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, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-23 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 amendments to the specification submitted 04/03/26 overcome the drawing objections.
4. It is noted that Applicant’s statement “it is believed that the first reflector 6, could illustrate a neutron reflector” is found inconsistent with the disclosure as filed. Element 6 in Figs. 1, 3, and 4 is a “deflector” responsible for directing the flow of molten fuel salt through the coolant loop (see [0073] of the published application US20240203613A1). It is unreasonable to expect that a skilled artisan would interpret such a structure to be a neutron reflector.
5. It is also noted that the language of claim 3 “a neutron reflector, arranged at a periphery of the reactor core against the reactor tank” does not require that the neutron reflector be outside the reactor tank as is illustrated in Fig. 5.
Response to Arguments
6. The claim amendments have introduced new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See below.
7. Regarding the rejection of previously recited claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and currently presented claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Cisneros, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fuel salt circulation solely by natural convection) 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). The reactor of Cisneros plainly circulates molten salt fuel through its primary circuit by natural circulation (see at least [0014-15], [0031]). That Cisneros also employs a pump to enhance molten salt flow does not preclude Cisneros from anticipating claim 1 as currently presented.
8. Applicant’s 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 Objections
9. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: they are inconsistent with the amendment to claim 1 introducing “a primary circuit comprising molten salt fuel” and still recite “the molten salt fuel liquid of the primary circuit.” The rest of claim 1 and the dependent claims should be amended to refer to simply “the molten salt fuel.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-17, and 18-23 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.
12. Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a heat exchanger between the primary circuit of the molten salt nuclear reactor and a secondary circuit arranged inside the reactor tank” makes it unclear what is arranged inside the reactor tank? Is it the heat exchanger or the secondary circuit?
13. Claim 5 recites “wherein the first shell is an annular shell” while claim 1 introduces “a first shell formed as at least one hollow cylinder.” It is unclear how the recitation of claim 5 modifies the structure of the hollow cylinder recited already in claim 1.
14. Regarding claim 6, the recitation “so as to guide the molten salt fuel liquid rising between the top of the central zone and the bottom of the peripheral zone where the molten salt fuel liquid is deflected” does not adequately delineate the structural arrangement required between the second shell and the first shell. The function recited in claim 6 that is attributed to the second shell appears to already be present in claim 1 and attributed to the first shell. It is therefore unclear what structure the second shell must have to achieve the functional limitation of claim 6.
15. Regarding claims 11 and 13, the recitations are directed to a manner of using the claimed nuclear reactor. The dimensions of a nuclear reactor are not the only factor that would determine its operating parameters, and, accordingly, it is unclear what structure must be present to achieve the recited operating parameters. For example, what if one created a nuclear reactor with the same dimensions as the disclosed nuclear reactor but operated it at a different temperature? Would that fall within the scope of the claim? Conversely, what if one created a reactor with different dimensions and operated it at the same operating conditions? It is additionally noted that the disclosure as filed does not include any reactor core or heat exchanger dimensions, so a skilled artisan would be unable to find a suitable range of dimensions for these elements in the specification. “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).
16. Regarding claim 19, the recitation “wherein the molten salt fuel liquid of the primary circuit comprises high-assay low-enriched uranium U235 in a range from 5 to 20%” is unclear. One cannot determine whether the percentage range denotes the ratio of UCl3 in the salt or the amount of U235 in the uranium of the UCl3. Based on the specification, it is the latter interpretation that is intended. The examiner suggests “wherein the molten salt fuel comprises UCl3 enriched to 5-20% U235.”
17. Regarding claim 21, the recitation is directed to a consequence of operating the claimed reactor. It is unclear what structure must be present to achieve the desired operating power. See the above explanation with respect to claims 11 and 13 and MPEP 2173.05(g).
18. Regarding claim 22, the recitation is indefinite because it appears to be missing words. Is applicant intended to recite that a thickness of a first portion of the first shell that is arranged above the heat exchanger is 3-100% greater than a thickness of a second portion of the first shell that is arranged below the heat exchanger?
19. Regarding claim 23, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the second shell.” This limitation was introduced in claim 6 and claim 23 does not depend on claim 6.
20. 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 § 102
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cisneros, et al., US 2022/0051818.
25. Regarding claim 1, Cisneros discloses a molten salt nuclear reactor of the fast neutron reactor type (Figs. 1A and C, [0011]), comprising:
a reactor tank (110) that is axisymmetric about a central axis (see Figs. 1A and 1D), internally delimiting a primary circuit (see arrows in Fig. 1A) comprising molten salt fuel (102; [0015] “molten fuel salt”) an inside of the reactor vessel tank being stripped any moderator material ([0021], [0023]); a heat exchanger (108) between the primary circuit and a secondary circuit ([0016]), the heat exchanger arranged inside the reactor tank (see Fig. 1A);
a first shell (see annotated Fig. 1C below) formed as at least one hollow cylinder with a central axis coincident with that of the reactor tank, 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, wherein when the molten salt nuclear reactor is in operation, the molten salt fuel circulates as a molten salt fuel liquid by natural convection according to a loop from the bottom of the central zone defining a reactor core in which fission reactions take place, from which molten salt fuel rises by heating to a top of the central zone where it is deflected to the top of the peripheral zone to pass through the heat exchanger then descends to a bottom of the peripheral zone where the molten salt fuel is deflected to the reactor core (see arrows in Fig. 1C and [0018).
26. Regarding claim 3, Cisneros anticipates claim 1 and further discloses a neutron reflector (106) arranged at a periphery of the reactor core against the reactor tank (see Fig.1A) 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
27. Regarding claim 6, Cisneros anticipates claim 1 and 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 molten salt fuel liquid between the top of the central zone and the bottom of the peripheral zone where the molten salt fuel liquid is deflected (see Fig. 1C).
28. Regarding claim 12, Cisneros anticipates claim 1 and further discloses a nuclear reactor wherein the secondary fluid circulating in the heat exchanger comprises molten NaCl-MgCl2 ([0021], [0029])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Claims 4-5, 9-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros, et al., US 2022/0051818.
33. Regarding claims 4 and 5, Cisneros anticipates claim 1. Cisneros further discloses a reactor wherein the molten salt fuel liquid of the primary circuit is a mixture of NaCl-UCl3 and PuCl3 ([0028]), wherein the neutron reflector is made of graphite (0035]).
Although Cisneros does not disclose the enrichment of U235 in its fuel, uranium fuel derived from depleted uranium or HALEU, are known to a skilled artisan and thus would have been obvious to employ. Changing the enrichment of the fuel is a modification with the predictable result of influencing the fission rate and overall neutronic characteristics of the core.
34. Regarding claims 9-10, Cisneros anticipates claim 1. 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).
35. Regarding claims 15-20, anticipates claim 1. Cisneros further discloses a nuclear reactor wherein the fuel salt is 20-40% UCl3 and 1-10% PuCl3 ([0028]), ranges that encompass and overlap the claimed ranges. Accordingly, the claimed 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).
36. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros, et al., US 2022/0051818 in view of Allegre et al., WO 2015/173284.
37. Regarding claim 7, Cisneros anticipates claim 1. 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.
38. Claims 11, 13 and 21 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).
39. Regarding claims 11, 13 and 21, the recited 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 choose 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
40. 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).
41. 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).
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application Nos. 18542,962 and 18/542,937 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by claim 3 of ‘962 and claim 1 of ‘937 anticipates claims 1 and 3 of the instant application.
45. 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
Prosecution Insights