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 1-10, 12, 14-16, and 18-19 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. The drawing objections are withdrawn.
3. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections: No arguments are presented. The claim amendments fail to address many of the issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and have introduced new issues. A detailed explanation is below.
4. 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine Leblanc’s outer vessel with the reactor of Cisneros. The examiner supplied such a motivation in the rejection: for the predictable purpose of passively dissipating decay heat from the reactor vessel via the buffer salt, which is a citation from the prior art Leblanc. In response to applicant's argument that, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
5. Applicant further argues that LeBlanc fails to teach “an inert liquid salt.” Applicant applies a definition to the term “inert” that is incorrect. This term means “not producing a chemical reaction when another substance is added.”1 It does not mean “remaining in the liquid state” as Applicant alleges. Melting is not a chemical change; it is a physical one. Leblanc’s salt is a liquid when it receives decay heat from the nuclear reactor vessel. It meet the limitation of the claim as previously and presently recited. Applicant should also note that the “inert liquid salts” recited in claim 2 are not “permanently in liquid form.” These salts are only liquid at temperatures above their melting points, as is the case for the salts in the prior art LeBlanc. Additional language would be necessary to differentiate the claim from the teaching of LeBlanc. 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 (i.e., heat removal “solely by conduction”) 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).
6. Applicants arguments regarding the double patenting rejections is not persuasive. However, due to claim amendments in the three copending applicants reciting nearly identical subject matter, the double patenting rejections have changed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a primary circuit with a molten salt fuel liquid inside the primary circuit, the molten fuel salt liquid being in liquid form and comprising a molten salt” is indefinite. At a minimum, the recitation is extremely redundant. This makes it unclear whether the “molten salt fuel liquid” comprises both a “molten salt fuel liquid” and an additional “molten salt” that is not a molten salt fuel liquid. If the limitation is intended to recite that the primary circuit contains a molten fuel salt, then such a recitation—“delimiting a primary circuit containing a molten salt fuel”—should be sufficient, because “molten” is the same as saying “in liquid form” and “fuel salt” is the same as “comprising a molten salt.”
10. Regarding claims 4 and 5, the recitation ‘a cylinder ring closed on itself” in claim 4 and “ring closed on itself” in claim 5 are indefinite. It is unclear what is encompassed by this recitation because, at a minimum, a cylinder and a ring are two different shapes. Further, a ring is necessarily “closed on itself” so it is unclear what structure this qualifying phrase is intended to impart.
11. Further regarding claim 4, and additionally regarding claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, the recitations “with depleted uranium” and “with high-assay low-enriched uranium” 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. It is not that the terms “depleted uranium” and “HALEU” are themselves indefinite, it is that it is unclear how that recitation relates to the previously introduced limitation of UCl3, which itself comprises uranium. Further, the recitations describing the molten salt fuel composition are indefinite because they are inconsistent with the specification (MPEP 2173.03) and because they fail to clearly recite the relative amounts of the fuel salt composition. The disclosure discloses alternative fuel mixtures (see [0029] of the published application 2024/0203611 ):
1. NaCl/Ucl3/Pucl3, where the UCl3 is depleted uranium and the fuel salt comprises 25-30 mol% U and 5-30 mol% Pu, with the remainder being Na.
2. NaCl/UCl3, where the UCl3 is HALEU and the fuel salt comprises 34 mol% U. The U235 in this embodiment is enriched to 5-20%.
The examiner suggests the following recitations:
Claims 4, 15, 16: wherein the molten salt fuel is a mixture of NaCl, UCl3, and PuCl3, wherein the UCl3 is 25-30 mol% of the molten salt fuel, wherein the PuCl3 is 5-30 mol% PuCl3
Claims 5, 18, 19: wherein the molten salt fuel is a mixture of NaCl and UCl3, wherein the UCl3 is 34 mol% of the molten salt fuel, wherein the uranium of the UCl3 is enriched to 5-20% U235.
Applicant should remove the “with depleted uranium/HALEU” recitations from claims 4 and 5.
12. Regarding claim 6, it is unclear whether he recitation “molten salt fuel liquid” is intended to refer to the “molten salt fuel liquid” previously introduced in claim 1. Additionally, the limitation “between the central zone and peripheral zone at which it is deflected” is unclear. Claim 3 recites that the molten salt fuel liquid “is deflected “towards a top of the peripheral zone” and “towards a bottom of the peripheral zone.” Is claim 6 intended to recite that it is the second shell that causes the deflection? Applicant is reminded that functional language should clearly delimit what structure is responsible for performing the recited function.
13. Regarding claim 14, the imitation recited therein is indefinite because it is not directed to particular structure of the claimed nuclear reactor. Rather, the recitation encompasses 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). Claim 14 is dependent on claim 11, which is directed to “a molten salt nuclear reactor.” Thus, claim 14 should specify a further structural limitation of that nuclear reactor. It is unclear what further structure must be present in the reactor of claim 11 to make it perform the functional limitation of claim 14.
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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) containing a molten salt fuel (102, [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]).
21. 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.
22. 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
23. 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/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. Depleted uranium contains Pu, so if such a uranium source was used, the fuel would be a mixture of NaCl3, UCl3, and PuCl3.
24. 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 rising molten salt fuel liquid between the central zone and the peripheral zone at which it is deflected (see Fig. 1C).
25. 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).
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 14 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 Tiberga et al., (Cited on the IDS dated 12/18/23).
31. Regarding claim 14, such an operating parameter of a nuclear reactor is 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 output power (based on the uranium concentration in the fuel and the resultant neutron spectrum dictated by core geometry).
Double Patenting
32. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
33. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
34. The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
35. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
36. Claims 1-10, 12, 14-16, and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application Nos. 18/542,987 and 18/542,937 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same limitations are repeated throughout the claims of the three applications, making them patentably indicting from one another. For example, claim 3 of the instant application anticipates claim 1 of ‘987 and claim 1 of ‘937.
37. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
1 Cambridge Dictionary at dictionary.cambridge.org.
Prosecution Insights