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
1. Claims 1-18 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Drawings
2. 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 catch surface cooperating with the key element in the control rod mechanism(claim 11) 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
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-18 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. Any claim not specifically addressed below is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
5. Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, the recitation “the axis” is unclear because the claim previously introduces “a respective axis” of a plurality of control rods. The recitation “the axis” should be amended to “each respective axis” and claims 8, 10, 12, 15 should be amended correspondingly.
6. Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein a cross-sectional area of an outermost concentric cylindrical tube is less than a cross-section of the central rod” is indefinite because it lacks correspondence with the specification (see MPEP 2173.03). The specification discloses (see Figs. 2 and 3) an arrangement wherein the outermost tube has a larger diameter than the central rod, thus having a larger cross sectional area. This is repeated in [0012], but the opposite is described in [0063]. Therefore, it is not clear how claim 5 should be interpreted in light of the specification because the specification contradicts both itself and the claim.
7. Regarding claim 9, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the core structure” because no such limitation was previously introduced.
8. Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the respective axis” because claim 1 introduces a single axis.
9. Regarding claim 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the second direction” because no such limitation was previously introduced. Additionally, it is unclear if the recitation “an extended position” is intended to refer to the “extended position” previously introduced in claim 1 or introduce a second, different, extended position.
10. Regarding claims 12 and 17, the recitation “wherein the sliding elements provide petals” is unclear. The meaning of “provide” is “to supply or make available (something wanted or needed),”1 and it is unclear what structure would be encompassed by a sliding element making petals available. Based on the specification (at least Figs. 7 and 8), it appears that the claim is intended to further limit the structure of the sliding elements themselves to be petals having the recited arrangement. The examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “wherein the sliding elements are petals…”
11. Regarding claims 13 and 14, the recitation “substantially” in this context is entirely subjective. There is no objective standard by which one could determine whether a given shape is “substantially identical” to another shape. Without an objective definition, one could judge a square to be substantially a circle and a triangle to be substantially a sector of a circle.
12. Regarding claims 15 and 18, the recitation “wherein the sliding elements provide a set of adjacent plates” is indefinite for the reasons detailed above with respect to the limitation of claims 12 and 17.
13. Regarding claim 16, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “the reflector” because no such limitation was previously introduced. Further, without reciting a structural relationship between the reflector and the core, one cannot determine what direction is “facing the core.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dew et al., GB 877,679 in view of Kaufman, et al, US 2,900,316.
18. Regarding claims 1 and 6, Dew discloses a nuclear reactor (p. 1, lines 9-16 and Fig. 1) comprising: a core (2) of nuclear fuel (p. 3, lines 111-117) having a height (see Fig. 1); a pressure vessel (1) surrounding the core of nuclear fuel to allow circulation of gas there through(p. 2, lines 109-115); a set of neutron-absorbing control rods movable for insertion and withdrawal into and out of the core along a respective axis for control of a nuclear reaction in the core (p. 3, lines 67-96), and a control rod mechanism (flexible cables and a set of motors) communicating with the control rods to move them for insertion and withdraw into and out of the core, wherein the control rod mechanism is contained fully within the pressure vessel (p. 3, lines 80-83).
Dew is silent as to the structural details of its control rods. Kaufman teaches a nuclear reactor control rod (see column 1, lines 15-19) movable along a respective axis for control of a nuclear reaction in the core (see Figs. 6-8), the control rod comprising mutually sliding elements (102, 102a) moving relative to each other between an extended position separated along the axis in a first direction over a first length (Fig. 8) and a compacted position overlapping over a second length less than the first length and less than 51% of the core height (Fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Kaufman in the reactor of Dew because Kaufman teaches that its control rod advantageously controls reactivity uniformly to achieve various degrees of neutron shadowing (column1 , lines 54-59).
19. Regarding claim 2, Dew as modified by Kaufman makes claim 1 obvious. Kaufman further teaches a control rod wherein the first length is at least 80% of the core height (see Fig. 8). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Kaufman in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
20. Regarding claim 3, Dew as modified by Kaufman makes claim 1 obvious. Kaufman further teaches a control rod comprising at least three mutually sliding elements moving relative to each other (see Figs. 6-8). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Kaufman in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
21. Regarding claim 4, Dew as modified by Kaufman makes claim 1 obvious. Kaufman further teaches a control rod further comprising at least four mutually sliding elements and wherein the second length is less than 30 % of the first length (compare Figs. 6 and 8). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Kaufman in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
22. Regarding claim 7, Dew as modified by Kaufman makes claim 1 obvious. Dew and Kaufman are both silent as to the dimensions of their control rods. However, such a parameter is a matter of obvious design choice. The combination of Dew and Kaufman would perform the same regardless of the size of the control rod (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select any control rod size that suits a desired nuclear reactor core design. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Kaufman in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
23. Regarding claim 8, Dew as modified by Kaufman makes claim 1 obvious. Kaufman further teaches a control rod wherein the sliding elements provide interelement gaps therebetween (see Fig. 1) allowing angulation of the sliding elements out of an alignment with each other within a plane of the axis by at least two degrees (the elements of Kaufman are capable of this intended use recitation). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Kaufman in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
24. Regarding claim 9, Dew as modified by Kaufman makes claim 1 obvious. Kaufman further teaches a control rod wherein at least one sliding element provides a horizontally extending protrusion (105a) interfering with the core structure to limit insertion of the at least one sliding clement into the core(column 3, lines 2-13). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Kaufman in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
25. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dew et al., GB 877,679 in view of LeChevallier, US 3,227,624.
26. Regarding claims 1 and 6, Dew discloses a nuclear reactor (p. 1, lines 9-16 and Fig. 1) comprising: a core (2) of nuclear fuel (p. 3, lines 111-117) having a height (see Fig. 1); a pressure vessel (1) surrounding the core of nuclear fuel to allow circulation of gas there through(p. 2, lines 109-115); a set of neutron-absorbing control rods movable for insertion and withdrawal into and out of the core along a respective axis for control of a nuclear reaction in the core (p. 3, lines 67-96), and a control rod mechanism (flexible cables and a set of motors) communicating with the control rods to move them for insertion and withdraw into and out of the core, wherein the control rod mechanism is contained fully within the pressure vessel (p. 3, lines 80-83).
Dew is silent as to the structural details of its control rods. LeChevallier teaches a nuclear reactor control rod (see column 1, lines 11-14) movable for insertion and withdrawal into and out of the core along a respective axis for control of a nuclear reaction in the core (see Fig. 1; column 3, lines 26-44, 66-71), the control rod comprising mutually sliding elements (“1, 2, 3…”; see column 2, line 25) moving relative to each other between an extended position separated along the axis in a first direction over a first length and a compacted position overlapping over a second length less than the first length and less than 51% of the core height (see column 3, lines 26-44). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by LeChevallier in the reactor of Dew because LeChevallier teaches that its control rod advantageously absorbs the kinetic energy of rod insertion and can withstand the shock of dropping without a need for dynamic braking (column 2, lines 1-7).
27. Regarding claim 2, Dew as modified by LeChevallier makes claim 1 obvious. LeChevallier further teaches a control rod wherein the first length is at least 80% of the core height (see Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by LeChevallier in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
28. Regarding claim 3, Dew as modified by LeChevallier makes claim 1 obvious. LeChevallier further teaches a control rod comprising at least three mutually sliding elements moving relative to each other (see Fig. 1; column 2, line 25). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by LeChevallier in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
29. Regarding claim 7, Dew as modified by LeChevallier makes claim 1 obvious. Dew and LeChevallier are both silent as to the dimensions of their control rods. However, such a parameter is a matter of obvious design choice. The combination of Dew and LeChevallier would perform the same regardless of the size of the control rod (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select any control rod size that suits a desired nuclear reactor core design. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by LeChevallier in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
30. Regarding claim 9, Dew as modified by LeChevallier makes claim 1 obvious. LeChevallier further teaches a control rod wherein at least one sliding element provides a horizontally extending protrusion (11) interfering with the core structure (10) to limit insertion of the at least one sliding clement into the core (column 3, lines 10-13). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by LeChevallier in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
31. Regarding claim 10, Dew as modified by LeChevallier makes claim 1 obvious. LeChevallier further teaches a control rod wherein the sliding elements provide catch surfaces (1b, 2a) interfering to limit a separation of the sliding elements along the respective axis beyond the first length by inter-engaging of the catch surfaces (column 2, lines 29-35). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by LeChevallier in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
32. Regarding claim 11, Dew as modified by LeChevallier makes claim 1 obvious. LeChevallier further teaches a control rod wherein the sliding elements provide catch surfaces preventing the sliding elements from separating along the axis in an extended position in the second direction beyond a lowest end of a key element attached to the control rod mechanism (see Fig. 1, ref. 5 and column 3, lines 3-9). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by LeChevallier in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
33. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dew et al., GB 877,679 in view of Tollet et al., US 3,212,981.
34. Regarding claims 1 and 6, Dew discloses a nuclear reactor (p. 1, lines 9-16 and Fig. 1) comprising: a core (2) of nuclear fuel (p. 3, lines 111-117) having a height (see Fig. 1); a pressure vessel (1) surrounding the core of nuclear fuel to allow circulation of gas there through(p. 2, lines 109-115); a set of neutron-absorbing control rods movable for insertion and withdrawal into and out of the core along a respective axis for control of a nuclear reaction in the core (p. 3, lines 67-96), and a control rod mechanism (flexible cables and a set of motors) communicating with the control rods to move them for insertion and withdraw into and out of the core, wherein the control rod mechanism is contained fully within the pressure vessel (p. 3, lines 80-83).
Dew is silent as to the structural details of its control rods. Tollet teaches a nuclear reactor control rod (see column 1, lines 11-13) movable for insertion and withdrawal into and out of the core along a respective axis for control of a nuclear reaction in the core (see Figs. 1 and 2), the control rod comprising mutually sliding elements (9, 10, 11; see column 2, lines 2-3) moving relative to each other between an extended position separated along the axis in a first direction over a first length (Fig. 2) and a compacted position overlapping over a second length less than the first length and less than 51% of the core height (Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Tollet in the reactor of Dew because Tollet teaches that its control rod advantageously is held entirely outside the core and inserted rapidly to stop the reactor (column 1, lines 14-19).
35. Regarding claim 2, Dew as modified by Tollet makes claim 1 obvious. Tollet further teaches a control rod wherein the first length is at least 80% of the core height (see Fig. 2). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Tollet in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
36. Regarding claim 3, Dew as modified by Tollet makes claim 1 obvious. Tollet further teaches a control rod comprising at least three mutually sliding elements moving relative to each other (see Figs. 1 and 2 and column 2, lines 2-3). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Tollet in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
37. Regarding claim 5, Dew as modified by Tollet makes claim 1 obvious. Tollet further teaches a control rod wherein the sliding elements include at least two concentric cylindrical tubes surrounding a central rod and wherein a cross-sectional area of an outer most concentric cylindrical tube is less than a cross-section of the central rod (see Figs. 1 and 2 and column 1, line 35). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Tollet in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
38. Regarding claim 7, Dew as modified by Tollet makes claim 1 obvious. Dew and Tollet are both silent as to the dimensions of their control rods. However, such a parameter is a matter of obvious design choice. The combination of Dew and Tollet would perform the same regardless of the size of the control rod (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select any control rod size that suits a desired nuclear reactor core design. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the control rod structure taught by Tollet in the reactor of Dew for the reason stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
39. Claims 17 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
40. Claims 12-16 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.
41. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach the structural features of the sliding elements as recited in these claims.
Double Patenting
42. Applicant is advised that should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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
1 Merriam-Webster; www.merriam-webster.com.
Prosecution Insights