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 1-20), Species A1 (flexible arm removed), and Species B2 (installed after removing flexible arm) in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10/10/2024 has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Examiner notes that the application number identified in the IDS (18587512) is different from the present application number (i.e., 18/584,512). The cited references are directed towards optical/image/display systems which are not relevant to the present application. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP 609.05(a).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the application with claims 21-22 withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “at a axial height” should be amended to recite “at an axial height”
Claims 8 and 13: “comprising:” should be amended to recite “comprises:”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2, 6, 8, 13-17, and 19-20 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 2 recites “the contact body being installed as a substitute for the flexible arm.” It is unclear the scope encompassed by this phrase in the claim and how the phrase is intended to further limit the claimed method. For example, it is unclear if the contact body being installed “as a substitute” requires that the contact body physically, functionally, or in some other manner replaces the flexible arm. Claim 19, which recites “installing ... a respective one of the contact body as a substitute for each removed flexible arm,” is similarly indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the performing of the staking deforms threads of the contact body.” However, there is no prior recitation of the “contact body” comprising “threads.” Perhaps the claim should be amended to recite “wherein the contact body has threads, and wherein the performing of the staking deforms the threads of the contact body” (see e.g., claim 14).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the outer circumferential surface of the thermal shield” in claims 8 and 13. While parent claim 1 previously recites “an outer circumferential surface of the core barrel,” there is no prior recitation of an “outer circumferential surface” of the “thermal shield.” It is unclear if the claims are intending to refer to the previously recited “outer circumferential surface of the core barrel” or if the claims should be amended to recite “an outer circumferential surface of the thermal shield.” For purposes of examination, in view of the disclosure (see e.g., FIG. 3d), Examiner is interpreting the claims as intending to recite “an outer circumferential surface of the thermal shield.”
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-14, and 17-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2023/0136152 (“Pillard”) in view of US Patent No. 3,847,015 (“Blatter”).
Regarding claim 1, Pillard (corresponding WO publication cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1-2, 6) discloses a maintenance method for a nuclear reactor, the nuclear reactor comprising:
a reactor core having a center axis;
a core barrel (52) concentric to the center axis;
a thermal shield (54) arranged around the core barrel and secured to the core barrel ([0002]);
a plurality of thermal shield flexures (“thermal shield flexures” in FIG. 2), each thermal shield flexure comprising a main plate (60) secured to the core barrel and a flexible arm (“stem portion”) extending from the main plate and welded to a lower edge of the thermal shield ([0003], [0034]).
Pillard does not appear to disclose installing a contact body in the manner recited in claim 1.
Blatter (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards a method for a nuclear reactor, the nuclear reactor comprising a core barrel (4) and a thermal shield (12) arranged around the core barrel (1:14-19, 2:63-3:4). Blatter teaches the method comprises installing, at an axial height above a lower edge of the thermal shield, a contact body (14) in the thermal shield passing radially, with respect to a center axis of the core barrel, through the thermal shield past an inner circumferential surface of the thermal shield such that a tip of the contact body bears against an outer circumferential surface of the core barrel with a predetermined load allowing the contact body to be slidable against the core barrel axially with respect to the center axis (3:1-37, 3:61-64, 5:11-15). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include the contact body as taught by Blatter in Pillard’s maintenance method for the predictable purpose of monitoring radial movement between the core barrel and thermal shield, as taught by Blatter (1:7-12).
Regarding claim 2, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Pillard discloses removing the flexible arm of at least one of the thermal shield flexures ([0034]). As discussed above, Blatter teaches installing the contact body (5:11-15). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Blatter teaches locking the contact body inside the thermal shield such that the tip of the contact body bears against the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel with the predetermined load allowing the contact body to be slidable against the core barrel axially with respect to the center axis (3:61-64, 4:7-11, 4:56-5:10, 5:11-15, 5:32-42). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 3. Blatter teaches the locking of the contact body inside the thermal shield includes installing a fastener (34) contacting the thermal shield and the contact body (FIG. 2, 3:15-19, 5:32-42). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 4. Blatter teaches the fastener is a set screw and the installing of the fastener includes screwing the set screw into the thermal shield and into contact with an outer circumferential surface of the contact body (FIG. 2, 3:15-19, 5:32-42). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 4. Blatter teaches the installing of the fastener contacting the thermal shield and the contact body comprises (see FIG. 2): providing a hole (“opening”) into the outer circumferential surface of the thermal shield (3:15-19, 5:11-15); and introducing the fastener inside the hole (5:11-15). Although Blatter does not explicitly state “machining” the hole, the process of “machining” includes forming by, with, or using a machine1,2. As a machine encompasses any mechanism that uses mechanical power to perform an action3,4, the skilled artisan would reasonably infer that Blatter’s opening through the thermal shield, including threads, is machined (i.e., formed by, with, or using a machine). Additionally, Pillard teaches that it was known in the art to form threaded openings in a thermal shield by machining ([0035]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSA to provide the hole in the thermal shield of the modified Pillard’s method by machining because Pillard teaches this as a suitable method for forming threaded openings in a thermal shield ([0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Pillard discloses providing a flat surface on the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel (FIG. 2). Blatter also teaches providing a flat surface on the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel and teaches the tip of the contact body including a flat surface, the contact body being installed such that the flat surface of the tip of the contact body contacts the flat surface on the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel (FIG. 2, 3:61-64, 5:11-15). As discussed above, although Pillard and Blatter do not explicitly state “machining” the flat surface, the process of “machining” includes forming by, with, or using a machine1,2. As a machine encompasses any mechanism that uses mechanical power to perform an action3,4, the skilled artisan would reasonably infer that the flat surface on the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel is machined (i.e., formed by, with, or using a machine). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method the method as recited in claim 9. Blatter teaches an axial height of the flat surface on the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel (e.g., a length of the core barrel in the vertical direction in FIG. 1) is greater than an axial height of the flat surface of the tip of the contact body (e.g., a length of the end surface of element 24 in the vertical direction in FIGS. 1-2) to allow axial sliding of the flat surface of the tip of the contact body along the flat surface on the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel due to differential thermal expansion rates between the core barrel and the thermal shield (FIGS. 1-2, 5:11-15). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Blatter teaches the installing of the contact body comprises (see FIG. 2): piercing a hole (“opening”) passing radially, with respect to the center axis, through the thermal shield from an outer circumferential surface of the thermal shield past to the inner circumferential surface of the thermal shield (3:15-19, 5:11-15); and introducing the contact body inside the hole (5:11-15). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 13. Blatter teaches the hole has an internal thread and the contact body has an external thread (17) cooperating with the internal thread, the introducing of the contact body inside the hole including engaging the external thread with the internal thread and screwing the contact body into the hole (FIG. 2, 3:15-19, 5:11-15). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 2. Pillard discloses the removing of the flexible arm of at least one of the thermal shield flexures includes leaving the main plate of the at least one thermal shield flexure in place (FIG. 6, [0030], [0034]).
Regarding claim 18, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 1. Blatter appears to be silent as to the specific axial height at which the contact body is installed. However, it would have been obvious to a POSA to install the contact body at an axial height above the lower edge in the range of 6 to 18 inches since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. It would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the installation height of the contact body based on the desired displacement data, as suggested by Blatter (3:6-9).
Regarding claim 19, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 2. Blatter teaches installing, at the axial height above the lower edge of the thermal shield, a plurality of the contact bodies (FIG. 1, 3:6-9, 5:11-15). Pillard further suggests removing the flexible arm of a plurality of the thermal shield flexures when the welded joints of the thermal shield flexures are damaged or fail, regardless of the extent of damage ([0004], [0034], [0037]). The skilled artisan would have recognized that replacing all of the flexible arms would provide the predictable advantage of replacing damaged or failed thermal shield flexures and avoiding potential degradation, and therefore failure, of other thermal shield flexures. Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSA to remove the flexible arm of all of the thermal shield flexures based on the condition of the thermal shield flexures.
Regarding claim 20, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 19. Blatter teaches the contact bodies are spaced at circumferential intervals about the thermal shield with respect to the center axis (FIG. 1, 3:6-9). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter, would have resulted in the features of claim 20.
Claims 5-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pillard in view of Blatter further in view of US Publication No. 2015/0184845 (“Lobscheid”).
Regarding claim 5, Pillard in view of Blatter teaches the method as recited in claim 4. Blatter teaches the locking of the contact body inside the thermal shield further includes welding (50, 56) the fastener and the contact body (5:4-7, 5:38-42), and does not appear to teach the locking includes performing a staking to deform the fastener and/or the contact body. However, Lobscheid (newly cited) is similarly directed towards a maintenance method for a nuclear reactor and teaches it was known in the art to lock a threaded component by either welding or staking ([0037], [0179]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to lock the modified Pillard’s contact body by performing a staking to deform the fastener and/or the contact body because Lobscheid teaches this as a suitable alternative to welding. Substitution of one known element (e.g., Blatter’s welding) for another (e.g., Lobscheid’s staking) would have yielded predictable results (e.g., locking the contact body) to a POSA.
Regarding claim 6, Pillard in view of Blatter and Lobscheid teaches the method as recited in claim 5. Lobscheid teaches the performing of the staking deforms threads of the contact body ([0175]). Thus, Pillard, modified to include a step of installing a contact body as taught by Blatter and to perform a staking as taught by Lobscheid, would have resulted in the features of claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Pillard, Blatter, and Brown (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) are the closest prior art references. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest creating a spotface on the core barrel as recited in claim 11. Rather, Pillard explicitly discloses that the maintenance method does not require any additional openings be made through the core barrel ([0037]) and Brown discloses providing a surface that projects from the outer circumferential surface (FIG. 1). Further, while Blatter teaches providing a flat surface on the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel and teaches the tip of the contact body including a flat surface, the contact body being installed such that the flat surface of the tip of the contact body contacts the flat surface on the outer circumferential surface of the core barrel (FIG. 2, 3:61-64, 5:11-15), the prior art does not teach or suggest passing a tip of a machining tool through the hole in the thermal shield to machine the flat surface as recited in claim 15.
Additional References
The following references would also appear to be relevant to Applicant’s invention and are therefore cited in the attached PTO-892:
US Patent No. 4,607,534: discloses installing a contact body (14) in a thermal shield (12) passing radially, with respect to a center axis of a core barrel (10), through the thermal shield past an inner circumferential surface (e.g., bottom surface of element 12 in FIG. 1) of the thermal shield such that a tip of the contact body bears against an outer circumferential surface (e.g., top surface of element 10 in FIG. 1) of the core barrel with a predetermined load (FIG. 1, 1:7-17, 1:45-52)
US Patent No. 4,849,158: discloses installing, at an axial height above a lower edge of a thermal shield (13), a contact body (19) bearing against an outer circumferential surface of a core barrel (12) (FIG. 1, Abstract)
The Applied References
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).
Application Status Information
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
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://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/machining
2 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/machining
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine
4 https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780198832102.001.0001/acref-9780198832102-e-3688?rskey=G47NRT&result=4
Prosecution Insights