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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending and the subject of this NON-FINAL Office Action. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Interpretations
“Automatic injection device” is never defined; it encompasses any powder deposition device capable of being automated.
“UC container” is never defined; it encompasses any container.
“IBC blender” or intermediate bulk container blender has a common meaning in the art. It is the device shown in US6517230, Figs. 5-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR101407633B1 (IDS).
Products are defined by their physical features or structures, not how they are made. MPEP § 2113. If the claimed product made by the process of claim 1 is in fact structurally different from common UO2 powder mixtures, then Applicants must demonstrate as much. Id.
As to claim 8, KR101407633B1 teaches a UO2 powder mixture with porogen such as U3O8 powder (Examples, step 2, “The U3O8 powder prepared in the step 1 was milled . . .”), lubricant such as zinc stearate (Examples, step 3, “At this time, 0.2 wt% of zinc stearate, which is a lubricant, was added at the same time as U3O8 powder and mixed for 30 minutes using a tubular mixer.”) and UO2 powder (Examples, Step 1, “UO2 sintered pellets . . .”; “Wherein the UO2 sintered pellet is produced by adding U3O8 powder to the UO 2 powder . . .”).
As to claim 9, KR101407633B1 teaches manufacturing a UO2 molded pellet by pressing the UO2 powder mixture of claim 8 (Examples, Steps 1-3, above); manufacturing a UO2 sintered pellet by sintering the UO2 molded pellet (Examples, Step 4, “Step 4: The mixed powder mixed in step 3 was press-molded at a pressure of 100 to 500 MPa (100, 300 and 500 MPa) using a hydraulic press to prepare a molded article”); and manufacturing a UO2 ground pellet by grinding the sintered pellet so that the sintered pellet maintains a uniform diameter (Examples, Step 5, “The formed body produced in step 4 was sintered at a temperature of 1650 to 1750 ° C (1650, 1700 and 1750 ° C) for 4 hours in a hydrogen atmosphere to prepare a UO 2 sintered pellet”).
Although KR101407633B1 does not explicitly teach the resulting UO2 nuclear fuel has “a defect rate is 5% or less” or “the sintered pellet has a density of 10.30 to 10.58 g/cm3,” yet this merely recites a result of the steps recited. In other words, the method cannot be separated from its results. The claims only recites the above method steps; and any such method will yield the claimed result according to the claims. Thus, the prior art teaches the same method steps, which yield the same results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR101407633B1, in view of BAUER (US5841200) and Asakura et al, Developments in the fabrication technology of low density MOX pellets for fast breeder reactor fuel, Journal of Nuclear Materials, Volume 357, Issue 1-3, p. 126-137, 10/15/2006 (IDS), in further view of SaintyCo, IBC Blending System, https://www.saintyco.com/category/pharma-equipment/saintyco-solids-production/saintyco-ibc-blending-system/, 09/21/2020.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute familiar IBC blending systems for the mixing systems of the prior art to achieve faster, more efficient and lower-contamination mixing of nuclear fuels with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 1-3, and explained above, KR101407633B1 teaches nuclear fuel mixtures of porogen such as U3O8 powder (Examples, step 2, “The U3O8 powder prepared in the step 1 was milled . . .”), lubricant such as zinc stearate (Examples, step 3, “At this time, 0.2 wt% of zinc stearate, which is a lubricant, was added at the same time as U3O8 powder and mixed for 30 minutes using a tubular mixer.”) and UO2 powder (Examples, Step 1, “UO2 sintered pellets . . .”; “Wherein the UO2 sintered pellet is produced by adding U3O8 powder to the UO 2 powder . . .”). These mixtures are made by weighing and sieving porogen and lubricant (Example, step 3), then adding to a container to shake/mix (Example, step 3).
BAUER teaches the same basic process (Figs. 1-3; Example 1, using “as developing agent (azodicarbonamide) and then 0.3 wt. % lubricant (zinc stearate) are mixed with the powder by mechanical stirring,” which are subject to a “screen” and weighing and added to “uranium ball jar” or “ploughshare mixer”).
As does Asakura (Section 2.2- “In the 36 kg-MOX runs, MOX powder, ADU UOX powder and recycled MOX powder were weighed and mixed in the ball mill for 6 h, and this mixed powder was utilized as a feed MOX powder”; Section 2.3- “In the additive blending (I) step (Fig. 1), 37 g of zinc stearate as binder and 110 g of each candidate pore former were added to the 7.5 kg of UOX feed powder, and then blended for 15 min in the V blender”).
As to claims 3-4, Asakura also teaches “36kg-MOX runs"; and "The final concentrations of zinc stearate and each of the candidate pore formers were 0. 7 and 1.5wt%, respectively” (Section 2.2).
As also explained above, KR101407633B1 teaches the product of claim 8 and method of claim 9.
Asakura does as well. Specifically, manufacturing a UO2 molded pellet by pressing the UO2 powder mixture of claim 8 (Section 2.3- “"U02(UOX) [. .. ] fabrication process of low density MOX fuel pellets" and “pressed into green pellets”); manufacturing a UO2 sintered pellet by sintering the UO2 molded pellet (Section 2.3- “sintering step”); and manufacturing a UO2 ground pellet by grinding the sintered pellet so that the sintered pellet maintains a uniform diameter (Section 2.3- “ground by center-less grinding”).
And so does BAUER. Specifically, manufacturing a UO2 molded pellet by pressing the UO2 powder mixture of claim 8 (col. 1, ll. 7-9- “production of nuclear fuel pellets of the MOX type based on mixed oxide (U, Pu)O2”; col. 7, l. 5- “pelletizing stage”); manufacturing a UO2 sintered pellet by sintering the UO2 molded pellet (col. 7, I. 14)- "sintering stage”); and manufacturing a UO2 ground pellet by grinding the sintered pellet so that the sintered pellet maintains a uniform diameter (col. 7, I. 29- "grinding"; col. 7, I. 30-31- "obtain pellets satisfying the diameter specification").
None of KR101407633B1, BAUER or Asakura explicitly teaches to use an IBC blender; 300 uM sieving of claim 5; mixing by rotation speed is in a range of 10 to 14 rpm, a container filling rate of the power is in a range of 50 to 70 vol%, and a mixing time is in a range of 20 to 30 minutes of claim 6; backward mixing for 10 minutes of claim 7; or from the method of claim 9, a defect rate is 5% or less, and the sintered pellet has a density of 10.30 to 10.58 g/cm3.
However, IBC blenders were well-known in the art to allow efficient, less-contaminating mixing of sensitive materials. For example, SaintyCo demonstrates that “IBC Blending System Dust free effective process Technik of uniform mixing, lubricating & blending of dry powder & granules,” just like the above powder mixtures of UO2 fuels. In fact,
IBC Blending System: The Ultimate FAQ Guide
Why Choose IBC Blending System?
A good blender or blending system is known by the quality of its blending.
It should enable you to homogenously blend various ingredients.
The IBC blending system stands out since you do not need to transfer the substance between different machines to achieve homogenous blending.
[ . . . ]
What are the Advantages of IBC Blending System?
Intermediate Bulk Container (IBC) blending has many benefits that have helped in tackling many problems in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.
With IBC blending, chances of cross-contamination, blend quality problems, and clean-up and batch integrity issues have reduced a great deal.
The use of IBC blending has led to faster loading and unloading by enabling complete product containment.
Also, the IBC blender is, therefore, a stand-alone unit, meaning it can simply be loaded using a forklift.
Besides, the IBC blender, unlike the conventional blenders, does not require clean-up, leading to the reduced machine and room cleaning times.
This blender also ensures less blend time.
This, in turn, translates to increased productivity.
The IBC blending system also enhances batch integrity.
There is no need to remove the batch from the blending container.
Contamination and spillage are almost entirely curtailed.
That the product never comes into contact with the container means that cross-contamination is totally prevented.
What is IBC Blending System Used For?
The IBC blending system has quite a number of uses.
Many factories, for example, use the bin blender to blend different food, pharmaceutical or cosmetic products.
