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 .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
3. 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 second vessel and guard gap (claim 1) and neutron reflector (claim 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
6. Regarding claim 1, the limitation (delimiting a primary circuit or fuel in liquid form and in which reactor vessel at least one salt is melted” is unclear. At a minimum it is unclear whether the “fuel in liquid form” and the “at least one salt is melted” are the same component. Furthermore, it is unclear what structure the reactor vessel must possess to achieve the functional limitation “in which reactor vessel at least one salt is melted.” Does this mean that the reactor vessel contains a molten salt or that it possesses structure operable to cause melting of a salt?
7. Regarding claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the primary reactor circuit.” Does this refer to the “primary circuit” introduced in claim 1? Furthermore, is the “molten fuel salt liquid” introduced n claim 3 the same as “the fuel in liquid form” or the “at least one salt is melted” of claim 1?
8. Regarding claims 4 and 5, the recitations “with depleted uranium” and “with enriched (HALEU uranium 235” are unclear because the claims previously introduce “a mixture of NaCl-UCl3.” It is unclear how one would determine whether a fuel contains both NaCl-UCl3 and depleted uranium/HALEU because a uranium atom would be the same regardless of how it is obtained. Furthermore, the recitation “enriched (HALEU)” is unclear because it is both a broad limitation (“enriched”) and a narrow limitation (“HALEU”) together. It is unclear whether high enriched uranium would meet the limitation because it meets the broader enriched recitation but not the narrower HALEU limitation. Additionally, the recitation ‘a cylinder ring closed on itself” is indefinite. It is unclear what is encompassed by this recitation because, at a minimum, a cylinder and a ring are two different shapes. Finally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the heat exchanger(s)” because claim 3 introduces a single heat exchanger.
9. Regarding claim 6, the recitation “the two zones at which it is deflected” lacks antecedent basis.
10. Regarding claim 8, the recitation “an outside diameter” is unclear because neither claim 8 nor claim 1 require the second vessel to have a shape having a diameter.
11. Regarding claims 11, 13, and 14, the imitations recited therein are indefinite because they are not directed to particular structure of the claimed nuclear reactor. Rather, the recitations encompass desired operating parameters of the reactor or consequences of operating the reactor. “Without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.” MPEP 2173.05(g).
12. Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the heat exchanger(s)” because claim 1 does not introduce any heat exchanger. It is further unclear whether this recitation requires a single heat exchanger or a plurality of heat exchangers.
13. Regarding claims 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, the recitation “based on salts” is unclear.
14. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros, et al., US 2022/0051818 in view of Leblanc, US 2015/0036779.
19. Regarding claim 1, Cisneros discloses a molten salt nuclear reactor of the fast neutron reactor type (Figs. 1A and C, [0011]), comprising:
a reactor vessel (110) exhibiting symmetry of revolution about a central axis (see Figs. 1A and 1D), internally delimiting a primary circuit (see arrows in Fig. 1A) for fuel in liquid form (102) and in which reactor vessel at least one salt is melted ([0015] “molten fuel salt”) an inside of the reactor vessel being free of any moderator material ([0021], [0023]).
Cisneros does not disclose a second vessel. Leblanc teaches a molten salt nuclear reactor (Fig. 11, [0038], [0081]) comprising:
a reactor vessel (1104) and a second vessel (1106) arranged around the reactor vessel, thereby defining a guard gap filled with an inert liquid salt (1110).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the buffer salt containment vessel of Leblanc with the nuclear reactor of Cisneros for the predictable purpose of passively dissipating decay heat from the reactor vessel via the buffer salt (see [0085]).
20. Regarding claim 2, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claim 1 obvious. Leblanc further teaches that the inert liquid salt can be MgCl ([0090]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the buffer salt containment vessel of Leblanc with the nuclear reactor of Cisneros for the reason stated above.
21. Regarding claim 3, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claim 1 obvious. Cisneros further discloses a reactor further comprising:
a heat exchanger (108) exchanging configured to exchange heat between the primary reactor circuit and a secondary circuit ([0016]) and arranged inside the reactor vessel (see Fig. 1A);
a first shell (see annotated Fig. 1C below) formed as at least one hollow cylinder of central axis coincident with that of the reactor vessel, the first shell being arranged in the reactor vessel so as to divide the interior thereof into a central zone and a peripheral zone in which the heat exchanger is arranged so that when the reactor is in operation, molten the molten-salt fuel liquid circulates via natural convection in a loop from a from the-bottom of the central zone defining a defining the reactor core (114) in which a fission reactions occur, from where it rises, as a result of heating, as far as a top of the central zone where it is deflected towards a top of the peripheral zone to pass through the heat exchanger then drops back down towards a bottom of the peripheral zone where it is deflected towards the reactor core (see arrows in Fig. 1C and [0018); and
a neutron reflector (106) arranged at the periphery of the reactor core against the reactor vessel, configured to maintain neutron flux in the reactor core (inherent property of a neutron reflecting material).
PNG
media_image1.png
824
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
22. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claim 1 obvious. Cisneros further discloses a reactor wherein the molten salt fuel liquid of the primary circuit is a mixture of NaCl-UCl3, wherein a first part of the first shell that is arranged above the heat exchanger is a cylinder ring closed on itself, and a second part that is arranged below the heat exchanger is a hollow cylinder (see Fig. 1C), wherein the neutron reflector is made of silicon carbide or graphite (0035]).
Although Cisneros does not disclose that its UCl3 salt is derived from depleted uranium or HALEU, such uranium sources are known to a skilled artisan and thus would have been obvious to employ.
23. Regarding claim 6, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claim 1 obvious. Cisneros further discloses a nuclear reactor further comprising; a second shell arranged concentrically inside the first shell (see annotated Fig. 1C above) so as to guide the rising fuel liquid between the two zones at which it is deflected (see Fig. 1C).
24. Regarding claims 8-10, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claim 1 obvious. Cisneros is silent as to the absolute dimensions of its reactor system. However, such parameters are a matter of obvious design choice. The reactor of Cisneros would perform similarly regardless of its dimensions. Accordingly, claims 8-10 are obvious over Cisneros. MPEP 2144.0(IV)(A).
25. Regarding claim 11, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claim 1 obvious. Cisneros further discloses a nuclear reactor configured such that a temperature of the molten salt fuel liquid of the primary circuit is in a range of from 600 to 750°C when the reactor is in operation )[0028]).
26. Regarding claim 12, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claim 1 obvious. Cisneros further discloses a nuclear reactor wherein the secondary fluid circulating in the heat exchanger comprises molten NaCl-MgCl2 ([0021], [0029])
27. Regarding claims 15-20, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claims and 5 obvious. Cisneros further discloses a nuclear reactor wherein the fuel salt is 20-40% UCl3 and 1-10% PuCl3, ranges that encompass and overlap the claimed ranges. Accordingly, the claims fuel salt compositions are obvious over Cisneros. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Additionally, such variables are result-effective because they determine the neutronic properties of the reactor and thus its power output. Therefore a skilled artisan would be motivated to optimize the fuel composition of Cisneros to achieve a desired power output. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
28. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros, et al., US 2022/0051818 in view of Leblanc, US 2015/0036779 in further view of Allegre et al., WO 2015/173284.
29. Regarding claim 7, Cisneros as modified by Leblanc makes claim 1 obvious. Cisneros does not disclose control rods extending into a space inside the second shell (see Fig. 1B, 170). Allegre teaches a fast reactor (Abs), wherein an inside of the second shell defines a space inside which nuclear-reaction control and/or safety rods extend (see Fig. 2A). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the control rod and pump arrangement taught by Allegre to the reactor of Cisneros for the predictable purpose of disposing the control rods within the active core region to more effectively cause neutron flux changes in the active core region.
30. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros, et al., US 2022/0051818 in view of Leblanc, US 2015/0036779 in further view of Tiberga et al., (Cited on the IDS dated 12/18/23).
31. Regarding claims 13 and 14, such operating parameters of a nuclear reactor are a matter of obvious design choice. Tiberga establishes that such parameters can be calculated from a reactor’s structural features. Conversely, Tiberga establishes that one could chose such parameters and calculate the reactor structural features that would achieve them. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to optimize the structural features of the reactor of Cisneros to achieve a desired secondary coolant temperature (based on, for example the dimensions of the heat exchanger chosen and the fuel and coolant salt physical characteristics) and output power (based on the uranium concentration in the fuel and the resultant neutron spectrum dictated by core geometry).
Double Patenting
32. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/542,987 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
33. Claims 1-20 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1-17 of Application No. 18/542,937. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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.
Additional References
The attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892) cites additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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