DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 14 May 2026. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-9, 11, and 21 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.
Claims 1 and 6-8
Claim 1 recites “the outer housing is configured about the inner housing and the heat source”. Thus, as best understood, the “heat source” is positively recited in claim 1. It follows that in claims 6-8, the phrase “further comprising the heat source” is unclear. Said phrase appears to be redundant since the “heat source” is already recited. Either claims 6-8 conflict with claim 1, or claim 1 conflicts with claims 6-8.
Claim 11
It remains unclear what constitutes a “core block material”. It is unclear whether the “core block material” relates to a nuclear reactor. For example, it is unclear whether the “core block material” is a “core block material of a nuclear reactor core”.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “claims 1, 10, and 18 each require an inner housing defining an inner volume configured to accommodate a heat source” and that “the element identified as ‘9’ is expressly described as a sealing bush . . . rather than as a housing defining a volume for a heat source” (Remarks at page 10).
The Examiner maintains that Fiebelmann discloses an inner housing (9). Anything that can emit heat constitutes a heat source. Clearly Fiebelmann’s component (9) has a structural configuration that is “configured to accommodate a heat source”. The noted claims don’t positively recite (or even mention) what the heat source is.
Applicant argues that “claims 1, 10, and 18 further require a wick positioned between the inner housing and the outer housing, wherein the wick contacts at least a portion of the outer surface of the inner housing and at least a portion of the inner surface of the outer housing, and wherein the wick defines an intermediate volume between the inner housing and the outer housing” (Remarks at page 10).
The Examiner notes that claim 18 does not contain the argued features. The Examiner further notes that claims 1 and 10 actually recite that “the wick is configured to contact . . . the outer surface of the inner housing” and “the wick is configured to contact . . . the inner surface of the outer housing”. That is, these claims do not recite that “the wick contacts” the surfaces, as argued.
Regardless, the Examiner maintains that Fiebelmann discloses a wick (3, 5) that contacts an outer surface of the inner housing (9) and an inner surface of the outer housing (1). Figure 2 shows a wick portion (3) contacting an outer surface of the inner housing (9). Figure 1 shows a wick portion (5) contacting an inner surface of the outer housing (1). The wick structure itself, which is positioned between the inner housing and the outer housing, “defines an intermediate volume between the inner housing and the outer housing”.
Applicant argues that “The end-cap, as arranged in claims 5 and 14 is not disclosed in Fiebelmann” (Remarks at page 11).
The Examiner maintains that Fiebelmann discloses the recited end-cap. Fiebelmann teaches endcaps (6; 23). The noted claims recite “the end-cap is configured to mechanically contact the outer housing, the inner housing, and the wick”. The noted claims do not require the end-cap to actually contact the outer housing, the inner housing, and the wick. Fiebelmann’s endcaps have a structural configuration that allows them to be contacted to the outer housing, the inner housing, and the wick. Applicant appears to be arguing that “the end-cap contacts the outer housing, the inner housing, and the wick”, but this feature is not recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
Claims 1, 9-11, 14, 16-17, and 21-22 as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fiebelmann (US 3,414,475).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 19 March 2026 are herein incorporated by reference. Fiebelmann further teaches ribs (19, 25, 28) mechanically coupled to an inner surface and an outer surface of the wick.
Claims 1, 9, 18-21, and 23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Faghri (US 5,000,252).
Faghri (cited via IDS) teaches a heat pipe that is structurally configured to remove heat from a nuclear reactor core. The heat pipe (22) comprises an inner housing (28), an outer housing (24), a wick (29), and a working fluid (26). The wick contacts an outer surface of the inner housing, and contacts an inner surface of the outer housing (e.g., col. 4, lines 36-41). A cladding (13; 15) is configured about the outer housing. Note the similar rejection in corresponding European Patent Application 23215096. Faghri’s wick further comprises a plurality of ribs. Some ribs are mechanically coupled to an inner surface of wick. Some ribs are mechanically coupled to an outer surface of the wick (e.g., col. 4, lines 36-41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 6-8, 15, 18-20, and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiebelmann (US 3,414,475) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 8,000,431) and Loginov (US 2021/0335510).
Fiebelmann discloses using nuclear fuel as a heat source (e.g., col. 2, lines 56-57; col. 5, lines 28-31). Johnson (cited via IDS) shows that it is well known in the art to mix a moderator (26) with nuclear fuel (e.g., 24; uranium) to enhance neutron moderation. Modification of Fiebelmann to have included a moderator mixed with the fuel to enhance neutron moderation, as suggested by Johnson, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With said modification, Fiebelmann’s heat source includes a moderator.
Loginov (cited via IDS) discloses having nuclear fuel (8) in a cladding (1, 3) positioned about the outer housing (2) of a heat pipe. The arrangement allows for additional heat generation due to more nuclear reactions. Further modification of Fiebelmann to have included additional nuclear fuel outside of the heat pipe to have generated more heat, as suggested by Loginov, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The result of the modifications would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
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