The machine also helps to thoroughly mix different contents to achieve a perfect mixture.
One thing that makes the IBC blending system to stand out is the ability to prevent product contamination.
If you are dealing with sensitive products that require zero-contamination, the IBC blending system will help you achieve just that.
This is a huge advantage over the V-blender, which allows for certain levels of product contamination.
A V-blender is routinely used in UO2 fuel generation as explained in Asakura, Sections 2.3-2.4, above. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute IBC blender for V-blender as explicitly suggested in SaintyCo. Thus, SaintyCo provides explicit motivation to use IBC blending in commercial/industrial applications that require homogenous mixtures and uncontaminated environment. As explained above, this is the situation in uranium fuel manufacturing. Thus, IBC blenders would have been a known option for uranium fuel blending/mixing.
As to the specific mixtures of lubricating agent, UO2 powder and porogen in claim 4, this is routinely optimized, even to the same amounts as claimed as shown in Asakura above. BAUER and KR101407633B1 also demonstrate optimized amounts of these result-effective variables. Thus, absent evidence that the full range of amounts yield unexpected results or critical results, the claimed ranges are obvious optimizations. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Similarly, in claim 5, the specific sieve porosity for filtering porogen and lubricant is a matter of routine optimization. This is demonstrated in Asakura and BAUER. Asakura teaches such materials “sieved through a set of meshes. Powders of particle sizes ranging from 0.85 to 0.125 mm ϕ were collected, and then supplied to the following step. The crushing and sieving were repeated for the powder particles larger than 0.85 mm ϕ, while the powder particles under 0.125 mm ϕ were sent back to the roll press again” (Section 2.3). BAUER teaches
The following stage according to the first variant of the process according to the invention consists of a forced screening of the mixture through a screen having openings with a size equal to or smaller than 250 μm (microns) in order to hold back the fraction having a grain size equal to or smaller than 250 μm. This operation makes it possible to calibrate the powder dimensions and thus obtain a powder having the desired characteristics for pelletizing.
Thus, as stated hereinbefore, the grain size ranges of mixed powders in ball mills are generally very broad ranging from a few um to more than 1 mm. By forced passage in a screen having openings equal to or smaller than 250 μm, elimination takes place of the largest agglomerates, so as to collect a calibrated powder usable for the subsequent stages
(col. 5, l. 58 – col. 6, l. 4). Thus, both Asakura and BAUER demonstrate that the sieving step is routinely optimized to remove unwanted materials. Absent evidence that the claimed sieving yield unexpected results or critical results, the claimed sieving is obvious optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
As to claims 6-7, forward mixing at 10-14 rpm, fill rate 50-70%vol, mixing 20-30 minutes with 10 minutes backward mixing are all routinely optimized mixing variables to achieve more homogenous mixtures. For example, Asakura teaches the mixture is "blended for 15min in the V blender[. .. ] in the V blender for 15min" (Section 2.3). Thus, absent evidence that the claimed mixing paramters yield unexpected results or critical results, the claimed mixing parameters are obvious optimizations. See MPEP § 2144.05(II).
As to claim 9, the defect rate: “The "defect rate" used herein means the number of defective pellets generated in each step among all the pellets manufactured through the molding, sintering, and grinding processes using the UO2 powder mixture. The pellet that does not meet the design conditions or specifications is determined as being defective” (Spec, pg. 9). However, no defect measure is provided. Thus, this encompasses any defect measure. All of the above references disclose successful UO2 fuel generation; thus, they all teach less than 5% defects.
As to claim 9, the sintered pellet density: KR101407633B1 teaches “UO 2 sintered pellets having a theoretical density of 96% TD[theoretical density]” (Examples, Step 1). Ninety-six percent TD of UO2 equals 10.5g/cm3 because 100% is 10.96-10.97 g/cm3.
In sum, the claims are obvious because the prior art as whole clearly demonstrates that IBC blenders were a known substitute for other blenders/mixers in UO2 fuel manufacturing, and the claimed component amounts, and mixing/blending variables were routinely optimized to achieve known results.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/YUNG-SHENG M TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743