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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 16-24) and species E, d, i, (a), (v), 1) in the reply filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Status of Claims
Claims 16-30 are pending in the application with claims 17 and 25-30 withdrawn. Claims 16 and 18-24 are examined herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Claims 16 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepnik et al. (US20180261346A1) in view of Yacout et al. (US2022/0044830A) and Huey (US 2927071 A).
Regarding claim 16, Stepnik (see FIGS. 2-3) discloses a method for manufacturing a nuclear fuel element (1, 11), the manufacturing method comprising: obtaining a core (3) in the form of a sheet containing a uranium-based fissile material (Abstract), inserting the core into a cladding (5, 7, 9) (paragraph 93), and pressing a resulting multilayer assembly so as to close the cladding in a sealed manner (paragraph 97).
Stepnik does not disclose coating the core with an anti-diffusion layer to obtain a coated core, but Yacout does.
Yacout is in the same nuclear fuel art area and teaches coating a core (“compact”) containing fissile material with an anti-diffusion layer (“protective coating”) to obtain a coated core (paragraphs 5, 35, 37, 46-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the method for manufacturing a nuclear fuel element in Stepnik to include an additional step of coating the core with an anti-diffusion layer to obtain a coated core, as taught by Yacout. Using the known technique of coating the core with an anti-diffusion layer for the predictable purpose of preventing oxidation, as taught by Yacout (paragraphs 46-48), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Neither Stepnik nor Yacout disclose inserting the coated core into the cladding with interposition, between the coated core and the cladding, of one or more intermediate layer(s), and each intermediate layer being made of a ductile metal alloy and/or having a conventional yield strength which differs by no more than 30% from that of the cladding material, an elongation at break which differs by no more than 30% from that of the cladding material and/or a distributed relative elongation which differs by no more than 30% from that of the cladding material, but Huey does.
Huey (see FIGS. 1-2) is in the same nuclear fuel art area and teaches inserting a core (10) containing a fissile material into a cladding (16, 20) with interposition, between the core and the cladding, of one or more intermediate layer(s) (12), and each intermediate layer being made of a ductile metal alloy (e.g., aluminum) (col 2 lines 19-36, col 2 lines 56-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to further modify the method of picture frame fabrication in Stepnik to include an additional step of providing an intermediate layer between the coated core and the cladding, as taught by Huey. Using the known technique of including an intermediate layer for the predictable purpose of preventing leakage of coolant into the fuel element and subsequent corrosion through increasing the leakage path, as taught by Huey (Col 1 line 69 to Col 2 line 6), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
While Huey appears to be silent with regard to the conventional yield strength, elongation break, and distributed relative elongation of the intermediate layer, Stepnik disclose the cladding is made of an aluminum alloy (paragraph 15) and Huey teaches the intermediate layer is made of aluminum (col 2 lines 19-36, col 2 lines 56-68). As best understood by Examiner, the instant specification discloses this combination of materials as a suitable combination wherein and/or having a conventional yield strength which differs by no more than 30% from that of the cladding material, an elongation at break which differs by no more than 30% from that of the cladding material and/or a distributed relative elongation which differs by no more than 30% from that of the cladding material. Thus, the modified Stepnik's method, having an aluminum alloy cladding material (as disclosed by Stepnik) and an aluminum intermediate layer (as taught by Huey), having the same characteristics, would perform similarly.
Regarding claim 20, Stepnik in view of Yacout and Huey teaches all of the elements of the parent claim. Stepnik further discloses wherein the fissile material is a uranium alloy and/or at least one uranium compound (Abstract, paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 21, Stepnik in view of Yacout and Huey teaches all of the elements of the parent claim. Stepnik further discloses wherein the core is a monolithic core constituted of the fissile material (FIGS. 2-3, paragraphs 84-85).
Regarding claim 22, the above-described combination of Stepnik, Yacout, and Huey teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Yacout teaches wherein the anti-diffusion layer is made of a material selected from a zirconium-based alloy, a molybdenum-based alloy, a titanium-based alloy, a silicon-based alloy or a mixture of at least two of these alloys (paragraph 29). Thus, Stepnik, modified to include a step of coating the core with an anti-diffusion layer as taught by Yacout and to provide an intermediate layer between the coated core and the cladding as taught by Huey as discussed above, would have resulted in the features of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, the above-described combination of Stepnik, Yacout, and Huey teaches all the elements of the parent claim. As discussed above, Yacout teaches the anti-diffusion layer is made of a zirconium-based alloy, a molybdenum-based alloy, a titanium-based alloy, or a silicon-based alloy (paragraph 29) and Huey teaches the intermediate layer is made of aluminum (col. 2 lines 19-36, col 2 lines 56-68). Stepnik discloses the cladding is made of an aluminum alloy (paragraph 15). As best understood by Examiner, the instant specification discloses this combination of materials as a suitable combination wherein the intermediate layer is made of a material presenting a ductility equal to or greater than that of the material of the anti-diffusion layer and equal to or greater than that of the material of the cladding (paragraphs 16, 27). Thus, Stepnik, modified to include a step of coating the core with an anti-diffusion layer as taught by Yacout and to provide an intermediate layer between the coated core and the cladding as taught by Huey as discussed above, would have resulted in the features of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Stepnik in view of Yacout and Huey teaches all of the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Huey teaches each intermediate layer is made of pure aluminum (col 2 lines 19-36, col 2 lines 56-68). Thus, Stepnik, modified to include a step of coating the core with an anti-diffusion layer as taught by Yacout and to provide an intermediate layer between the coated core and the cladding as taught by Huey as discussed above, would have resulted in the features of claim 24.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepnik in view of Yacout and Huey as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Langhans et al. (US4634571A).
Regarding claim 18, the above-described combination of Stepnik, Yacout, and Huey teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Huey additionally teaches applying the intermediate layer to the coated core before enveloping the coated core in the cladding (col. 2 lines 30-37). Huey does not teach wherein each intermediate layer is applied to the core or cladding by spraying.
Langhans is in the same nuclear fuel art area and teaches applying an intermediate layer (“aluminum layer”) to a core or a cladding by spraying (col 3 lines 12-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to further modify Stepnik’s method to apply the intermediate layer by spraying, as taught by Langhans. Using the known technique of spraying the intermediate layer for the predictable purpose of controlling and adjusting layer thickness, as taught by Langhans (col 3 lines 21-26), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepnik in view of Yacout and Huey as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Burke et al. (US20170159186A1).
Regarding claim 19, the above-described combination of Stepnik, Yacout, and Huey teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Huey additionally teaches wherein the material of the intermediate layer or of at least one from among the intermediate layers comprises a matrix (col. 2 line 56 to col 3 line 2). Huey does not teach the intermediate layer comprises at least one additive element.
Burke does. Burke is also in the art area of cladding for nuclear fuel and teaches including at least one additive element in a metal matrix (paragraphs 0009, 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the material of the intermediate layer from the combination of Stepnik, Yacout, and Huey to include at least one additive element (Burke paragraph 0009), as taught by Burke, to achieve the predictable result of enhancing the strength and stiffness of Stepnik’s modified intermediate layer at both reactor normal operating temperature and at higher temperatures that are typical of design basis and beyond design basis accidents (Burke paragraph 0023).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY MARIE COOPERRIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-0532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET..
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 5712726878. 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.
/K.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights