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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP 818.01(a).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 and 21-23 are pending in the application and examined herein.
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. Therefore, the feature of “the differing types of rotatable fuel rods comprise fuel rods of differing enrichments, compositions, materials, and sizes” in claim 6 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. 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 Objections
Claims 5, 8, 13, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: “differing types of guide tubes” should be amended to recite “differing types of the plurality of guide tubes”
Claim 8: “from at least one sensor” should be amended to recite “from the at least one sensor”
Claims 13 and 23: “the testing and education microreactor” should be amended to recite “the
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes a “microreactor”. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear if the term “microreactor” is intending to describe a size of the reactor, an operating power output of the reactor, and/or something else.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “area within the reactor configured to store an item therein for experimentation” and the “experimental region”. It is further unclear if the “experimental region” is intending to refer to a “region” (e.g., an area or a portion) of the “microreactor”, a “region” of the “reactor core”, a “region” of the “central testing cavity”/“area”, or something else.
Claim 1 recites “a moveable multi-layer particle filter ring configured to tailor a neutron energy spectrum within an experimental region while providing neutronic isolation of the reactor core from feedback effects originating the central testing cavity, comprising a neutron absorbing layer adjacent to another metal layer”. It is unclear the relationship between the “area within the reactor configured to store an item therein for experimentation” and the “experimental region”. It is further unclear if the “experimental region” is intending to refer to a “region” (e.g., an area or a portion) of the “microreactor”, a “region” of the “reactor core”, a “region” of the “central testing cavity”/“area”, or something else. The phrase “while providing neutronic isolation of the reactor core from feedback effects originating the central testing cavity” also appears to be incomplete. Additionally, it is unclear what feature “compris[es] a neutron absorbing layer”. Further, the claim recites “another metal layer”, suggesting at least two “metal layer[s]”. However, there is no prior recitation of a “metal layer”.
Claim 3 recites “the first beam port and the second beam port are positioned horizontally on opposing sides of the microreactor” and “the third beam port and the fourth beam port are positioned vertically on opposing sides of the microreactor”. It is unclear what is meant by the “beam port[s]” being “positioned horizontally” or “positioned vertically”. Examiner notes, the figures would appear to show each of the beam ports (115) extending radially from a center of the reactor core. Further, it is unclear if the “opposing sides” are referring to the same “opposing sides”.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the rotating control drum is one of a plurality of rotating control drums positioned at a periphery of the reactor core”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “a plurality of rotating control drums”. Thus, it is unclear the relationship between the previously recited “plurality of rotating control drums” and the “rotating control drum” and “plurality of rotating control drums” recited in claim 4.
Claim 6 recites “the differing types of rotatable fuel rods”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim. While parent claim 5 previously recites “differing types of the plurality of fuel rods”, there is no prior recitation of the “fuel rods” being “rotatable”.
Claim 8 recites “the radial and azimuthal oscillations”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim. While claim 7 recites “the at least one sensor is configured to detect radial and azimuthal oscillations”, claim 8 depends on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “measuring a dosimetry of at least one of the plurality of fuel rods”. It is unclear if the “at least one of the plurality of fuel rods” is intending to refer to the same fuel rod as the previously recited “at least one of the plurality of fuel rods”.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the at least one fuel rod sensor is monitored axially through placement of the plurality of guide tubes in between the plurality of fuel rods”. It is unclear what is meant by the “sensor” being “monitored axially” and how “placement of the plurality of guide tubes in between the plurality of fuel rods” enables the “sensor” to be “monitored axially”. Is the claim intending to recite that the plurality of guide tubes are placed in between the plurality of fuel rods and the plurality of fuel rods are monitored axially by placement of the fuel rod sensor in one of the plurality of guide tubes (see instant specification, [0016])?
Claim 11 recites “the testing cavity is dimensioned and positioned to provide minimal feedback to the reactor core”. It is unclear how the “dimension[]” and “position[]” of the “cavity” enable “minimal feedback to the reactor core”. It is further unclear what the term “feedback” is intending to refer to in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the testing cavity comprises instrumented loops and containers for physics and chemistry testing of at least one type of fuel”. It is unclear the relationship between the “instrumented loops and containers” and the previously recited “central testing cavity disposed in an area within the reactor configured to store an item therein for experimentation” and “experimental region” in parent claim 1. It is further unclear the relationship between the “at least one type of fuel” and the previously recited “plurality of fuel rods” in parent claim 1.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the at least one machine learning routine is employed in association with in-situ detection of the testing cavity for control of experiments, inference of physics and chemistry parameters, and control of a radiation field within the testing cavity”. It is unclear the relationship between the “in-situ detection” and the previously recited “at least one sensor”. It is also unclear the relationship between the “experiments” and the previously recited “experimentation”. It is further unclear what the “physics and chemistry parameters” are parameters of.
Claim 15 recites “an annulus formed of a moveable material to emulate reactor dosimetry, the annuli being adjustable in coordination with the plurality of fuel rods”. It is unclear the relationship between the “moveable material” and the “moveable multi-layer particle filter ring” previously recited in parent claim 1. It is further unclear what feature(s) of the “annulus” enable the “annulus” to “emulate reactor dosimetry”. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the annuli”. While the claim previously recites a singular “annulus”, there is no prior recitation of plural “annuli”.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the at least one sensor is a plurality of sensors part of a CHANDLER-type multi-modal detector system”. The claim would appear to be incomplete. It is further unclear what distinguishes a “CHANDLER multi-modal detector system” from a “CHANDLER-type multi-modal detector system”.
Claim 21 recites “a moveable particle filter ring” and a “moveable spectrum shifter”. It is unclear the scope of the structure(s) encompassed by these features as these do terms do not appear to be known terms in the art. For example, it is unclear what “particle[s]” the “moveable particle filter ring” is intended to “filter” and what feature of the “moveable particle filter ring” enables it to “filter”.
Claim 22 recites “the radial and azimuthal oscillations”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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 1-5, 9-11, 15, and 21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Capabilities and Facilities Available at the Advanced Test Reactor to Support Development of the Next Generation Reactors” (“Grover2005”).
Regarding claim 1, Grover2005 (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 3-4) discloses a reactor (“Advanced Test Reactor”, “ATR”) for testing and education, comprising:
a reactor core (“reactor core”) comprising a plurality of fuel rods (FIG. 2, p. 6: “Anything from scaled-down reactor fuel rod bundles to core structural materials can be irradiated in these pressurized water loops”), a plurality of guide tubes (“umbilical tube”, “mini-in-pile tubes”, “MIPTs”) (p. 4: “The umbilical tube is used to house the instrument leads ... and temperature control gas lines”; p. 5: “The ITV in-core hardware is made up of three irradiation positions (called mini-in-pile tubes [MIPTs] consisting of a pressure tube with an internal concentric gas channel tube”), and a plurality of rotating control drums (“control drum”, “control cylinder”) configured to control operation of the reactor (p. 2: “The ATR’s unique horizontal rotating control drum system (termed outer shim control cylinders) provides stable axial/vertical flux profiled for experiments throughout each reactor operating cycle”);
a central testing cavity (“irradiation positions”, “flux trap”, “specimen capsule”) disposed in an area within the reactor configured to store an item therein for experimentation (p. 2: “77 irradiation positions”, “a 3 by 3 array of prime irradiation locations in the core termed flux traps”);
a plurality of beam ports1 (“in-pile tube”, “IPT”) (p. 6: “Five of the ATR flux traps contain In-Pile Tubes (IPT).... [T]he test specimens within the IPT are still subjected to the high intensity neutron and gamma flux environment of the reactor. The IPT extends completely through the reactor vessel”);
