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 and Claim Status
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species A1 in the reply filed on 01/20/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because the requirement for restriction was made under the “Unity of Invention” concept and there is no requirement in such a restriction that there be a search burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
2. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6-18, and 21-24 are pending. Claims 22-24 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 6-18, and 21 are examined herein.
Drawings
3. 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 ceramic coating of claim 8 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
4. 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.
5. Claims 2-3, 7-8, 10-13, and 21 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.
6. Regarding claims 3 and 21, the recitations “wherein the support section further comprises one of…” in claim 3 and “further comprising a face…comprising isotopically enriched tungsten” in claim 21 are unclear in view of claim 1, which introduces a support section of natural tungsten. How can the support section comprise both natural tungsten and one of the materials listed in claim 3? Is the face a portion of the support section such that the support section comprises both natural tungsten and enriched tungsten? The claims appear to be inconsistent with the specification (MPEP 2173.03), which discloses that the support section 420 could be either W ([0061] or one of the materials listed in claim 3 ([0063]). The disclosed component comprises a support section 420 and a separate element 410 that is made up of isotopically enriched W ([0064]).
7. Regarding claim 2, the recitation “decreases as a function of depth into the component” is unclear. Claim 21 introduces a “face” that comprises isotopically enriched tungsten, while claim 1 introduces “an outer layer [of a conduit] comprising isotopically enriched tungsten. Which isotopically enriched tungsten element does claim 2 refer to? How would one determine what direction is the depth of the component without a reference point?
8. Regarding claims 7 and 8, it is unclear how the inner layer of claim 6, which is formed from one of several metal or alloys can also comprise “a ceramic coating”? It would seem that such a coating would be a separate layer of the conduit and not part of the inner layer. One cannot interpret this limitation in light of the specification because the disclosure never mentions such a feature.
9. Regarding claims 10-13, it is unclear whether the isotopes referred to in these claims are the “lighter isotopes” of tungsten introduced in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
13. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiba et al., US 2002/0015466 in view of Reiser et al., WO 2013/053500, in further view of Vroon et al., WO 2009/045106.
14. Regarding claim 1 Akiba discloses, a component (Fig. 2) for an apparatus that produces a neutron flux ([0001]), the component comprising: a support section (14+30) of natural tungsten ([0035]); and at least one conduit (opening) formed in the support section for the flow of a liquid, gas or molten salt ([0035]).
Akiba does not disclose a multiwalled conduit. Reiser teaches a component (Fig. 16A/D) for an apparatus that produces neutron flux (lines 25-28), comprising a support section (21’) and a conduit (1) formed in the support section, wherein the at least one conduit comprises: an outer layer (1’) comprising tungsten having a greater proportion of lighter isotopes of tungsten than natural tungsten; and an inner layer (4) comprising a material that is non-permeable to the liquid or gas or molten salts (lines 1745-1788).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the multiwalled cooling conduit taught by Reiser in the component of Akiba because Reiser teaches that the tungsten outer layer protects the steel inner layer from high heat loads (see lines 32-53).
Neither Akiba nor Reiser disclose the use of isotopically enriched tungsten materials. Vroon does (see pp. 10-11). Vroon teaches that enriching the tungsten used as a structural material in a fusion reactor in the lighter isotopes (by removing the heaviest W-186 isotope) avoids neutron-induced transmutation and activation, thereby mitigating degradation of the physical chemical, and mechanical properties of the tungsten (see p. 11). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ tungsten isotopically enriched in lighter isotopes in the outer layer of the conduit as taught by Reiser in the component of Akiba to predictably avoid degradation of the tungsten under neutron exposure.
15. Regarding claim 3, the modification of Akiba as taught by Reiser and Vroon makes claim 1 obvious. Akiba further discloses the support section further comprising molybdenum ([0035]).
16. Regarding claim 6, the modification of Akiba as taught by Reiser and Vroon makes claim 1 obvious. Reiser further teaches the inner layer comprising ferritic- or austenitic-based steels (lines 32-40, 496-523). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply Reiser’s conduit to the component of Akiba for the reason stated above.
17. Regarding claim 9, the modification of Akiba as taught by Reiser and Vroon makes claim 1 obvious. Vroon further states the relative abundance of isotopes in natural tungsten (see p. 11). The recitation of claim 9 is an inherent physical property of any natural tungsten.
18. Regarding claims 10-13, the modification of Akiba as taught by Reiser and Vroon makes claim 1 obvious. Vroon further teaches isotopically enriched tungsten enriched in isotopes of atomic weight 182, 183, and 184 (see pp. 10-11: the removal of the 186 isotope results in tungsten enriched to 37% W-182, 20% W-183, and 43% W-184). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply Vroon’s teaching of isotopically enriched tungsten to the component of Akiba as modified by Reiser for the reason stated above.
19. Regarding claims 14-17, the modification of Akiba as taught by Reiser and Vroon makes claim 1 obvious. Akiba further discloses a component wherein the support section has a thickness of 2.5 mm ([0031]), which falls within the ranges recited in claims 14-17 Reiser further teaches a conduit outer layer having a thickness of 1 mm (lines 1688-1698; 1778-1788+326-334), falling within the range recited in claim 17. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply Reiser’s conduit to the component of Akiba for the reason stated above.
20. Regarding claim 21, the modification of Akiba as taught by Reiser and Vroon makes claim 1 obvious. Akiba further discloses the component further comprising a face that, in use, faces the source of neutron flux, and extends across the support section, the face comprising tungsten (see Fig. 2, the top surface of 30 and [0035]).
Neither Akiba does not disclose the use of isotopically enriched tungsten materials. Vroon does (see pp. 10-11). Vroon teaches that enriching the tungsten used as a structural material in a fusion reactor in the lighter isotopes (by removing the heaviest W-186 isotope) avoids neutron-induced transmutation and activation, thereby mitigating degradation of the physical chemical, and mechanical properties of the tungsten (see p. 11). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ tungsten isotopically enriched in lighter isotopes in plasma facing layer of the component of Akiba to predictably avoid degradation of the tungsten under neutron exposure.
22. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiser et al., WO 2013/053500, in further view of Vroon et al., WO 2009/045106.
23. Regarding claim 18, Reiser teaches a divertor (Fig. 16A/D) for a nuclear fusion reactor comprising a support section (21’) of natural tungsten and at least one conduit (1) for the flow of a liquid, gas or molten salt; the least one conduit comprising: an outer layer (1’) comprising tungsten; and an inner layer (4) comprising a material that is non-permeable to the liquid or gas or molten salts (lines 1745-1788).
Reiser does disclose the use of isotopically enriched tungsten materials. Vroon does (see pp. 10-11). Vroon teaches that enriching the tungsten used as a structural material in a fusion reactor in the lighter isotopes (by removing the heaviest W-186 isotope) avoids neutron-induced transmutation and activation, thereby mitigating degradation of the physical chemical, and mechanical properties of the tungsten (see p. 11). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ tungsten isotopically enriched in lighter isotopes in the outer layer of Reiser’s conduit to predictably avoid degradation of the tungsten under neutron exposure.
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
25. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach varying isotopic enrichment of a tungsten component along any dimension.
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.
Additional References
The attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892) cites additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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