DETAILED ACTION
Election
Claims 1-14 are pending. Applicant’s election of Invention I without traverse in the Reply filed 13 April 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 1-8. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Inventions. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-8 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “a fluid line for providing a movement path for inert gas into a reactor” is unclear. It is unclear whether the “reactor” is a nuclear reactor or some other type of reactor. It is unclear where the specification provides support for a generic reactor.
The phrase “an inert salt liquid layer surrounding the reactor” is unclear. It is unclear what constitutes the recited structure of a “reactor”. For example, it is unclear whether the “reactor” is an entire nuclear plant, a reactor vessel containing interior components, a reactor containment vessel containing interior components, a reactor core, or something else. It is unclear, in view of the specification, whether the phrase should be interpreted as “an inert salt liquid layer surrounding a reactor core of the nuclear reactor”.
The phrase “an inert salt solid layer . . . surrounded by the fluid line” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how a single “line” can surround a component (salt solid layer) that is located outside of the interior of said line. It is unclear in said phrase whether the “line” is actually an annular space that surrounds the inert salt solid layer.
It is unclear whether an “inert gas” is being positively recited, or whether the fluid line is merely structurally capable of having an inert gas therein.
Claim 2
The phrase “the fluid line surrounds the inert salt solid layer” appears to already be recited in claim 1. Thus, it is unclear whether the phrase is redundant or means something else.
The phrase “molten salt discharged through a discharge path provided by the fluid line” is unclear. Claim 1 indicates that the fluid line is “for inert gas”, not for molten salt. Thus, the phrase conflicts with claim 1. Also, if the fluid line surrounds both the inert salt liquid layer and the inert salt solid layer (as indicated in claim 1), then it is unclear how the liquid salt can ever enter the (discharge) fluid line. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which structurally link the fluid line to the liquid salt inside the reactor, and other component linking structure.
Claim 3
The phrase “the inert salt liquid layer cools the reactor” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the liquid salt cools the reactor core or the entire reactor.
The phrase “the inert salt liquid layer . . . blocks the discharge path of the molten salt” is unclear. For example, the phrase confusingly implies that the liquid salt blocks the liquid salt. It is unclear how the liquid salt can block its own path.
Claim 4
The phrase “the inert salt solid” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “the inert salt solid layer”.
The phrase “the fluid line blocks the movement path of the inert gas” is unclear. It is unclear how the line alone can block gas flow. It would appear that some other component (e.g., a valve) associated with the line would be necessary to block gas flow.
It is unclear what constitutes “a discharge path from an inside of the reactor to an outside molten salt inside the reactor”. The structure of “a discharge path from an inside of the reactor to an . . . inside the reactor” is confusing and unclear.
The phrase “the discharge path provided by the fluid line surrounding the inert salt solid layer” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus. It is unclear how the intended functional use (i.e., upon occurrence of an accident) further limits the apparatus structure, especially since an “accident” is not required to occur. Certain subject matter of claim 4 is defined by an intended result (e.g., inert salt solid is phase-changed into an inert salt liquid) to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
It is unclear what constitutes an “accident”. Different accidents would be caused by different features, and would require different levels of actions.
Claim 6
It is unclear whether the mentioned “reactor” is the reactor of claim 1 or a different reactor. It is unclear whether “a reactor” should be interpreted as “the reactor”.
It is unclear whether the mentioned “fluid line” is the fluid line of claim 1 or a different fluid line. It is unclear whether “a fluid line” should be interpreted as “the fluid line”.
The phrase “an auxiliary cooling unit for containing a reactor therein to cool a containment vessel surrounding a fluid line” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how a reactor (contained in an auxiliary cooling unit) can cool a containment vessel. A nuclear reactor is typically hotter than a containment vessel.
Claim 8
The phrase “a gas tank for storing inert gas provided through the fluid line” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the phrase means: the gas tank stores inert gas provided by the fluid line; the gas tank provides inert gas to the fluid line; or something else.
The phrase “the accident” lacks proper antecedent basis. There is mention of an accident in claim 4, but claim 8 depends on claim 5/1.
It is unclear what feature (e.g., pressure difference?, etc.) causes molten salt (inside reactor) to flow into the fluid entrance when gas tank stops providing inert gas.
It is unclear how a fluid entrance at a lower side of a reactor can discharge inert gas stored in the gas tank. The features that link the entrance to (gas discharging from) the gas tank are unknown and unclear. The structural link between the fluid entrance and the fluid line (if any) is unclear. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the fluid entrance to cause gas to be discharged from the distant gas tank.
It is unclear what constitutes an “accident”. Different accidents would be caused by different features, and would require different levels of actions. The claim does not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of clear and definite claim scope.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Blum (US 4,186,049) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blum in combination with Hunsbedt (US 5,499,277) and Zhang ("Evaluation of mitigation strategies for radioactive fission gases in fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactors", Annals of Nuclear Energy 176 (2022): 109289).
Anticipation analysis regarding at least claims 1 and 5
In Blum, a liquid salt layer (e.g., flow arrows in Figure 1) surrounds a solid salt layer (13). A fluid line (9) surrounds the solid salt. The fluid line is structurally capable of being an inert gas path. The gas would inherently move due to various temperatures. This anticipation rejection is partly based on the “inert gas” not being positively recited.
Obviousness analysis regarding at least claims 1 and 5
Blum is discussed above. Hunsbedt shows that it is well known in the art to use a flowing inert gas (16, 31) to cool the outside of a reactor vessel (15). Zhang shows that it is well known in the art to use inert gas to cool a reactor vessel which contains liquid salt (e.g., Figure 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a fluid used to cool the outside of a reactor vessel can be implemented with various characteristics (e.g., based on fluid costs, required heat transfer, fluid availability, etc.), necessarily amounting to certain design features obviously more favorable to use of a certain cooling fluids in light of the specific nuclear reactor design. The skilled artisan would also understand that Blum can be employed in different embodiments that employ different flowing cooling fluids.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Blum to have employed a flowing inert gas in the space (9), as suggested by the combination of Hunsbedt and Zhang, to meet a particular reactor design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan. This obviousness rejection is partly based on the “inert gas” being positively recited.
Claim 2
Blum discloses a containment vessel (8, 2).
Claim 3
In Blum, the liquid salt cools the reactor.
Claim 4
In Blum the inert salt solid layer forms an insulating layer surrounding the inert salt liquid layer. No “accident” is being positively recited. However, in an accident where the fluid line blocks the movement path of the inert gas and provides a discharge path from an inside of the reactor to an outside molten salt inside the reactor, then “the inert salt solid is phase-changed into an inert salt liquid”.
Claim 6
Hunsbedt shows that it is well known in the art to employ an auxiliary cooling unit (6, 13, 39) to cool a containment vessel (7).
Claim 7
Blum discloses a fluid line heat exchanger (10).
Claim 8
In the modified Blum, there would inherently be a source of gas (i.e., a gas tank), and the gas would flow to a lower side of the reactor. No “accident” is being positively recited. However, in an accident where the gas tank explodes and a leak path occurs between the liquid salt (in the reactor) and the fluid line, then “the gas tank stops providing the inert gas, and molten salt inside the reactor is introduced into the fluid entrance”.
Objections to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
an inert salt liquid layer surrounding an entire reactor (claim 1).
a single fluid line surrounding an inert salt solid layer, which surrounds an inert salt liquid layer, which surrounds an entire reactor (claim 1).
a discharge path provided by the fluid line (claim 2).
an inert salt liquid layer blocks a discharge path (claim 3).
a discharge path to an outside of the containment vessel (claim 3).
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.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because it contains unclear language, as noted above. The Abstract is also objected to because it does not correspond to the recited invention. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is too generic for the elected invention. Rather, the Title corresponds to conventional prior art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for priority based upon foreign application KR 10-2023-0011232 filed 27 January 2023. However, the claim for priority is not valid because the current United States application (filed 23 February 2024) was filed more than twelve months after the foreign application.
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
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 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 Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights