DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 19 December 2025. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The claim indicates a vertical z-axis. Thus, it is unclear whether the x-axis is horizontal or has some other orientation.
Claim 12
The wording “released the the fuel assembly” is unclear. It is unclear whether words are missing between “the the”. Thus, the claim appears to be incomplete.
Claim 13
The phrase “the extent of movement applied by electric motors mounted to the robotic arm” is unclear. The phrase lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what element is associated with the “movement”. It is unclear the “electric motors” (plural) include the “electric motor” (singular) in claim 1.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not addressed is rejected based upon dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for a robotic system comprising plural components, does not reasonably provide enablement for a single robotic arm that comprises each of a movement mechanism, an arm portion, a grab head, a telescopic portion, a grip mechanism, and an electric motor. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The recited robotic arm is outside the scope of the original specification.
Claim Interpretation
The specification is directed to a system for handling fuel in a nuclear reactor. The system includes a robotic arm and other components. The specification identifies the robotic arm by reference numerals 31, 41, or 61. The specification identifies other system components by other reference numerals. The other components are distinct from the robotic arm.
However, claim 1 is directed to a single robotic arm (claim 1 at line 1). Structure (i.e., a movement mechanism) for moving the robotic arm is inherently outside the scope of the claimed structure. Likewise, the additional features of an arm portion, a grab head, a telescopic portion, and a grip mechanism are also not a structural part of the robotic arm. Thus, the other mentioned features (a movement mechanism, an arm portion, a grab head, a telescopic portion, and a grip mechanism) are not positively recited because they are not a structural part of the “robotic arm”. That is, they are outside the scope of the claimed single robotic arm structure.
Again, claim 1 is directed solely to a single robotic arm. Thus, the only positively recited structure in claim 1 is a robotic arm which includes an electric motor. However, the skilled artisan would understand that it is conventional in the art to have a robotic arm which includes an electric motor. Thus, conventional prior art anticipates claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, and 11-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawke (US4647423) in combination with Tanaka (JPH039299A).
Hawke discloses a robotic arm (e.g., 40). It is well known in the art to employ a robotic arm with an electric motor. For example, Tanaka discloses a robotic arm (e.g.,5, 6, 2) with an electric motor (e.g.,9, 10, 11). Modification of Hawke to have conventionally employed an electric motor to enable movement of the robotic arm, as suggested by Tanaka, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Hawke also discloses (non-recited features of) a movement mechanism (41), an arm portion (54), a grab head (42), a telescopic portion (44), and grip mechanism (64).
Claims 2 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawke (US4647423) in combination with Tanaka (JPH039299A) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of either Kim ("Conceptual Design of the Pantograph Type In-Vessel Transfer Machine in PGSFR", 2013) or Engding (US 5,156,803).
As previously discussed, a grab head is not positively recited. Nevertheless, it is well known in the art to employ a pantograph head (e.g., an “end effector”) for a grab head to move along a y-axis. Kim shows a pantograph arrangement. Engding shows an end effector (15) arrangement. Further modification of Hawke to have included a pantograph to allow the grab head to move along a y-axis, as suggested by any of Kim and Engding, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawke (US4647423) in combination with Tanaka (JPH039299A) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Wiesener (US 3,780,571).
As previously discussed, an encoder is not positively recited. Nevertheless, Wiesener shows that it is well known to use encoder signals to control manipulator movement. Further modification of Hawke to have used encoder signals to control robotic arm movement, as suggested by Wiesener, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Objection to the 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 or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
a coupling between movement mechanism and arm portion (claim 1).
a further electric motor (claim 3).
encoders (claim 5).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required to avoid application abandonment. Any amended replacement sheet should include all figures appearing on the immediate prior version, even if only one figure is amended. 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 then 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.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract filed 19 December 2025 is objected to because it is not presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is too generic, and it is directed to conventional prior art. For example, it is conventional to move a nuclear refueling arrangement (which has a robotic arm) through an open top end of a nuclear containment structure in order to reach the nuclear fuel inside. The following Title is suggested: “Refueling Arrangement In Which A Robotic Arm Is Moved Horizontally Through A Nuclear Reactor Containment Structure Wall”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered. However, they are moot because they do not apply to the current combination of prior art references being used in the current rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
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).
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646