fluidly coupled therewith for circulation of a fuel salt”). AAPA also teaches leak detection in radioactive environments i.e. process equipment of a nuclear reactor system ([0002]).
Since Jaine teaches Jaine teaches the detection system 100 can be applied to any field, such as that of the automobile or nuclear power plants (page 4) and figure 7 of Jaine shows a fluid leak detection system 100 in the form of a tube. In this example, the tube 111 in which a fluid circulates is surrounded by a detection system 100. In this case, the detection system 100 can be extendable so as to be fitted onto the tube 111 (page 4), it would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaine with teaching of AAPA to include a radiation barrier at least partially encompassing the conducing fluid containing component and the leak detection apparatus, to detect leak in radioactive environments i.e. process equipment of a nuclear reactor system ([0002]).
Jaine and AAPA do not explicitly teach a computing device, outside of the radiation barrier.
Marvin teaches a concept of: supply pipe 520 is provided with its own device for detecting a leak associated with the control and / or regulating device 530 connected is; a microcontroller and / or a network connection for remote diagnostics (page 13).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaine and AAPA with teaching of Marvin to include a computing device, outside of the radiation barrier, for remote diagnostics (page 13).
As to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claims 13-14, claims 13-14 are rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 11.
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected as reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaine and AAPA and Marvin and further in view of Acherr – US 20240062922.
As to claim 15, modified Jaine does not explicitly teach the radiation barrier further comprises a thermal management vessel within the reactor enclosure, the thermal management vessel encompassing a reactor vessel and a drain tank of a molten salt loop.
Acherr teaches a radiation barrier 304 further comprises a thermal management vessel 320, 324 within the reactor enclosure 330, the thermal management vessel 320, 324 encompassing a reactor vessel 304 and a drain tank 308 of a molten salt loop (fig.3 and [0055-0057]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaine and AAPA with teaching of Marvin to include the radiation barrier further comprises a thermal management vessel within the reactor enclosure, the thermal management vessel encompassing a reactor vessel and a drain tank of a molten salt loop, because it help maintaining and/or controlling a temperature of one or more components of a molten salt nuclear reactor ([0052]) and serving as another containment barrier that is capable of holding a volume of molten salt in response to a leak event ([0057]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaine and in view of Bhatti – US 20050092070 and further in view of Duarte – US 20190234903.
As to claim 2, Jaine does not explicitly teach the insulative layer comprises an insulative wick, and the electrode mesh comprises conductive fibers impregnated within the insulative wick.
Bhatti teaches insulative layer 60 comprises an insulative wick 60, and the electrode mesh 52, 54 comprises conductive metal impregnated within the insulative wick 60 (fig.2 and [0017]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jaine with teaching of Bhatti to include the insulative layer comprises an insulative wick, and the electrode mesh comprises conductive metal impregnated within the insulative wick, because the screens are separated from the pipes and from each other by intervening layers of a wicking material that absorbs coolant that may ooze from the pipe joint and acts to soak up and hold the oozing coolant until the joint can be repaired ([0017]).
Jaine and Bhatti do not explicitly teach the electrode mesh comprises conductive fibers.
Duarte teaches outer electrode 114 can be a mesh material formed from woven metal fibers ([0047]).
It would thus have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Jaine with teaching of Duarte to include the electrode mesh comprises conductive fibers, because it offers lightweight and flexibility and customizable conductivity for specific elastic fluid/liquid containing tube/pipeline.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUONG D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/TRUONG D PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights