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
Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-14 are pending in the application. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 and 10 are examined herein.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome the Examiner’s drawing objections for Figures 1 and 2 and the 37 CFR 1.83(a) objections to show every feature specified in the claims and the lift head. The amendments also overcome the objection to the missing reference numbers 10 and 31.
Examiner withdraws the objection to Figure 4.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the Examiner’s objections to the Abstract.
Examiner withdraws the objection to the use of “may” within the specification. Applicant’s amendments overcome Examiner’s other specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every of the Examiner’s objections and indefiniteness rejections, with the exception of the rejections relating to the structural connections between the monitoring equipment, drip tray, dehumidifier, seal and negative pressure system and the lift system or the radiation shield.
Regarding claims 1 the amendments have not overcome the 103 rejections, but further explanation of the application of the original art rejections have been provided in the 103 rejection section below. The original 103 rejection is maintained and a second rejection using the original references has been provided.
Regarding claim 2-8, and 10, the amendments have not overcome the 103 rejections. The original 103 rejections for these claims are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Aoki does not disclose the requirement of amended claim 1 that "the lift head and the radiation shielding are configured to encase the reactor pressure vessel head when removed from the nuclear reactor pressure vessel," or the requirement that "the lift head and the radiation shielding are configured to ... encase head package contents removed from the reactor pressure vessel with the reactor pressure vessel head." The hanging tool 20, RPV shield body 21, and protective arrangement 12-16 of Aoki (collectively, the lifting apparatus) are used only for lifting the whole RPV out of and into a containment structure-not for encasing the RPV head and head package contents while the RPV body remains in place,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Malandra discloses removing the reactor pressure vessel head and contained internals, while Aoki teaches encasing whatever part of the reactor pressure vessel is being moved within shielding. Malandra and Aoki combined teach wherein the radiation shielding is configured to be connected to the lift head such that the lift head and the radiation shielding are configured to encase the reactor pressure vessel head when removed from the nuclear reactor pressure vessel and encase head package contents removed from the nuclear pressure vessel with the reactor pressure vessel head.
In response to applicant’s argument that “neither reference [Malandra nor Aoki] discloses or suggests a lift head and radiation shielding that encase the reactor pressure vessel head and head package contents while the reactor pressure vessel body remains in place for refueling”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/17/2026.
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 following features:
the lift head connected to the radiation shield in figure 3
the connected lift head and radiation shield encasing the reactor pressure vessel head in figure 3 (these are shown as separate parts and do not encase the reactor pressure vessel head as there are very obvious gaps between the side of the radiation shield on the bottom and between the lift head and top of the radiation shield.)
the coupling mechanism to couple the winch to the reactor pressure vessel head
the rails on the floor or the gantry on the ceiling
the second radiation shield must be shown relative to the other recited components of claim 1, as required by claim 10. The second radiation shield should be shown in figure 3 so that its arrangement relative to the first radiation shield, the lift head, the RPV head, etc., is clear.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of claim 1 are rendered indefinite by the use of “gantry” in line 16. A gantry is a frame structure raised on side supports, so it is unclear what is meant by “gantry on a ceiling” in claim 1. A gantry crane is a well-known type of crane, but as this claim is written it seems to be directed to a ceiling mounted crane which is an overhead type of crane and not a gantry crane. It is unclear what type of crane is meant by “the crane … is mounted on …a gantry on a ceiling” and thus the metes and bounds for this claim cannot be understood.
Claim 2 is rendered indefinite by the phrase “configured to be closed”. It is unclear whether this means that the radiation shield is configured to create a permanently closed chamber around the reactor pressure vessel head or whether the shielding is close-able and openable. The metes and bounds of this limitation cannot be determined.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the implementation of the monitoring equipment, drip tray, dehumidifier and the seal and negative pressure system and how they are connected to the lift head system.
