PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-16, drawn to an apparatus, classified in G21D 5/02.
II. Claims 17-25, drawn to a method, classified in G21C 3/06.
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 conversation with Jeffrey Killian on 2/18/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-25 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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. However, please see the below objections/rejections related to this claim. As explained further below, Examiner believes the verbiage of claim 7 may be in error.
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. Therefore, the projection of the channel axis of the second portion of [the] second channels wherein it is shown not intersecting the exhaust shield assembly (claim 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The only “projection” mentioned in the disclosure is reference numeral 444, which appears to Examiner to be unrelated to the claimed projection. If it is indeed related, the claims or Specification should be amended to use similar language. Examiner also cannot find a drawing showing the projection relative to the exhaust assembly such that their lack of intersection is displayed.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the Specification, while being enabling for a fuel assembly or a reactor core for a core (claim 1) or a fuel assembly (claim 14) or a nuclear reactor (claim 16), each dedicated to and designed for a nuclear reactor spacecraft (e.g., as best shown in Fig. 22A), does not reasonably provide enablement for all nuclear reactors such as light-water reactors (LWRs) including pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) and boiling-water reactors (BWRs). Nor does the Specification provide enablement for other types of known nuclear reactors such as molten salt reactors (MSRs) or pebble-bed reactors. The Specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The Applicant will appreciate that the instant invention is designed for a nuclear reactor spacecraft, e.g., nuclear spacecraft propulsion, and is not intended to be used in a commercial PWR or BWR. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the preambles of the independent claims to clarify that the claimed subject matter is for nuclear spacecraft propulsion.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
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 1–16 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein each of the plurality of fuel monoliths has” (line 6) and “wherein the plurality of fuel monoliths is” (line 8) and “wherein each of the plurality of fuel monoliths has (line 10).” It is unclear if these limitations are referring to plurality of monoliths, as recited, or if instead they are referring to each individual monolith within a plurality of monoliths.
Claim 1 recites, in the preamble “an insulated fuel assembly core” and then recites that said core comprises “monoliths.” This terminology is confusing to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a fuel assembly is not normally described as having a core. A nuclear reactor has a reactor core, which is comprised of fuel assemblies, and each fuel assembly comprises fuel rods. It is unclear if the preamble actually means one of the fuel assemblies has a “core,” e.g., a central portion of a single fuel assembly. If instead the preamble intends to recite the entire reactor core, Examiner suggests removing the term “fuel assembly” from the preamble, e.g., “an insulated reactor core.”
Claim 3 recites “a plurality of second channels.” Claim 3 is dependent upon claim 1, which does not recite “first” channels. It is unclear if claim 3 was intended to depend upon claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “a second portion of second channels having a channel axis that is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the insulated fuel assembly core.” Examiner initially interpreted this limitation as meaning the second channels share a single channel axis (because channels is plural but axis is singular). However, based on Fig. 2D, it appears that each channel 132 has its own axis. Accordingly, it is unclear why “channel axis” is singular but “second channels” is plural. Do the second channels all share a singular axis, or does each second channel have its own individual axis? For the purpose of examination, Examiner will assume the latter based on the disclosure. As a second matter, if the entire circumference is cylindrical (see Fig. 2D), then how can any channel be truly straight/having an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the core? Put another way, can a 3D curved object truly have a channel (except for a channel in the perfect center of said object) that is linear/straight?
Claim 6 recites “a projection of the channel axis of the second portion of second channels does not intersect the exhaust shield assembly.” It is unclear if the recited “projection” is positively recited; it is additionally unclear what said projection’s physical/structural arrangement is relative to the rest of the positively recited structures. Is the projection a physical, distinct structure, or is it a portion of an already recited or not-yet-recited structure? Secondly, it is unclear why “second channels” does not have proper antecedent basis. Thirdly, the only “projection” mentioned in the disclosure is reference numeral 444, which appears to Examiner to be unrelated to the claimed projection. Does “projection” mean a structure or a physical feature, or is “projection” intended as an imagined continuation of the “channel axis”?
Claim 7 recites that the second end face is concave. This is shown in Fig. 6C as concave surface 140. Examiner finds this surface 140 to be convex, not concave. Concave means curving inwardly, while convex means protruding outwardly like the exterior of a sphere or circle1. Second end face 140 is pictured as curving outwardly, like the exterior of a sphere or circle. Accordingly, it is unclear if the claim is incorrect or if the drawings are incorrect.
In claim 15, it is unclear why the “wherein” limitation is indented less than the feature it delineates.
