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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of species A in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are similar and there is no extensive search burden. This is not found persuasive because there is a serious search burden for the reasons found on page 4 of the 06/11/2026 Restriction/Election Requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1–4 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 “a core fuel assembly OR a radial blanket fuel assembly among fuel assemblies.” This limitation is definite because the preamble of the claim should not refer to two different inventions in the alternative. Is the invention a core fuel assembly, or is the invention a radial blanket fuel assembly? This limitation is further indefinite because the “fuel assemblies” in the limitation “among fuel assemblies” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear which fuel assemblies are being referred to here, and further unclear if they are distinct from, or part of, the previously recited “core fuel assembly” or “radial blanket fuel assembly.”
Claim 1 recites “one or more of an axial blanket fuel in the core fuel assembly or a radial blanket fuel in the radial blanket fuel assembly.” This limitation is indefinite because the phrasing “one or more of … X or Y” is unclear. Is it X or is it Y or is it a combination of X and Y?
In claim 1, the recitations of “axial” and “radial” are unclear because no point of reference has been introduced. For example, a claim may recite a fuel assembly having an inner circle of fuel assemblies surrounded by an outer circle of fuel assemblies. In this scenario, it would make sense to describe the assemblies as “a radially inner group of fuel assemblies” and “a radially outer group of fuel assemblies.” Or, if a fuel assembly comprises a vertical stack of sub-assemblies, it would make sense to recite “a fuel assembly comprised of a stack of sub-assemblies extending in an axial direction relative to the elongated length of the reactor core.” However, in the current claim 1, it is unclear what the assemblies are “radial” relative to, and what they are “axial” relative to.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it recites the acronym MA without first writing it out. What is MA?
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a low Pu enrichment lower in Pu enrichment than a core fuel.” This limitation is indefinite because:
The term “low” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What are the upper and lower limits of a “low” Pu enrichment?
The phrasing “a low Pu enrichment lower in Pu enrichment” is redundant.
The term “a core fuel” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, what is the relationship among this “a core fuel” compared to the “axial blanket fuel” and the “radial blanket fuel”?
In claim 1, it is unclear what the subject is of the limitation “…and has a MA enrichment.” What has an MA enrichment?
In claim 1, the terms “low Pu enrichment” in line 6, “Pu enrichment” in line 7, “a Pu enrichment” in line 8, and “Pu enrichment” in line 9 are indefinite because it is entirely unclear if these are all the same Pu enrichment, or if they are all different, or something in between. These terms should use proper antecedent basis so that it is clear what Pu enrichment of which feature is being referred to.
In claim 1, the formula “0 wt% < MA enrichment ≤ Pu enrichment” does not make sense. Initially, a “wt %” cannot be compared to an “enrichment” because they have different units. This would be like saying “15 kg is > 3 miles.” This comparison does not make sense. Secondly, if MA stands for “minor actinides” (see the published application at ¶ 2), then it does not make sense to compare the enrichment of “minor actinides” to Pu enrichment. Which minor actinides? How many minor actinides are being cited here? If there are 8 minor actinides being recited in the claim, which one’s/ones’ enrichments are being recited? Additionally, what species in the minor actinides is being enriched? For example, is “MA enrichment” referring to neptunium enriched in 237Np? Or americium and curium together, enriched in 243Am and 242Cm, respectively?
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected for their use of limitations identical or similar to those identified above as problematic.
Claim 3 recites “an inner blanket fuel.” It is unclear what this inner blanket fuel is inner relative to.
Claim 3 recites “an inner core fuel assembly.” It is unclear what this inner core fuel assembly is inner relative to.
Claim 3 recites “an inner core fuel assembly as the core fuel assembly.” The relationship between the inner core fuel assembly and the core fuel assembly is unclear. If these are the same assembly, they should not have different terms given to them in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fuel assembly". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim 1 recites two different fuel assemblies, it is unclear which one is being recited in claim 4.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujimura1 (JP 2021096080 A).
These claims are interpreted as best understood by Examiner in light of the numerous indefiniteness rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, Fujimura discloses a core fuel assembly or a radial blanket fuel assembly among fuel assemblies for a sodium-cooled fast reactor (“fast reactor, the liquid metal Na,” top of page 6) using a metal fuel (“a metal fuel,” top of page 5), wherein one or more of an axial blanket fuel in the core fuel assembly or a radial blanket fuel in the radial blanket fuel assembly is a U-Pu-MA-Zr alloy (“U-Pu-MA-Zr,” mid-page 10) of a low Pu enrichment lower in Pu enrichment than a core fuel, and has a MA enrichment and a Pu enrichment satisfying a relationship of 0 wt% < MA enrichment ≤ Pu enrichment (see highlighted potions of mid-page 12: MA enrichment may be 4 or 10 wt%, and Pu enrichment may be 20 or 23 wt%).
Regarding claim 2, Fujimura anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the MA enrichment and the Pu enrichment of one or more of the axial blanket fuel or the radial blanket fuel satisfy a relationship of 0 wt% < MA enrichment ≤ Pu enrichment ≤ 12 wt% (alternatively, Pu enrichment may be 10.9 wt%, top of page 5).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimura anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein an inner blanket fuel that is the U-Pu-MA-Zr alloy and has the MA enrichment and the Pu enrichment satisfying the relationship of 0 wt% < MA enrichment ≤ Pu enrichment is used in an axial central region of an inner core fuel assembly as the core fuel assembly (“the fuel center,” mid-page 12).
Regarding claim 4, Fujimura anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses a core of a sodium-cooled metal fuel fast reactor (“fast reactor, the liquid metal Na,” top of page 6), loaded with the fuel assembly according to claim 1 (as cited above).
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 See attached & highlighted 42-pg foreign reference.
Prosecution Insights