a moveable2 multi-layer particle filter ring (“aluminum filler sleeve”, “thermal neutron filtering materials”) configured to tailor a neutron energy spectrum within an experimental region while providing neutronic isolation of the reactor core from feedback effects originating the central testing cavity, comprising a neutron absorbing layer (“[t]hermal neutron filtering material”) adjacent to a metal layer (“aluminum filler sleeve”), the moveable particle filter ring surrounding the central testing cavity (p. 5: “The pressure tube and the gas channel tubes were assembled as a unit and all three units were installed into the reactor surrounded by an aluminum filler sleeve.... Thermal neutron filtering materials can be included as part of the experiment assembly inside the MIPT or they can be located in a channel outside of the aluminum filler specifically provided for this purpose. The outside filler material is replaceable during reactor outages.... By using external filters, high neutron absorption can be retained for long durations by simply replacing filters”);
at least one sensor (p. 4: “The umbilical tube is used to house the instrument leads (thermocouples, pressure taps, etc.) and temperature control gas lines from the irradiation position within the reactor core to the reactor vessel wall”, “Temperature measurements are typically taken with at least two thermocouples per capsule”; p. 6: “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry”);
at least one computing device (“Loop Operating Control System”, “LOCS”) comprising at least one hardware processor in communication with the at least one sensor (p. 6: “The loops are connected to a state-of-the-art computer control system. This system controls, monitors, and provides emergency functions and alarms for each loop”, “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry. All of these parameters can be monitored by the Loop Operating Control System (LOCS)”); and
program instructions stored in memory and executable in the at least one computing device that, when executed, direct the at least one computing device to receive measurements from the at least one sensor and perform an analysis of the reactor based at least in part on the measurements (p. 6: “The loops are connected to a state-of-the-art computer control system. This system controls, monitors, and provides emergency functions and alarms for each loop”, “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry. All of these parameters can be monitored by the Loop Operating Control System (LOCS)”).
Regarding claim 2, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of beam ports comprises a first one of the beam ports, a second one of the beam ports, a third one of the beam ports, and a fourth one of the beam ports (FIG. 1, p. 6: “Five of the ATR flux traps contain In-Pile Tubes (IPT).... [T]he test specimens within the IPT are still subjected to the high intensity neutron and gamma flux environment of the reactor. The IPT extends completely through the reactor vessel”);
Regarding claim 3, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 2 and further discloses the first beam port and the second beam port are positioned on a first pair of opposing sides of the reactor and the third beam port and the fourth beam port are positioned on a second pair of opposing sides of the reactor (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of rotating control drums are positioned at a periphery of the reactor core (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and further discloses the reactor core comprises differing types of the plurality of fuel rods and differing types of the plurality of guide tubes (“umbilical tube”, “mini-in-pile tubes”, “MIPTs”) (Abstract, p. 4: “The umbilical tube is used to house the instrument leads ... and temperature control gas lines”; p. 5: “The ITV in-core hardware is made up of three irradiation positions (called mini-in-pile tubes [MIPTs] consisting of a pressure tube with an internal concentric gas channel tube”).
Regarding claim 9, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and further discloses the at least one sensor is at least one fuel rod sensor configured to measure a temperature of at least one of the plurality of fuel rods (p. 4: “The umbilical tube is used to house the instrument leads (thermocouples, pressure taps, etc.) and temperature control gas lines from the irradiation position within the reactor core to the reactor vessel wall”, “Temperature measurements are typically taken with at least two thermocouples per capsule”; p. 6: “Anything from scaled-down reactor fuel rod bundles to core structural materials can be irradiated in these pressurized water loops”, “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry”);
Regarding claim 10, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of guide tubes are placed in between the plurality of fuel rods (FIG. 1, p. 4: “The umbilical tube is used to house the instrument leads ... and temperature control gas lines”; p. 5: “The ITV in-core hardware is made up of three irradiation positions (called mini-in-pile tubes [MIPTs] consisting of a pressure tube with an internal concentric gas channel tube”; p. 6: “Five of the ATR flux traps contain In-Pile Tubes (IPT), which are connected to pressurized water loops. The other four flux trap positions currently contain capsule irradiation facilities, and have also contained the ITV”, “Anything from scaled-down reactor fuel rod bundles to core structural materials can be irradiated in these pressurized water loops”).
Regarding claim 11, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and further discloses the testing cavity is dimensioned and positioned to provide minimal feedback to the reactor core (p. 5: “The pressure tube and the gas channel tubes were assembled as a unit and all three units were installed into the reactor surrounded by an aluminum filler sleeve.... Thermal neutron filtering materials can be included as part of the experiment assembly inside the MIPT or they can be located in a channel outside of the aluminum filler specifically provided for this purpose. The outside filler material is replaceable during reactor outages.... By using external filters, high neutron absorption can be retained for long durations by simply replacing filters”); and the testing cavity comprises instrumented loops and containers for physics and chemistry testing of at least one type of fuel (FIG. 2, Abstract, p. 3: “Three major types of irradiation testing are employed in the ATR. The simplest and least expensive type is a static sealed capsule with only passive instrumentation. The next level of complexity in testing includes active instrumentation for measurement and/or control of specific testing parameters.... The last and most complex method is the pressurized water loops that are connected to in-pile tubes located in the flux traps”).
Regarding claim 15, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and further discloses an annulus (“basket”) formed of a moveable material, the annulus capable of being adjustable in coordination with the plurality of fuel rods (FIG. 2, p. 3: “The capsules are usually contained in an irradiation basket, which radially locates the capsules in the irradiation position and vertically positions them within the ATR core”).
Regarding claim 21, Grover2005 (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 3-4) discloses a reactor (“Advanced Test Reactor”, “ATR”) for testing and education, comprising:
a reactor core (“reactor core”) comprising a plurality of fuel rods (FIG. 2, p. 6: “Anything from scaled-down reactor fuel rod bundles to core structural materials can be irradiated in these pressurized water loops”), a plurality of guide tubes (“umbilical tube”, “mini-in-pile tubes”, “MIPTs”) (p. 4: “The umbilical tube is used to house the instrument leads ... and temperature control gas lines”; p. 5: “The ITV in-core hardware is made up of three irradiation positions (called mini-in-pile tubes [MIPTs] consisting of a pressure tube with an internal concentric gas channel tube”), and a plurality of rotating control drums (“control drum”, “control cylinder”) configured to control operation of the reactor (p. 2: “The ATR’s unique horizontal rotating control drum system (termed outer shim control cylinders) provides stable axial/vertical flux profiled for experiments throughout each reactor operating cycle”);
a testing cavity (“irradiation positions”, “flux trap”) disposed in an area within the reactor configured to store an item therein for experimentation (p. 2: “77 irradiation positions”, “a 3 by 3 array of prime irradiation locations in the core termed flux traps”);
a plurality of beam ports1 (“in-pile tube”, “IPT”) (p. 6: “Five of the ATR flux traps contain In-Pile Tubes (IPT).... [T]he test specimens within the IPT are still subjected to the high intensity neutron and gamma flux environment of the reactor. The IPT extends completely through the reactor vessel”);
a moveable3 particle filter ring (“aluminum filler sleeve”) and a moveable3 spectrum shifter (“thermal neutron filtering materials”) (p. 5: “The pressure tube and the gas channel tubes were assembled as a unit and all three units were installed into the reactor surrounded by an aluminum filler sleeve.... Thermal neutron filtering materials can be included as part of the experiment assembly inside the MIPT or they can be located in a channel outside of the aluminum filler specifically provided for this purpose. The outside filler material is replaceable during reactor outages.... By using external filters, high neutron absorption can be retained for long durations by simply replacing filters”);
at least one sensor (p. 6: “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry”);
at least one computing device (“Loop Operating Control System”, “LOCS”) comprising at least one hardware processor in communication with the at least one sensor (p. 6: “The loops are connected to a state-of-the-art computer control system. This system controls, monitors, and provides emergency functions and alarms for each loop”, “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry. All of these parameters can be monitored by the Loop Operating Control System (LOCS)”); and
program instructions stored in memory and executable in the at least one computing device that, when executed, direct the at least one computing device to receive measurements from the at least one sensor and perform an analysis of the reactor based at least in part on the measurements (p. 6: “The loops are connected to a state-of-the-art computer control system. This system controls, monitors, and provides emergency functions and alarms for each loop”, “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry. All of these parameters can be monitored by the Loop Operating Control System (LOCS)”);
wherein the plurality of rotating control drums are positioned at a periphery of the reactor core.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover2005 in view of US Patent No. 3,070,538 (“Spinrad”).
