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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1–13, 15, 17–19, 21–22, and 24–25 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome the Specification and Claim objections, which are herein withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(a) rejection, which is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(b) rejection, which is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous prior art rejection of claim 1, which is withdrawn. An updated search was performed, a new rejection of claim 1 is made below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amendments newly made to the claims, which are therefore addressed herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 24 are allowable for the reasons presented previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It would appear that the recitations in claims 11 and 15 are newly recited in parent claim 1, and thus these claims do not appear to properly further delimit the invention. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–4, 7, 9–13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2022/0148745) in view of Cooper (US 2017/0283994).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses (Figs. 1 and 2) a thermal power reactor comprising: a reactor core (42) arranged to generate thermal energy; and a solid state thermal conductor (42b,30[50,52]) comprising a graphene based (¶ 55) material, the solid state thermal conductor extending into and thermally integrated with the reactor core (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the solid state thermal conductor is arranged to transfer thermal energy generated by the reactor core away from the reactor core (¶ 56).
Yoshida does not explicitly disclose that the graphene conductor is a metamaterial1 comprising carbon nanotube based threads or rope.
Cooper does. Cooper is also in the art area of conductors and teaches a thermal conductor (“carbon nanotubes … combined in a yarn,” ¶ 73; an example of yarns is shown in Fig. 25) comprising a graphene based metamaterial (carbon nanotubes are made from graphene, ¶ 50, and ropes, a.k.a. yarns, formed from carbon nanotubes are cited as an example of a meta-material by Applicant in ¶ 76 of the Specification; see also Cooper at ¶ 63: “meta-materials”), comprising carbon nanotube based threads or rope (id.) with a thickness between 500 microns and 10 cm (“The yarn may have a diameter ranging from 10 nm to 5 mm,” ¶ 64).
A purpose for this teaching is, as described by Cooper (¶ 50), that these nanotubes “have very high electrical conductivity which allow current densities of more than 1,000 times that in metals (such as silver and copper). These properties, including the high specific strength and stiffness, will be beneficial to the materials disclosed herein.”
The combination of the nanotubes of Cooper with the reactor of Yoshida would have produced a solid state graphene conductor made from carbon nanotube fibers to transport heat from a reactor core, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
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 Yoshida, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Cooper’s nanotubes with Yoshida's reactor structure would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a heat conductor including metamaterials for removing reactor core heat. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Cooper (¶ 50), that these nanotubes “have very high electrical conductivity which allow current densities of more than 1,000 times that in metals (such as silver and copper). These properties, including the high specific strength and stiffness, will be beneficial to the materials disclosed herein.”
Regarding claim 2, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses wherein the solid state thermal conductor (42b,30[50,52]) comprises an internal portion (42b) extending into the thermal reactor core (42) and an external portion (32) extending away from the reactor core (as shown in Figs. 1-2 and as described in ¶¶ 54–55).
Regarding claim 3, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses wherein the internal portion (42b) and the external portion (32) of the solid state thermal conductor (42b,30[50,52]) are thermally connected to each other (as described in ¶¶ 54–55).
Regarding claim 4, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses wherein the internal portion (42b) and the external portion (32) are formed from different materials (as described in ¶¶ 62, 50, and 54–55).
Regarding claim 7, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses wherein the internal portion (42b) of the solid state thermal conductor (42b,30[50,52]) comprises a plurality of layers (“The reactor core heat conductor 42 b may have a layered structure,” ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 9, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses wherein the internal portion of the solid state thermal conductor comprises graphite and/or a metal alloy (“The reactor core heat conductor 42 b may use graphite,” ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 10, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Sayir additionally teaches wherein the thermal conductor comprises a graphene based metamaterial (“Each fin member 14 has the graphene layers,” ¶ 78). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize Sayir’s graphene metamaterial for the reasons described above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim, including Cooper’s teachings of wherein the graphene based metamaterial comprises carbon nanotube (¶ 50) and that the external portion of the solid state thermal conductor comprises a plurality of layers of a graphene based material comprising threads or rope (“yarns, threads or ropes made with carbon nanotubes,” ¶ 73).
Regarding claim 12, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses wherein the external portion (32) of the solid state thermal conductor comprises graphene (¶ 55), and Sayir teaches layers of a graphene based metamaterial (“Each fin member 14 has the graphene layers,” ¶ 78). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize Sayir’s graphene metamaterial for the reasons described above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the external portion (32) of the solid state thermal conductor comprises graphene (¶ 55), and Cooper teaches layers of a graphene based metamaterial (Fig. 9 and ¶ 50) and further teaches one or more intermediate separating layers that interleave the multiple layers of graphene and/or graphene based metamaterial (as shown in Fig. 9, alternate layers of graphene CNT threads have intermediate separating layers of graphene CNT threads).
Regarding claim 19, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses wherein the thermal power reactor comprises a heat conversion unit for converting thermal energy to electricity (turbine 18, Fig. 1).
Claims 6 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Cooper, as combined above, further in view of Sayir (US 2007/0053168).
Regarding claim 6, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally teaches wherein the internal portion (42b) of the solid state thermal conductor (42b,30[50,52]) comprises a structure extending within the reactor core (42) (as shown in Figs. 1–2). Yoshida does not explicitly state that this portion has a mesh. Sayir does. Sayir is also in the art area of graphene based conductors for removing heat and teaches that the honeycomb fin of the conductor shown in Fig. 12 may comprise “a wire mesh” at its end. The skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the mesh of Sayir with the conductor of the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper for “holding the [device] firmly seated in place,” Sayir, ¶ 83.
Regarding claim 18, please see the above 112 rejections for interpretations. The above-described combination of Yoshida with Sayir teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses wherein the external portion (52/50) of the solid state thermal conductor comprises an outer layer (e.g., 16, Fig. 2 or 54, Fig. 4) but does not explicitly suggest an infrared photon reflective foil. Sayir does. Sayir is also in the art area of graphene based conductors for removing heat and teaches wherein an external portion of the conductor comprises an outer layer of infrared photon reflective foil (e.g., foil comprising aluminum, ¶ 56 or ¶ 45). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the foil of Sayir with the conductor of the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper for “structural support,” ¶ 56.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Cooper, as combined above, further in view of Botha (US 2021/0125737).
Regarding claim 8, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida additionally discloses a plurality of fuel structures (42a, Fig. 2) positioned between the plurality of layers of the solid state thermal conductor (¶ 50 as cited above in response to claim 7) but does not explicitly teach fuel discs.
Botha does. Botha is in the same art area of nuclear reactors and teaches a similar core arrangement (Fig. 1) with a reactor core (core region 116) comprising a plurality of fuel discs (“…fuel elements having a corresponding flat disk shape can be attached to the heat pipes [106] in the core region 116,” ¶ 48). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the fuel disc/thermal conductor arrangement taught by Botha to the reactor core of modified Yoshida because Botha teaches that this “relatively simple arrangement” predictably provides “high surface area for contact with the fuel.” As is known in the art, the greater the contact area between a heat-producing element (fuel) and the conductor, the more effective the heat transfer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Cooper, as combined above, further in view of Adams (US 2019/0062921).
Regarding claim 17, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Cooper teaches the separating layers of graphene, as cited above, but does not explicitly suggest they may comprise copper.
Adams does. Adams is also in the art area of nuclear reactors and teaches (Fig. 1) separating layers of graphene (14a, 14b) with copper (12). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the graphene-copper-graphene layers as taught by Adams within the structure of modified Yoshia with Cooper because, as explained by Adams (¶ 19 and ¶ 20), this “composite” type alternating structure exhibits “enhanced thermal conductivity” as well as “higher mechanical strength.”
Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Cooper, as combined above, further in view of McClure (US 2016/0012924).
Regarding claims 21 and 25, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yoshida discloses wherein an external portion of the solid state thermal conductor takes heat and converts it into work (turbine 18, Fig. 1), but does not explicitly suggest the use of a Stirling engine for this heat conversion.
McClure does.
McClure is in the same art area of nuclear reactors and teaches (Fig. 1) wherein the heat conversion unit comprises a Stirling engine (116) that is remote from the reactor core (102) and converts heat into work via said Stirling engine (¶¶ 30–31). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have employed the Stirling engine taught by McClure with the reactor of modified Yoshida because McClure teaches that the use of a Stirling engine provides the predictable advantage of self-regulating operation to adjust reactor power in response to Stirling engine demand (¶ 19). The ordinary skilled artisan would have also been aware that keeping the Stirling engine separate from the reactor core itself presents the obvious benefit of not having to expose personnel or sensitive equipment to the radioactivity from the reactor core.
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 LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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 (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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 This term is interpreted herein as defined in ¶ 29 of the Specification (cited herein as the pre-grant publication US2025/0266178): “The term 'metamaterial' may be understood to mean a material comprising unit cells, wherein the material has its function dictated by both its cellular architecture and its chemical composition.”