In claim 16, it is unclear why the “wherein” limitation is indented less than the feature or features it delineates.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
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, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (US 2018/0033501).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura discloses an insulated fuel assembly core (Fig. 1: 2), comprising: a plurality of fuel monoliths (plurality shown in Fig. 1 around heat pipes 3; a single fuel monolith shown in Fig. 3 as 15); an exhaust support plate (4); an exhaust shield assembly (4 and channels within); and an insulation layer (7), wherein each of the plurality of fuel monoliths has a shape of an eccentric cylinder (Fig. 3: fuel 15 is in the shape of an ellipse), wherein the plurality of fuel monoliths is located axially along a longitudinal axis of the insulated fuel assembly core (Fig. 1: the fuel monoliths 15 [see Fig. 3] are arranged vertically within core 2), and wherein each of the plurality of fuel monoliths (15) has a composition including a fissionable fuel component (“The fuel 15 and the fuel 16 contain fissile material,” ¶ 35).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein each of the plurality of fuel monoliths (15) includes a first end surface, a second end surface, a side surface connecting the first end surface to the second end surface, and a plurality of first channels (space within heat pipe 3) extending axially from the first end surface to the second end surface (as shown in a comparison of Figs. 1 and 3, the fuel monoliths 15 extend vertically around heat pipes 3 and each monolith has a top end, a bottom end, and a side wall).
Regarding claim 13, Kimura anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the insulation layer includes an inner insulation layer and an outer insulation layer (as shown in Fig. 1, container 7 has an interior layer and an exterior layer).
Regarding claim 14, Kimura discloses a fuel assembly, comprising: a fuel assembly outer structure (e.g., 16 or 55); and the insulated fuel assembly core (Fig. 1: 2) according to claim 1 located within the fuel assembly outer structure (see claim 1 citations for Kimura).
Regarding claim 15, Kimura discloses the fuel assembly according to claim 14, further comprising: an inlet connection assembly (e.g., 16 or 55), wherein the inlet connection assembly is attached to an inlet end of the fuel assembly outer structure (coolant flows upward through the interior of heat pipe 3).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura discloses a nuclear fission reactor structure, comprising: a moderator block (43) including a plurality of fuel assembly openings (shown in Fig. 8); and a plurality of fuel assemblies according to claim 14 (see above citations for claim 14), each of the plurality of fuel assemblies located in a different one of the plurality of fuel assembly openings (implicit), wherein, in a cross-section of the moderator block perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the nuclear fission reactor structure, the plurality of fuel assemblies is distributively arranged in the moderator block (see distribution arrangement in Fig. 8).
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 3–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Maeding (US 2011/0192137).
Regarding claim 3, Kimura anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the exhaust support plate (4) includes a first end face (e.g., in Fig. 1, the bottom of 4), a second end face (the top of 4), a circumferential surface connecting the first end face to the second end face (a top view of 4 would show a circumference around 4), and a plurality of second channels (heat pipes within 4) extending from the first end face to the second end face, wherein the plurality of second channels includes a first portion of second channels having a channel axis that is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the insulated fuel assembly core (as shown in Fig. 1, the channels of heat pipes 3 extend vertically into plate 4).
Kimura does not disclose that some of the channels have non-parallel axes.
Maeding does. Maeding is also in the art area of powered spacecraft and teaches (Fig. 1) an exhaust support plate (100) with a top and a bottom end face and a circumferential structure, with a first portion of channels having an axis that is essentially straight (as best understood by Examiner in view of the above indefiniteness rejections) (as shown in Fig. 1, it appears that plate 100 has channels around its circumference that are in line with axis 50), further with second channels that have an axis non-parallel to the straight axis (all the channels on curved portions of plate 100).
It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the outlet nozzle shape of Maeding because, as explained by Maeding in at least ¶ 10 and ¶ 43, the use of many spaced apart channels increases the efficiency of the reactor as well as its stiffness.
Regarding claim 4, the above-described combination of Kimura with Maeding teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Maeding further teaches wherein the second portion of second channels are located radially outward from the first portion of second channels (as shown in Fig. 1, from this point of view, the central channels appear straight and their radially exterior channels appear curved).
Regarding claim 5, the above-described combination of Kimura with Maeding teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Kimura further discloses wherein openings of the second portion of second channels in the first end face at located at a periphery of the first end face and openings of the second portion of second channels in the second end face at located at a periphery of the second end face (as best understood by Examiner, this is true for all 3D pipes, including those shown as heat pipes 3 in Fig. 1 of Kimura).
Regarding claim 6, the meaning of this claim is unclear as detailed in the above indefiniteness rejections. As best understood by the Examiner, the above-described combination of Kimura with Maeding teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Maeding additionally teaches wherein a projection (a projected axis 180 degrees relative to the pictured lines in Fig. 1) of the channel axis of the second portion of second channels does not intersect the exhaust shield assembly (a perpendicular axis radially outwards relative to the lines shown in Fig. 1 would not intersect said shield assembly 1/100).
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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 “Concave” and “Convex.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 12th ed., Merriam-Webster, 2026, pages 343 and 365.