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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to an apparatus, classified in G21C 1/103.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to a method, classified in G21C 15/28.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed may be used to produce medical radioisotopes.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
b. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
c. The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
d. The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
e. The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Doug Lineberry on 2/5/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first three clauses all end in colons; Examiner believes at least one of these is probably intended to be a semi-colon. Additionally, the fourth clause ends with “comprising” followed by a semi-colon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 further delineates a control rod; however, the presence of a control rod was optional in parent claim 1. Therefore, it is improper for a dependent claim to assume the control rod is already present. This may be fixed by first actively reciting the control rod in claim 6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gramlich (US 20210304909).
Regarding claim 1, Gramlich discloses a mobile nuclear microreactor (see especially Fig. 2) comprising: at least one reactor cavity cooling system (300, 324, Fig. 10A) at least partially surrounding at least one reactor pressure vessel (150)[;] the at least one reactor pressure vessel comprising: at least one active core (110) further comprising[:] a plurality of hexagonal moderator blocks (122) arranged in at least one hexagonal lattice array within the at least one active core; wherein the plurality of hexagonal moderator blocks have at least one hole drilled1 in each to contain either at least one fuel rod (120) or at least one control rod; wherein the at least one active core is at least partially surrounded by at least one reflector (130); wherein at least one control drum (160) is placed at an outer edge of the active core; wherein the at least one control drum includes at least one neutron absorber arc (162); at least one upper plenum (area around upper plate 304, Fig. 9) configured as an inlet for at least one coolant positioned above the at least one active core (¶ 45); and at least one lower plenum (area around lower plate 310, Fig. 9) configured as an outlet for the at least one coolant positioned below the at least one active core (“a lower reactor plate 310 is positioned below (or outward) the lower core plate 250 and includes a plurality of holes 306 for passage of the propulsion gas exiting the coolant channels 128,” ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 2, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the reactor is transportable from a first location to a second location without requiring disassembling the mobile nuclear microreactor (the reactor is intended for space propulsion, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the at least one reflector is comprised of Beryllium Oxide (“reflector includes … beryllium oxide,” claim 20).
Regarding claim 5, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the at least one control drum (160) is configured to rotate to change position of the at least one neutron absorber arc (162) with respect to the at least one active core to control power generation of the at least one active core (“The neutron absorber body 162 is movable between the first position and the second position to control the reactivity of the active core,” ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 7, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the at least one neutron absorber arc comprises Boron Carbide (B4C,” ¶ 33).
Regarding claim 8, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses further comprising at least one coolant riser (128) contained within the reactor pressure vessel.
Regarding claim 9, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein at least a subset of the plurality of hexagonal moderator blocks (122) define at least one annular channel (128/206) configured to allow coolant to flow within the hexagonal moderator blocks containing the at least one annular channel.
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 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gramlich in view of Reed (US 20230024338).
Regarding claim 4, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one coolant comprises Helium. Reed does. Reed is also in the art area of nuclear reactors and teaches that helium is an appropriate coolant (“coolant … can include helium,” ¶ 64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized helium as a the coolant, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose the use of control rods along with the control drums. Reed does. Reed is also in the art area of nuclear reactors and teaches (¶ 62) using control drums (115A-N) as well as control rods (“control rods,” ¶ 62) wherein the at least one control rod is positioned within the at least one active core (101) in combination with changing position of the at least one neutron absorber arc (117) to control power generation of the at least one active core. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize both control drums and control rods in order to, as explained by Gramlich in ¶ 62, utilize the control rods as well for “a terrestrial land application.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gramlich in view of Fetterman (US 2010/0054389).
Regarding claim 10, Gramlich anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose discrete parts of the core having different uranium enrichments. Fetterman does. Fetterman is also in the art area of nuclear reactors and teaches (Fig. 5) wherein the at least one active core (having an assembly 22) is formed into at least two discrete sections (e.g., the outermost section with 0.45 enrichment and an interior section comprising a set of fuel rods having 1.00 enrichment) with each discrete section having a unique Uranium-235 enrichment (0.45 versus 1.00). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this arrangement of fuel, known in the art as enrichment zoning, in order to “allow increased flexibility in how the [fuel] assemblies are placed within the reactor core” for the reasons explained in at least ¶ 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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 (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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 The use of the term “drilled” is interpreted by the Examiner as a product-by-process limitation. In accordance with MPEP 2113, the structure implied by the limitation—a hole in the block for rod insertion—is not limited by its method of production. Examiner has reviewed the Specification and can find no support for any peculiarity to the claimed hole due to its method of creation. Therefore, a prior art reference which reasonably teaches the structure, regardless of whether a drill was used, reads on the limitation.