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
A reply was filed on 08/03/2026. The amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification have been entered. Claims 1-3 are pending in the application and examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “veltical” should be amended to recite “vertical.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-3 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 1 recites “A device for trapping debris configured to be mounted in a bottom nozzle of a fuel assembly of a nuclear reactor, the device consisting of two interconnected plate-type filter elements an upper filter element arranged above a lower filter element, and each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element having channels for a coolant passage having a length and a width.” It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature(s) is “configured to be mounted” and what feature(s) “ha[s] a length and a width.” Additionally, the phrase “two interconnected plate-type filter elements an upper filter element” appears to be incomplete. It is unclear the relationship between the “two interconnected plate-type filter elements,” “upper filter element,” and “lower filter element.”
Claim 1 recites “wherein the channels for the coolant passage are formed as slots in the plates of the upper and lower filter elements, the slots being separated lengthwise by vertical ribs and widthwise by crosspieces.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the plates.” This further renders unclear the relationship between the “two interconnected plate-type filter elements,” “upper filter element,” “lower filter element,” and “plates” and the structure encompassed by the phrase “plate-type.” The recitation of the phrase “plate-type” suggests a structure that is different from a “plate.” However, the claim later refers to “plates.” Thus, while the skilled artisan would understand the structure of a “plate,” the scope of the structure encompassed by the phrase “plate-type” is unclear. Additionally, it is unclear how the “slots” are intending to further modify the “channels.” A “slot” typically refers to an opening, passage, or gap1. It is therefore unclear how a “slot” differs from a “channel” (i.e., a passage2). It is further unclear the relationship between the “vertical ribs” and “crosspieces” and the “two interconnected plate-type filter elements,” “upper filter element,” “lower filter element,” and “plates.” For example, it is unclear if the “vertical ribs” and “crosspieces” are intending to be features of one or more of the previously recited “filter element[s]” and/or “plates.” This further renders unclear the scope of the structure of the “device” as the phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the vertical ribs and the crosspieces formed in the upper and lower filter elements has a gap therebetween.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the vertical ribs and the crosspieces formed in the upper and lower filter elements.” The claim previously recites “the slots being separated lengthwise by vertical ribs and widthwise by crosspieces,” but there is no prior recitation that the “vertical ribs” and “crosspieces” are “formed in the upper and lower filter elements” as recited in the claim. It is further unclear “therebetween” what features there is a “gap” and the relationship between the “gap” and the “vertical ribs” and “crosspieces.” As currently presented, the claim would appear to read on a gap (i.e., a space) between each of the “vertical ribs” and a gap (i.e., a space) between each of the “crosspieces.” However, it is unclear how the feature of the “gap” then differs from the feature of the “channels” or the “slots” (i.e., spaces) which are “separated lengthwise by vertical ribs and widthwise by crosspieces.”
Claim 2 recites “wherein the roundings of the vertical ribs and the crosspieces are provided on a side of each vertical rib and of each crosspiece facing the gap therebetween.” It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature(s) “fac[es] the gap.” It is further unclear what feature(s) is “therebetween” what other feature(s).
Claim 3 recites “wherein the crosspieces of the upper and lower filter elements are offset with respect to one another”. The antecedent basis for the phrase “the crosspieces of the upper and lower filter elements” is unclear. Parent claim 1 previously recites “the slots being separated lengthwise by vertical ribs and widthwise by crosspieces” and “each of the vertical ribs and the crosspieces formed in the upper and lower filter elements,” but there is no prior recitation that the “vertical ribs” and “crosspieces” are “of the upper and lower filter elements” as recited in the claim.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP Publication No. 2001-141866 (“Tsutsumi”).
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsumi (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-4, 14) discloses a device (9) for trapping debris, wherein the device is configured to be mounted in a bottom nozzle (4) of a fuel assembly (1) of a nuclear reactor ([0001], [0024]), the device consisting of an upper filter element and a lower filter element ([0027]), wherein the upper filter element is arranged above the lower filter element and each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element have channels (15) for a coolant passage, each of the channels having a length and a width ([0027]),
wherein each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element comprise a plurality of vertical ribs (11) and a plurality of crosspieces (12) defining the channels of each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element, wherein the channels are formed as slots (i.e., openings, passages, gaps1) ([0027]),
wherein the channels in the lower filter element are inclined relative to an axis of the fuel assembly, and the channels in the upper filter element are inclined relative to the axis of the fuel assembly in a direction opposite to the incline of the channels of the lower filter element ([0027]),
wherein there is a gap (17) between each of the vertical ribs of the upper filter element, wherein there is a gap (17) between each of the vertical ribs of the lower filter element, wherein there is a gap (18) between each of the crosspieces of the upper filter element, wherein there is a gap (18) between each of the crosspieces of the lower filter element, and wherein there is a gap (41) between the vertical ribs and the crosspieces of the upper filter element and the vertical ribs and the crosspieces of the lower filter element ([0019], [0027]),
wherein rounded surfaces are formed on each of the vertical ribs and on each of the crosspieces of each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element ([0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Tsutsumi discloses the device according to claim 1. Tsutsumi discloses the rounded surfaces of each of the vertical ribs and each of the crosspieces of each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element are provided on a side of the respective vertical rib or crosspiece that is adjacent to the gap (FIG. 3, [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Tsutsumi discloses the device according to claim 1. Tsutsumi discloses the crosspieces of the upper filter element are offset with respect to the crosspieces of the lower filter element (FIGS. 3, 14, [0031], [0043]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication No. 2017/160179 (“Mikhaylovich”) in view of Tsutsumi.
Regarding claim 1, Mikhaylovich (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 4) discloses a device (“filter”) for trapping debris, wherein the device is configured to be mounted in a bottom nozzle (4, “tail”) of a fuel assembly of a nuclear reactor ([0021]), the device consisting of an upper filter element (“upper filter element”, FIG. 2) and a lower filter element (“lower filter element”, FIG. 3), wherein the upper filter element is arranged above the lower filter element and each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element have channels (14, 15) for a coolant passage, each of the channels having a length and a width ([0021], [0025], [0027], [0030]),
wherein each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element comprise a plurality of vertical ribs (10) and a plurality of crosspieces (11) defining the channels of each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element, wherein the channels are formed as slots (i.e., openings, passages, gaps1) ([0021], [0030]),
wherein the channels in the lower filter element are inclined relative to an axis of the fuel assembly, and the channels in the upper filter element are parallel to the axis of the fuel assembly ([0021], [0027]-[0028]),
wherein there is a gap between each of the vertical ribs of the upper filter element (e.g., in a horizontal direction in FIG. 2), wherein there is a gap between each of the vertical ribs of the lower filter element (e.g., in a horizontal direction in FIG. 3), wherein there is a gap between each of the crosspieces of the upper filter element (e.g., in a vertical direction in FIG. 2), and wherein there is a gap between each of the crosspieces of the lower filter element (e.g., in a vertical direction in FIG. 3).
Mikhaylovich does not appear to disclose rounded surfaces are formed on each of the vertical ribs and on each of the crosspieces of each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element. Tsutsumi (see FIGS. 1, 3) is similarly directed towards a device (9) for trapping debris in a fuel assembly (1) of a nuclear reactor ([0001], [0024]), the device consisting of an upper filter element and a lower filter element ([0027]), wherein each of upper filter element and the lower filter element have channels (15) defined by vertical ribs (11) and crosspieces (12) ([0027]). Tsutsumi teaches rounded surfaces are formed on each of the vertical ribs and on each of the crosspieces ([0027]). Tsutsumi further teaches the rounded surfaces provide the advantages of minimizing increase in pressure loss ([0027]; see also Mikhaylovich, [0014]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to modify Mikhaylovich’s device to have rounded surfaces formed on the vertical ribs and the crosspieces, as taught by Tsutsumi, for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Mikhaylovich in order to reduce pressure loss, as suggested by Tsutsumi, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 2, Mikhaylovich in view of Tsutsumi teaches the device according to claim 1. Tsutsumi teaches the rounded surfaces of each of the vertical ribs and each of the crosspieces of each of the upper filter element and the lower filter element are provided on a side of the respective vertical rib or crosspiece that is adjacent to a gap (FIG. 3, [0027]). Thus, Mikhaylovich, modified to include the rounded surfaces as taught by Tsutsumi, would have resulted in the features of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Mikhaylovich in view of Tsutsumi teaches the device according to claim 1. Mikhaylovich does not appear to disclose the crosspieces of the upper filter element are offset with respect to the crosspieces of the lower filter element. However, Tsutsumi teaches having the crosspieces of the upper filter element offset with respect to the crosspieces of the lower filter element (FIGS. 3, 14, [0031], [0043]). Tsutsumi further teaches having the offset provides the advantages of reducing increase in pressure loss while maintaining the same foreign object capture performance ([0043]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to further modify Mikhaylovich to have the crosspieces of the upper filter element offset with respect to the crosspieces of the lower filter element, as taught by Tsutsumi, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Mikhaylovich in order to reduce pressure loss while maintaining debris trapping ability, as suggested by Tsutsumi, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant argues that “[i]n contrast to Tsutsumi’s assembly of multiple intersecting plates ... each claimed filter element has a one-piece plate structure in which the plate material remaining between the coolant-passage slots forms the ribs and crosspieces” (Remarks, p. 11), “both references employ multi-piece filter assemblies constructed from separate intersecting plates. Neither reference discloses or suggests forming each filter element from a plate in which the coolant-passage slots, vertical ribs, and crosspieces are integrally defined. The claimed one-piece plate construction is not merely an alternative manufacturing technique” (Remarks, p. 13), and “[t]he proposed combination [of Mikhaylovich in view of Tsutsumi] would not result in coolant-passage channels formed as slots in the plates of the upper and lower filter elements, with the plate material between those slots forming the claimed vertical ribs and crosspieces” (Remarks, p. 13). However, the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “each claimed filter element has a one-piece plate structure in which the plate material remaining between the coolant-passage slots forms the ribs and crosspieces,” “forming each filter element from a plate in which the coolant-passage slots, vertical ribs, and crosspieces are integrally defined,” “one-piece plate construction,” “the plate material between those slots forming the claimed vertical ribs and crosspieces”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim as currently presented recites “wherein the channels for the coolant passage are formed as slots in the plates of the upper and lower filter elements.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a “slot” includes an opening, passage, or gap1. As acknowledged by Applicant and as discussed above, Tsutsumi discloses the channels are formed as openings, passages, or gaps (see Remarks, p. 10: “The spaces bounded by those intersecting plates define inclined coolant-flow channels” (emphasis added), p. 11: “Tsutsumi forms its channels as open spaces between separately assembled vertical and horizontal plates” (emphasis added), “In Tsutsumi ... the coolant channels are open spaces defined between intersecting vertical and horizontal plates” (emphasis added), p. 13: “Its coolant channels are likewise open spaces bounded by separately assembled vertical and horizontal plates” (emphasis added)). Similarly, as acknowledged by Applicant and as discussed above, Mikhaylovich also discloses the channels are formed as openings, passages, or gaps (see Remarks, p. 12: “its coolant channels 14 and 15 are spaces formed between separate intersecting plates” (emphasis added), p. 13: “Its coolant channels 14 and 15 are the open spaces defined between those intersecting plates” (emphasis added)). Therefore, Tsutsumi and Mikhaylovich each disclose the feature of “wherein the channels for the coolant passage are formed as slots” as recited in claim 1.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slot
2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/channel
Prosecution Insights