Regarding claim 6, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1. Grover2005 further discloses testing different types of fuel rods, but does not appear to explicitly disclose testing fuel rods of different enrichments, compositions, materials, and sizes. However, it was known in the art to test fuel rods of different enrichments, compositions, materials, and sizes. For example, Spinrad (newly cited) is similarly directed towards a reactor for testing and teaches testing fuel rods of differing enrichments, compositions, materials, and sizes (1:43-58). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to test such varying fuel rods for the predictable purpose of testing fuel elements from a wide variety of reactors as taught by Spinrad (1:43-47).
Claims 7-8 and 22, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover2005 in view of US Patent No. 3,699,338 (“Baumann”).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 22, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and claim 21. Grover2005 discloses the at least one sensor may include a variety of sensors (p. 4: “The umbilical tube is used to house the instrument leads (thermocouples, pressure taps, etc.) and temperature control gas lines from the irradiation position within the reactor core to the reactor vessel wall”, “Temperature measurements are typically taken with at least two thermocouples per capsule”; p. 6: “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry”), but does not appear to disclose the at least one sensor is configured to detect oscillations. Baumann (newly cited) is similarly directed towards a sensor in communication with a computing device (61) for monitoring a nuclear fuel rod (11) (Abstract). Baumann teaches the computing device receives radial and azimuthal oscillations detected by the sensor which may be used for reactivity analysis (Abstract, 2:49-61). It would have been obvious to a POSA to detect oscillations as taught by Baumann in Grover2005’s reactor for the predictable purpose of determining and monitoring the reactivity of the fuel rods, as taught by Baumann (2:49-61).
Claim 12, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover2005 in view of “Completing the Design of the Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Experiments for Irradiation in the Advanced Test Reactor” (“Grover2006”).
Regarding claim 12, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1. Grover2005 further discloses testing different types of fuel materials (Abstract), but does not appear to explicitly disclose testing TRISO particle fuel, TRISO pebble fuel, molten salt, or HALEU. Grover2006 (newly cited) is similarly directed towards a reactor for testing different fuel materials and teaches testing TRISO particle fuel (p. 2: “The United States Department of Energy’s Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) Fuel Development and Qualification Program will be irradiating eight separate low enriched uranium (LEU) oxycarbide (UCO) tri-isotopic (TRISO) particle fuel (in compact form) experiments in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR).... These irradiations and fuel development are being accomplished to support development of the next generation reactors in the United States. The ATR has a long history of irradiation testing in support of reactor development.... The ATR is one of the world’s premiere test reactors for performing long term, high flux, and/or large volume irradiation test programs. The AGR fuel experiments will be irradiated over the next ten years to demonstrate and qualify new particle fuel for use in high temperature gas reactors”). It would have been obvious to a POSA to test TRISO particle fuel in Grover2005’s reactor because Grover2006 teaches testing TRISO particle fuel provides the advantages of providing irradiation performance data to support fuel process development for next generation reactors (p. 2: “These irradiations and fuel development are being accomplished to support development of the next generation reactors.... The goals of the irradiation experiments are to provide irradiation performance data to support fuel process development, to qualify fuel for normal operating conditions, to support development and validation of fuel performance and fission product transport models and codes, and to provide irradiated fuel and materials for post irradiation examination (PIE) and safety testing”).
Claims 13-14 and 23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover2005 in view of US Publication No. 2021/0358647 (“Reese”).
Regarding claims 13-14 and 23, Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1 and claim 21. Grover2005 discloses the at least one computing device uses the measurements from the at least one sensor for control of experiments, inference of physics and chemistry parameters, and control of a radiation field within the testing cavity (p. 5: “The benefits of performing an instrumented lead experiment are more precise monitoring and control of the experiment parameters during irradiation”; p. 6: “The loops are connected to a state-of-the-art computer control system. This system controls, monitors, and provides emergency functions and alarms for each loop”, “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry. All of these parameters can be monitored by the Loop Operating Control System (LOCS).... This information is displayed on the Loop Operating Console and interfaces with the reactor control system”), but does not appear to disclose executing at least one machine learning routine. However, it was well-known in the art to use a machine learning routine for control and operation of a nuclear reactor. For example, Reese (newly cited) is similarly directed towards a research reactor comprising a sensor in communication with a computing device (Abstract, [0027], [0029]-[0032]). Reese teaches the computing device is directed to execute at least one machine learning routine in association with real-time control and operation of the reactor and measurements from the sensor (Abstract, [0029]-[0033]). Reese further teaches the machine learning routine provides the advantages of optimizing operation of the reactor while minimizing disruptions ([0033], [0035]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a machine learning routine as taught by Reese in Grover2005’s reactor for the predictable purpose of enhancing reactor operations, as taught by Reese.
Claim 16, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grover2005 in view of “CHANDLER R&D status” (“Huber”).
Regarding claim 16. Grover2005 discloses the reactor according to claim 1. Grover2005 discloses the at least one sensor may include a variety of sensors (p. 4: “The umbilical tube is used to house the instrument leads (thermocouples, pressure taps, etc.) and temperature control gas lines from the irradiation position within the reactor core to the reactor vessel wall”, “Temperature measurements are typically taken with at least two thermocouples per capsule”; p. 6: “A loop experiment can contain a variety of instrumentation including flow, temperature, fluence, pressure, differential pressure, fission product monitoring, and water chemistry”), but does not appear to disclose the sensors are part of a CHANDLER-type multi-modal detector system. Huber (newly cited) is similarly directed towards sensors for detecting parameters of a nuclear reactor (Abstract). Huber teaches the sensors may be part of a CHANDLER-type detector system (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a POSA to include a CHANDLER-type detector system in Grover2005’s reactor for the predictable purpose of measuring the neutrino spectrum and its composition over time to evaluate the make up of fissile material in the reactor, as taught by Huber (Abstract).
Additional References
The following references would also appear to be applicable to Applicant’s invention and are therefore cited in the attached PTO-892:
US Patent Nos. 2,832,732, 2,937,127, and 3,276,963 disclose nuclear reactors for experimentation and research including beam ports (32, 17, 44/46/48/50/52/54, respectively)
US Patent Nos. 3,164,525 and 4,127,443 and US Publication Nos. 2015/0357056 and 2022/0051821 disclose compact and/or mobile nuclear reactors with a plurality of rotating control drums (79, 32/34, 20, 130, respectively)
US Publication No. 2017/0092381 discloses a mechanism for dynamic spectrum shifting (Abstract)
US Publication No. 2025/0246334 discloses a multi-spectrum microreactor for irradiating materials, but does not constitute as prior art based upon the later effectively filed date of the reference
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
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
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 Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Examiner notes, the specification discloses “The microreactor may include beam ports to provide various openings for taking measurements and the like” ([0002]). The original disclosure does not appear to support or require, for example, that the “beam ports” be ports configured to receive an external beam.
2 Examiner further notes, the original disclosure does not appear to support or require, for example, that the “moveable multi-layer particle filter ring” be moveable during operation of the reactor or moveable in a particular manner.
3 Examiner notes, the original disclosure does not appear to support or require, for example, that the “moveable particle filter ring” or the “moveable spectrum shifter” be moveable during operation of the reactor or moveable in a particular manner.
Prosecution Insights