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 .
Claim Status
1. Accordingly, claims 1, 6-18, and 22-24 are pending. Claims 22-24 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 6-18 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. The arguments dated 06/15/26 have been fully considered but they fail to address many of the 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action.
3. Further, claim 18 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. and there are no arguments directed to this rejection.
Claim Objections
4. Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “the source of neutron flux” should be amended to “the neutron flux” or to “a source of the neutron flux” to be consistent with the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 1 and 6-17 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 claim 1, the recitation “decreases as a function of depth into the component” is unclear. How can one determine what direction is the depth of the component without a reference point? It seems applicant is trying to recite that “a level of isotopic enrichment decreases as a function of distance from the neutron flux.” If such an amendment is adopted, please bear in mind that it should be consistent with the amendment to address the claim objection noted above.
7. 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 Does the applicant wish to recite ”further comprising an oxide coating on a surface of the inner layer”?
8. 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. That is, it is unclear as to whether the tungsten is enriched with both “lighter isotopes” as recited in claim 1 as well as “tungsten of atomic weight of 184 or less” as recited in claim 10 or whether claim 10 intended to further limit the previously recited “lighter isotopes” to be “tungsten of atomic weight of 184 or less. In view of the amendment to claim 1, it is further unclear as to whether claim 10 is further limiting the isotopic composition of the second section or of the outer layer or of both.
9. Any claim not explicitly mentioned above is rejected because it depends on a rejected claim.
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.
12. 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.
13. 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
14. Claim 1 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.
15. 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.
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights