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
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (identified by the examiner as species A1 in the office action dated 02/09/26) in the reply filed on 04/09/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not patentably distinct and there is no serious search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because, respectfully, there is a clear difference between the two species. One reactor operated in the fast neutron spectrum and the other is the thermal/epithermal spectrum. The recitations of claims 12 and 13 to which the identified species are directed clearly recite such a difference: thermal/epithermal reactor includes a moderator and the fast reactor is “devoid of moderating material.” The reason the species are distinct are in the claims and the disclosure and no further explanation is needed. Further, there is a serious search and examination burden because “the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species.” Prior art disclosing a fast reactor is unlikely to also disclose a thermal reactor. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
2. Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/09/26.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-19 are pending in this application with claim 13 withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are examined herein.
Drawings
4. The present drawings contain substantial shading that obscures key details of the present invention. Black and white line drawings are required. Any shading must comply with the guidelines set forth in MPEP 608.02(V).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-12 and 14-19 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.
7. Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a first coolant using at least one liquid metal or at least one inert liquid salt” is unclear. Is this intended to mean that the coolant is a liquid metal or a liquid salt? Are these the same liquid metal or molten salt(s) introduced in the preamble? Additionally, the phrase “as the coolant of a primary circuit of the reactor” is unclear. Additionally, the recitation of “the liquid metal or liquid salt coolant” in line 11 is unclear because the claim previously introduced “at least one inert liquid salt.” It appears that line 11 should simply refer to “the first coolant.” Moreover, the phrase “with the primary vessel filled with liquid metal (line 26, which is the fourth line of the second page of the claim) is unclear because the claim previous introduces the first coolant, which can be either a liquid metal or at least one inert salt. Similarly, in line 29, it is unclear what the recitation “the liquid metal” refers to.
8. Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “a reactor core” in lines 12-13 is unclear because the claim previously introduces “a core made up of assemblies.”
9. Finally, regarding claim 1, the recitation “the heat” lack any antecedent basis. It is additional unclear what structural limitation the phrase “capable of removing the heat itself” places on the second coolant. The recitation “a heat network” is indefinite because it places no clear limits on the structure of this element.
10. Regarding claim 2, the recitation “arranged vertically and mounted as feedthroughs of the core head plug of the primary vessel having blades arranged above the redan” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “arranged vertically.” Are multiple pumps arranged such that one is vertically above other? Are the pumps arranged vertically above the reactor vessel?
11. Regarding claim 3, there is no antecedent basis for “inert liquid salt(s) between the primary vessel and the shell. Claim 1 introduces “at least one inert liquid salt” in the primary vessel.
12. Regarding claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the second vessel” because claim 1 introduces a “secondary” vessel.
13. Claims 5 and 18 are unclear because they refer to “the inert liquid salt” while claim 1 introduces “at least one inert liquid salt.”
14. Claim 7 is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the liquid metal of a bath between the primary vessel and the shell.” Such a liquid metal was not previously introduced. Claim 1 only introduces a liquid metal within the primary vessel.
15. Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the solid nuclear fuels are based on” is unclear. First, claim 1 introduces “nuclear fuel materials in the solid state,” and it is unclear if claim 9 is intended to refer to this recitation. Additionally, it is unclear what “are based on” means in the context of the claim. Do the nuclear fuel materials comprise the recited list? Moreover, there is a broad recitation “enriched uranium U235” combined with a narrow limitation “HALEU” which does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 1, 4-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthe et al., US 2021/0210229 in view of Austin, et a., GB 2 263 188.
20. Regarding claim 1, Gauthe discloses a nuclear reactor cooled by liquid metal ([0076]), comprising:
a primary vessel (10) axisymmetric about a central axis filled with a first coolant using at least one liquid metal as the coolant of a primary circuit of the reactor ([0084]), comprising:
a core (11) made up of assemblies (110) containing nuclear fuel materials in the solid state, contained in at least one barrel (see Fig. 4 and the NRC glossary definitions of fuel assembly and fuel rod);
at least one pump for circulating the first coolant ([0080];[0086])
a structure forming a redan (16), with a central axis coincident with the central axis of the primary vessel, the structure being arranged in the primary vessel so as to separate an inside thereof into a central zone and a peripheral zone so that during operation of the reactor, the liquid metal coolant circulates by natural convection, in a loop from a bottom of the central zone in which is arranged the reactor core inside which fission reactions occur, rises by heating to a top of the central zone, diverted towards a top of the peripheral zone to descend towards a bottom of the peripheral zone, where it is diverted towards the core of the reactor ([0088], [0090]);
a secondary vessel (32) arranged around the primary vessel;
a core head plug (17) configured to enclose the first coolant inside the primary vessel ([0085]); and
a system for removing the heat both during nominal operation and in situations in which the nuclear reactor is shut down ([0101]), the system comprising:
a shell (32) arranged between the primary vessel and the secondary vessel, defining a volume (E) with the primary vessel filled with liquid metal ([0084]); and
a closed secondary circuit (400) filled with a second coolant and capable of removing the heat itself removed by conduction through the primary vessel and transferred by the liquid metal, to a heat network ([0102-7]).
Gauthe does not disclose a second heat removal system comprising a phase change material. Austin teaches a liquid metal cooled nuclear reactor (see Fig. 1 and p. 1) comprising a primary vessel (1) axisymmetric about a central axis, filled with a first coolant using at least one liquid metal as the coolant of a primary circuit of the reactor
a secondary vessel (3), arranged around the primary vessel;
a reactor pit (7); arranged around the secondary vessel;
a system for removing decay heat in accident situations of the nuclear reactor, the system comprising: at least one solid-liquid phase-change material (PCM) arranged inside a space delimited between the shell and the secondary vessel (p. 4), the PCM(s) being capable of melting while storing by latent heat at least some of the decay heat emitted by the core in accident situations, for a predetermined duration (p.4).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the heat removal system of Austin with the reactor of Gauthe for the predictable purpose of “increasing transfer of heat through the space” surrounding the secondary vessel of Gauthe (see Austin at p. 1).
21. Regarding claim 4, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe further discloses the primary vessel and the shell being concentric right cylinders (Fig. 4), while Austin further teaches the primary and secondary vessels being right cylinders arranged concentrically with each other. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the chape of Gauthe’s secondary vessel to be a cylinder.
22. Claims 5 and 18 further limit an alternative limitation of claim 1. Because Gauthe discloses the other alternative, these claims are not addressed further on the basis of prior art.
23. Regarding claim 6, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe further discloses a reactor wherein the closed secondary circuit comprises a serpentine coil (42) arranged between the primary vessel and the shell in a spiral around the shell (Fig. 3, [0117])
24. Regarding claims 8 and 9, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Austin further discloses that the phase change material is a powder of pure aluminum (see pp. 3-4). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the heat removal system of Austin with the reactor of Gauthe for the reason stated above.
25. Regarding claims 10 and 11, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe further discloses the primary vessel and the shell being made of AISI 316L stainless steel ([0084], [0099]). Austin is silent as to the material of its secondary vessel. However, it would be reasonable to assume that it is made of a heat conducting metal so as to transfer heat to the phase change material between the secondary vessel and the reactor pit (p.4). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select the AISI 316L stainless steel of Gauthe for all of the vessels on the combination with Austin. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
26. Regarding claim 12, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe further discloses a nuclear reactor wherein the primary vessel is devoid of moderating material so that the reactor operates using fast neutrons ([0001] “fast”).
27. Regarding claims 14 and 15, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe further discloses a reactor wherein the solid nuclear fuels are nuclear fuel assemblies ([00077]), but is silent as to the type of fuel in the fuel assemblies. However low enriched UO2 fuels are ubiquitous in the art and therefore would have been an obvious choice in the reactor of Gauthe (see the NRC glossary definitions of fuel assembly, fuel rod and fuel pellet).
28. Regarding claim 17, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe discloses a reactor having a power of 50-200 MW, a range that encompasses the claimed range. Therefore, the claimed range is obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I).
29. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthe et al., US 2021/0210229 in view of Austin, et a., GB 2 263 188 in further view of Kubintsev et al., US 2016/0336082.
30. Regarding claim 2, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe is silent as to the placement of its pumps, merely stating that the pumping means are supported on the reactor top slab (see [0091]). Kubintsev teaches a nuclear reactor cooled by liquid metal ([0001]) having centrifugal circulation pumps ([0019]) arranged vertically (see Fig. 1) and mounted as feedthroughs of a core head plug (2) of a primary vessel (1) having blades (“impellers”) arranged above a redan (14; see Figs. 1 and 2). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the pump arrangement taught by Kubintsev to the reactor of Gauthe for the predictable purpose of so as to adequately pump the hot liquid metal coolant up to the heat exchangers (see [0019-21]).
31. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthe et al., US 2021/0210229 in view of Austin, et a., GB 2 263 188 in further view of Hunsbedt et al, US 5,021,211.
32. Regarding claim 16, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe suggests the presence of a reactivity control system ([0006]), but is silent as to its details. Hunsbedt teaches a liquid metal cooled nuclear reactor having a reactivity control system comprising control rods inside the primary vessel (column 4, lines 36-38). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine such control rods with the reactor of Gauthe for the predictable purpose of “ control[ing] the fission activity and rate of the fuel of the core and in turn production of thermal energy (column 4, lines 3-40).
33. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthe et al., US 2021/0210229 in view of Austin, et a., GB 2 263 188 in further view of Jackson US, 3,888,730.
34. Regarding claim 19, Gauthe as modified by Austin makes claim 1 obvious. Gauthe does not disclose fins on the heat exchange tubes of its secondary circuit. Jackson teaches a heat exchange circuit for a liquid metal cooled nuclear reactor, the heat exchange tubes having fins on their periphery (column 3, lines 43-50). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the fins taught by Jackson to the cooling system of Gautier because it is well-known in the art of heat exchangers that fins provide increased surface area, thereby increasing heat transfer between media.
Double Patenting
35. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
36. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
37. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
38. Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18593478 (reference application). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application anticipates claim 1 of the reference application. Additionally, all dependent claims are identical in the two applications.
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
Prosecution Insights