While Applicant included block diagram of components showing they are inside the system of the lift head or the radiation shield, the block diagram does not include any details showing how these structures are connected. It is unclear how a radiation shield that has a bottom which opens and closes can also have a leak proof drip tray along that bottom, which must also split apart in some fashion. Similarly, it is unclear how a structure designed to split open to surround an object can also have a connected seal and a negative pressure system, which is air tight. These structural connections cannot be shown in a mere block diagram and simply saying they exist in the system does not define how they are connected to the system.
The above 112(b) rejections are maintained.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the implementation of the second radiation shield relative to the lift system and core internals of claim 1 and how it is connected to the system. It is unclear what the connection is between the first and second radiation shield.
Any claim not specifically discussed in the section above is rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malandra et al. (US 5225150 A) in view of Aoki (US 20020122523 A).
Regarding claim 1, Malandra discloses (Figs. 1-3) a lift system (fig. 3) for a nuclear reactor pressure vessel head of a nuclear reactor pressure vessel, the lift system comprising:
a crane (102) comprising a support and a winch (104) extendible from a retracted position to a lowered position;
a coupling mechanism (88 col. 5 lines 23-26) operable to couple the winch to the reactor pressure vessel head (col. 4 lines 58-60);
a lift head system (92, 70) for the nuclear reactor pressure vessel, the lift head system comprising:
a lift head (Fig. 3 item 84, 92) configured to be coupled to and removed from the reactor pressure vessel head (Fig. 3 item 50) of the nuclear reactor pressure vessel (Fig. 1 item 24); and
radiation shielding (Fig. 3 item 70), wherein the radiation shielding (item 70) is configured to be connected to the lift head (item 92) such that the lift head (item 92) and the radiation shielding (item 70) are configured to attach to the reactor pressure vessel head (item 50) when removed from the nuclear reactor pressure vessel (item 24) and hold head package contents (Fig. 2 item 42) removed from the nuclear reactor pressure vessel with the reactor pressure vessel head (Fig. 2 shows contents 42 instrumentation removed along with the head), and
wherein the crane (102) is coupled to the lift head system (22) and is mounted on rail on a floor or a gantry (see gantry beam in Fig. 3, crane has wheels to move along the gantry) on a ceiling so as to be mobile (col. 5 lines 23-26).
Malandra does not disclose that the lift head and the radiation shielding encase the reactor pressure vessel head or that they encase head package contents.
Aoki does teach this as explained above in response to arguments section. Aoki is in the same art area of nuclear reactors and teaches (Fig. 11) a lift head system for a nuclear reactor pressure vessel having radiation shielding (item 21), wherein the lift head (hanging tool 20) and the radiation shielding (item 21) are configured to encase the reactor pressure vessel (item 1a) and to encase head package contents (as shown in Fig. 11, because the shielding 21 extends nearly the entire length of the vessel, any contents hanging from the head 1a are also encased by the shielding 21). The combination of Aoki’s radiation shielding, which encasing the entire part of the reactor vessel being moved, with the apparatus of Malandra, which moves just the reactor pressure vessel head and contents, would have produced a lift head system configured to encase the reactor pressure vessel head and all head contents in the lift head and radiation shielding, when removed from the reactor pressure vessel when lifted.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, because the technique of shielding the entire part of the reactor pressure vessel being lifted by a crane was part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, in view of the prior art teachings of Aoki. A person of ordinary skill, using the known technique of shielding the entire part of the reactor pressure vessel being lifted by a crane taught by Aoki to modify Malandra's reactor pressure vessel head lift head apparatus would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a lift head system connectable and removable to the reactor pressure vessel head with radiation shielding that encases the reactor pressure vessel head and all head contents removed from the reactor pressure when lifted. The skilled person's motivation for the combination would have been to shield more radioactive rays from the radioactive RPV (see Aoki paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 3, Malandra in view of Aoki teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Malandra further discloses wherein the lift head system is provided with a mechanism for fastening and unfastening bolts (54) connecting the reactor pressure vessel head (50) to the nuclear reactor pressure vessel (24) ("the reactor head 50 is unbolted from its attachment to the vessel," col. 5, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 2, Malandra in view of Aoki teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Aoki teaches wherein the radiation shielding is configured to be closed to house the reactor pressure vessel head (e.g., as shown in Fig. 11 item 21, the shield may be arranged to close around the RPV head). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective date of filling of the invention, to have utilized this shape of shield in order to, as described by Aoki in paragraph 53 and 57-58, fully shield the radioactive rays of the vessel while allowing it to be attached and moved simultaneously with the RPV in various configurations based on the design of the RPV.
Regarding claim 4, Malandra in view of Aoki teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Aoki teaches wherein the lift head or the radiation shielding comprises closable access portals (Aoki Fig. 4 items 17 and 18 and Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment paragraph 48). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the application, to have included closable portal in the RPV housing for ease of access during maintenance as described by Aoki in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment paragraph 48.
Regarding claim 10, Malandra in view of Aoki teaches all the elements of the parent claims. Additionally, Aoki teaches wherein the lift system further comprises a second radiation shield for shielding one or more removed core internals that have been separated from the nuclear reactor pressure vessel (Aoki Fig. 13 item 12 and Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment paragraph 50). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the application, to have included a protective wall described by Aoki in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment paragraph 51 to provide support for guides for the RPV head and cushioning in case of an accidental dropping.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malandra and Aoki, as combined above, further in view of Meuschke (US 4666658).
Regarding claim 5, the above-described combination of Malandra and Aoki teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not teach wherein the lift head or radiation shielding comprises monitoring equipment arranged to monitor one or more core internals.
Meuschke does. Meuschke is in the same nuclear reactor art area and teaches wherein the lift head or radiation shielding comprises monitoring equipment arranged to monitor one or more core internals (Figure 8 items 45 and 159, Figure 11 item 181 and Description of the Preferred Embodiments Column 6 Lines 3 through 21).
The combination of Malandra and Aoki in view of Meuschke would have produced a lift head system with monitoring equipment to monitor core internals. This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Malandra and Aoki, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Meuschke's monitoring equipment with Malandra's apparatus and Aoki's radiation shielding would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of the lift head system from claim 1, wherein the lift head system is provided with monitoring equipment to monitor the core internals. The skilled person's motivation for the combination would have been to monitor loading on core internals while moving. (Description of the Preferred Embodiment Column 6 Lines 6-17).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malandra and Aoki, as combined above, further in view of Lecas (GB2092099A).
Regarding claim 6, the above-described combination of Malandra and Aoki teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not teach wherein the lift head or the radiation shielding comprises a drip tray positioned to catch residual water from the reactor pressure vessel head or the head package contents.
Lecas does. Lecas is solving the same problem and in the same nuclear reactor art area by attaching a collection tray attached to a crane and teaches wherein the lift head or the radiation shielding comprises a drip tray positioned to catch residual water from the reactor pressure vessel head or the head package contents ("recovery tank," Description Specification Page 4 Lines 5-9).
The combination of Malandra and Aoki in view of Lecas would have produced a lift head system with a drip tray. This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Malandra and Aoki, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Lecas's drip tray with Malandra's apparatus and Aoki's radiation shielding would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of the lift head system from claim 1, wherein the lift head system is provided with a drip tray. The skilled person's motivation for the combination would have been to collect any primary coolant that may escape (as explained by Lecas, Description Specification Page 4 Lines 5-9).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malandra and Aoki, as combined above, further in view of Xu (CN 204643662 U).
Regarding claim 7, the above-described combination of Malandra and Aoki teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not teach wherein the lift head or the radiation shielding comprises a dehumidifier arranged to remove residual water from the reactor pressure vessel head or the head package contents.
Xu does. Xu is solving the same problem and teaches wherein the lift head or the radiation shielding comprises a dehumidifier arranged to remove residual water from the reactor pressure vessel head or the head package contents (Figure 2 item 12).
The combination of Malandra and Aoki in view of Xu would have produced a lift head system with a dehumidifier. This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Malandra and Aoki, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Xu's dehumidifier with Malandra's apparatus and Aoki's radiation shielding would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of the lift head system according to claim 1, wherein the lift head system is provided with a dehumidifier. The skilled person's motivation for the combination would have been to clear away residual moisture and avoid exposing the engine to wetness and rust (Xu, Abstract, see "Beneficial Effect. ").
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malandra and Aoki, as combined above, further in view of Lytle (US 3008747).
Regarding claim 8, the above-described combination of Malandra and Aoki teaches all the elements of the parent claim and a seal (Malandra Fig 1 item 54), but does not teach wherein the lift head or the radiation shielding comprises a negative pressure system. Additionally, Malandra teaches to contain any irradiated components (Malandra is capable of this intended use. Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment Column 6 Lines 3-11).
Lytle does. Lytle is in the same lift head area and teaches wherein the lift head system is provided with a seal and a negative pressure system (Lytle Fig. 1 item 10 and column 2 lines 1 -15) arranged to contain irradiated components.
The combination of Malandra and Aoki in view of Lytle would have produced a lift head system with a seal and negative pressure system to contain any irradiated components. This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Malandra and Aoki, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Lytle's vacuum system with Malandra's apparatus and Aoki's radiation shielding would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of the lift head system for a nuclear reactor pressure vessel according to claim 1, wherein the lift head system is provided with a seal and a negative pressure system to contain any irradiated components.
The skilled person's motivation for the combination would have been to have a reliable vacuum pressure system that can maintain the negative pressure in the lift head even if the primary pump fails (Lytle column 1 Lines 33-40).
Claim 1 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US 20020122523 A) in view of Malandra et al. (US 5225150 A).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki discloses (Figs. 4, 8, and 11) a lift system (19, 20) for a nuclear reactor pressure vessel, the lift system comprising:
a crane (19) comprising a support and a winch extendible from a retracted position to a lowered position (see fig. 4);
a coupling mechanism (see hooks on the end of crane in fig. 4) operable to couple the winch to the reactor pressure vessel head (bolts 1b [0055]);
a lift head system (20, 21a) for the nuclear reactor pressure vessel (1), the lift head system comprising:
a lift head (20) configured to be coupled to and removed from the reactor pressure vessel head (see round dome on top of 1) of the nuclear reactor pressure vessel (1); and
radiation shielding (21), wherein the radiation shielding (21) is configured to be connected to the lift head (21a [0055]) such that the lift head (20) and the radiation shielding (21) are configured to encase the reactor pressure vessel head when removed from the nuclear reactor vessel and encase head package contents removed from the nuclear reactor pressure vessel with the reactor pressure vessel head (Aoki’s lift head and shielding are capable of fulfilling this intended use recitation; as shown in Fig. 11, because Aoki’s apparatus encases the head and body of the RPV, then it is also capable of encasing the head alone), and
wherein the crane (19) is coupled to the lift head system (20, 21a, 1b) and is mounted on a floor so as to be mobile (Fig. 4: the crane appears to be mounted on conveyer wheels so as to be mobile).
Aoki does not explicitly disclose that the reactor pressure vessel head and head package contents are removed from the nuclear reactor pressure vessel or that the crane is mounted on rail or a gantry on a ceiling.
Malandra does teach this. Malandra is in the same nuclear art area of nuclear reactor maintenance modifications. Malandra teaches a reactor pressure vessel head (50) and head package contents (Fig. 2 item 42) are removed from the nuclear reactor pressure vessel (abstract) and the crane is mounted on rail on a floor or a gantry (see gantry beam in Fig. 3, crane has wheels to move along the gantry) on a ceiling so as to be mobile (col. 5 lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Aoki’s structures, disclosed in Figures 4, 8, and 11, with Malandra’s head separation and crane details, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. The motivation to combine would have been to simplify and facilitate reactor maintenance steps, by allowing the reactor head to be safely handled (Malandra col. 2 lines 54-56) and to provide an arrangement that enables the whole integrated head package 22 to be removed from the reactor as a unit for servicing the contents of the reactor vessel 24 (col. 4, ll. 51-53)
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY MARIE COOPERRIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-0532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET..
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/K.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights