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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 22, 24, and 26–42 are under examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 24 are allowable for the reasons presented previously.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 objected to because of the following informalities: the underlining between photon and reflective should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 34–38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "a graphene based metamaterial". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If this is the same metamaterial recited in claim 26, it should read “the graphene based metamaterial".
Claim 35 recites the limitation "a graphene based metamaterial". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If this is the same metamaterial recited in claim 26, it should read “the graphene based metamaterial".
Claim 36 recites the limitation "graphene based metamaterial". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If this is the same metamaterial recited in claims 26 and 35, it should read “the graphene based metamaterial".
Claim 37 recites the limitation "a graphene based metamaterial". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If this is the same metamaterial recited in claim 26, it should read “the graphene based metamaterial".
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
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 26–31, 33–37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 2022/0148745) and Cooper (US 2017/0283994), further in view of White (US 2011/0005808).
Regarding claim 26, 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 of 0.5 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.”
Cooper teaches a thickness of 0.5 cm (¶ 64) but does not explicitly teach a thickness between 1-10 cm.
White does. White is also in the art area of carbon nanotube conductors (abstract) and suggests one having a thickness of 2 cm (“about 20 mm in diameter,” ¶ 88). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized White’s suggested thickness of 2 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a slightly thicker nanostructure than Cooper’s 0.5 cm because, as discussed by White (¶ 5), sometimes larger nanostructures “may be needed if they are to be used as high strength components of composites in macroscale structures (e.g., structures having dimensions greater than 1 cm).” The skilled artisan would not have observed any unexpected or surprising results by increasing the thickness of the Cooper’s nanostructure from 0.5 cm to 2 cm, as suggested by White.
Regarding claim 27, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 28, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 29, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 30, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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). Additionally, White teaches using a mesh (“mesh,” ¶ 119). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize White’s mesh prior to the effective filing date of the invention in order to reduce the weight of the structure, as explained by White in ¶ 119.
Regarding claim 31, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 33, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 34, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White teaches all the elements of the parent claim. This combination additionally teaches wherein the internal portion (42b, Yoshida) of the solid state thermal conductor comprises a graphene based metamaterial (as combined above with Cooper). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize Cooper’s graphene metamaterial for the reasons described above in response to claim 26.
Regarding claim 35, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White teaches all the elements of the parent claim. This combination additionally teaches wherein the external portion (32, Yoshida) of the solid state thermal conductor comprises a plurality of layers of a graphene based metamaterial (as combined above with Cooper; “yarns, threads or ropes made with carbon nanotubes,” ¶ 73, Cooper). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize Cooper’s layered graphene metamaterial for the reasons described above in response to claim 26.
Regarding claim 36, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 plurality of 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). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize Cooper’s layered graphene metamaterial for the reasons described above in response to claim 26.
Regarding claim 37, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White teaches all the elements of the parent claim. This combination additionally teaches wherein the external portion (32, Yoshida) of the solid state thermal conductor comprises a plurality of layers of a graphene based metamaterial (as combined above with Cooper; “yarns, threads or ropes made with carbon nanotubes,” ¶ 73, Cooper). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize Cooper’s layered graphene metamaterial for the reasons described above in response to claim 26.
Regarding claim 40, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Cooper with White, as combined above, further in view of Sayir (US 2007/0053168).
Regarding claim 39, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 above-modified Yoshida for additional “structural support,” ¶ 56.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Cooper with White, as combined above, further in view of Botha (US 2021/0125737).
Regarding claim 32, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Cooper with White, as combined above, further in view of Adams (US 2019/0062921).
Regarding claim 38, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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 Yoshida because, as explained by Adams (¶ 19 and ¶ 20), this “composite” type alternating structure exhibits “enhanced thermal conductivity” as well as “higher mechanical strength.”
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Cooper with White, as combined above, further in view of McClure (US 2016/0012924).
Regarding claims 41 and 42, the above-described combination of Yoshida with Cooper and White 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
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. Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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.”
Prosecution Insights