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 .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 8 and 16 objected to because of the following informality: “wherein the plurality of coolant flow channels comprise first coolant flow channels extending longitudinally, wherein each fuel segment further comprises a plurality of second coolant flow channels defined by the body, and wherein the second coolant flow channels extendare defined in…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Russell, II et al., US 2022/0068512.
7. Regarding claim 11, Russell discloses a fuel segment (108; Figs. 3A, 3B) for a fuel assembly (Figs. 2A,2B) comprising control rods (200), wherein the fuel segment comprises: a body (102) comprising an enclosure (180) and a fission material (190; [0038]]) encapsulated within the enclosure, wherein the body defines: a plurality of coolant flow channels (164) ; and a plurality of control rod openings (164), wherein the control rod openings are to receive the control rods (200) of the fuel assembly ([0042]; see Fig. 6).
The recitation “for a fuel assembly comprising an upper nozzle, a lower nozzle, and a plurality of guide tubes intermediate the upper nozzle and the lower nozzle” is an intended use recitation. The fuel segment of Russell is capable of use in a fuel assembly comprising such features even if Russell does not explicitly disclose such a fuel assembly.
8. Regarding claim 12, Russell discloses the fuel segment of claim 11 and further discloses wherein the body is 3D printed (0052]).
9. Regarding claims 13 and 14, Russell discloses the fuel segment of claim 11 and further discloses a fuel segment wherein the control rods of the fuel assembly define a first array, wherein the control rod of the fuel segment define a second array that corresponds to the first array, wherein the coolant flow channels are defined in a third array, and wherein the second array of the guide tube openings is disposed within the third array of the coolant flow channels(see Figs. 2A, 5D, and 6 and [0038], [0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
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.
12. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., US 5,009,837 in view of Russell, II et al., US 2022/0068512.
13. Regarding claim 1, Nguyen discloses a segmented fuel assembly (Figs. 2-3) for use in a nuclear reactor (column 1, lines 8-11), comprising: a lower nozzle (12); an upper nozzle (22); a plurality of guide tubes (36) positioned intermediate the lower nozzle and the upper nozzle, wherein the plurality of guide tubes are arranged in a first array, and wherein each guide tube defines a longitudinal axis; and a plurality of fuel segments (34C) positioned intermediate the upper nozzle and the lower nozzle, wherein the guide tubes pass though the fuel segments in a second array corresponding to the first array.
Nguyen does not discloses a fuel segment comprising a body defining a plurality of coolant flow channels. Russell discloses a fuel segment (108; Figs. 3A, 3B) comprising: a body (102) defining a plurality of coolant flow channels (164) ; and a plurality of control rod openings (164; [0042]), wherein the control rod openings are arranged in an array corresponding to an array of control rods (200) in a fuel assembly (see Figs. 2A, 5D, 6) to receive the control rods (200) of the fuel assembly ([0042]; see Fig. 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the fuel segments taught by Russell with the fuel assembly of Nguyen because Russell teaches that its fuel segment advantageously improves resistance to failure due to fission gas release and thermal expansion (see [0039])
In the proposed combination, Nguyen’s guide tube segments (36) would pass through the designated openings 164 of Russell’s fuel segments.
14. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Russell with Nguyen makes claim 1 obvious. Russell further teaches a fuel segment wherein the body (102) comprises an enclosure (180) and a fission material (190; [0038]]) encapsulated within the enclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the fuel segments taught by Russell with the fuel assembly of Nguyen for the reasons stated above.
15. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Russell with Nguyen makes claim 1 obvious. Russell further teaches a fuel segment wherein the body is 3D printed (0052]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the fuel segments taught by Russell with the fuel assembly of Nguyen for the reasons stated above.
16. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Russell with Nguyen makes claim 1 obvious. Nguyen further discloses a fuel assembly wherein the plurality of fuel segments are arranged in a stacked configuration intermediate the lower nozzle and the upper nozzle (see Fig. 2).
17. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Russell with Nguyen makes claim 1 obvious. Nguyen further discloses a fuel assembly, wherein the plurality of fuel segments comprise a first fuel segment and a second fuel segment, wherein the first fuel segment comprises a protrusion and the second fuel segment comprises an opening to receive the protrusion, and wherein the protrusion and opening are configured to interlock the first fuel segment and the second fuel segment (see Figs. 2-5 and 7-9; column 6, lines 21-53).
18. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Russell with Nguyen makes claim 1 obvious. Russell further teaches a fuel segment wherein the coolant flow channels are defined in a third array, and wherein the second array of the guide tube openings is disposed within the third array of the coolant flow channels (see Figs. 2A, 5D, and 6 and [0038], [0042]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the fuel segments taught by Russell with the fuel assembly of Nguyen for the reasons stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 7-10 and 15-20 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.
20. Additionally, claims 2 and 11 could be amended to differentiate from the combination of Nguyen and Russell or Russell alone with additional language defining the structural relationship of the fissionable material to the body (i.e., compare the placement of fission material 157 with respect to the body in Fig. 6 of the instant disclosure with the fission material 190 in Fig. 4 of Russell).
21. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art cited and applied (see PTO-892 and above rejections) fails to disclose or suggest the specific details of the fuel assembly/fuel segment as recited in these claims.
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