DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election of Invention II with traverse in the Reply filed 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 9-11. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention.
Applicant agrees that each invention is patentably distinct over the other. Yet Applicant argues that “there is no separate utility identified”, and the two inventions “are seen only to share the specific utility of operating a heat removal system”.
Applicant’s argument is not understood. There are many US patents, all being different inventions, involving the “utility of operating a heat removal system”. Applicant’s two claimed inventions are directed to two different distinct methods (subcombinations), as explained in the prior Office Action. Separate utility is met because in each respective subcombination the specific group of method steps can be performed and achieve a practical intended result entirely on its own or in a different process, without needing all of the steps of the other method subcombination. Also, the two different methods by themselves are prima facie two different utilities.
The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 9-11 are examined herein.
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 9-11 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.
Claim 9
It is unclear which component is “connecting to a return line at a second axial height”. It is unclear whether said component is the supply line, the heat exchanger, or something else. Since the claim can be interpreted differently, it is prima facie indefinite.
Claim 10
The phrase “the recirculation line” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 states “adding a pump to the return line”, which implies that the pump is located in the return line. Claim 10 implies that the pump is located in a recirculation loop (line), which is in parallel with the return line. However, the same pump can’t be in two different lines. Thus, claim 10 conflicts with claim 9.
The phrase “adding a recirculation loop . . . in parallel with the return line” is unclear. It is unclear how a loop can be in parallel with a line.
The phrase “pumping liquid coolant from the reactor from the return line through the recirculation line to the heat exchanger” is unclear. Again, it is unclear whether the pump is located in the return line or the recirculation line. The positioning of the pump relative to the return line and the recirculation line is unclear. As best understood, said phrase is not supported in the drawings.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not addressed is rejected based on its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR101656361B1).
Claim 9
Lee (cited via IDS) teaches a method of forming and operating a heat removal system. Lee has a supply line [extending] from the reactor. The supply line (lower line in Figure 1) supplies coolant to the reactor. The supply line connects to a heat exchanger (20) at a first axial height. Lee has a return line (upper line). The return line returns coolant to the heat exchanger. The heat exchanger connects to the return line at a second axial height. The first axial height is vertically above the second axial height. Lee has a pump (30) that can cause coolant to be moved from the reactor into the return line, into the heat exchanger, into the supply line, and back into the reactor.
Claim 10
Lee has a recirculation line (e.g., CL-2) in parallel with a return line (e.g., CL-1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of either the admitted prior art or Aburomia (US5426681).
Lee discloses that the heat exchanger (20) is immersed in a water tank (10). It is uncertain whether this tank is open, which would constitute an open pool. However, Applicant’s Figure 1 (implied prior art) shows that it is well known in the art to immerse a heat exchanger in an open pool (21). Aburomia likewise shows (Figures 1, 3, and 4) that it is well known in the art to immerse a heat exchanger (34) in an open pool (36). Also, the skilled artisan would understand that an open pool would allow for easier access to the heat exchanger
Substitution of one cooling source for another substantially equivalent cooling source is within the skill of the artisan. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Thus, modification of Lee (if necessary) to have had the heat exchanger located in an open pool, as suggested by Applicant or by Aburomia, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ageron (US3285824) in combination with Lee (KR101656361B1).
Ageron discloses a method of forming and operating a heat removal system. Ageron has a supply line [extending] from the reactor. The supply line (upper line in Figure 1) supplies coolant to the reactor. The supply line connects to a heat exchanger (27) at a first axial height. Ageron has a return line (lower line in Figure 1). The return line returns coolant to the heat exchanger. The heat exchanger (27) connects to the return line at a second axial height. Ageron has a pump (26) that can cause coolant to be moved from the reactor into the return line, into the heat exchanger, into the supply line, and into the reactor.
It is uncertain whether Ageron’s coolant loop is a non-primary coolant loop. Nevertheless, Lee shows that it is well known in the art to employ a similar coolant loop having a supply line, heat exchanger, return line, and pump. Lee’s loop is separate from a primary coolant loop. Thus, modification of Ageron to have employed a second coolant loop as a non-primary coolant loop to enhance cooling, as suggested by Lee, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Although a reference may not disclose a plurality of items, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ageron in combination with Lee as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Aburomia (US5426681).
Lee suggest having the heat exchanger be immersed in a water tank (10). It is uncertain whether this tank constitutes an open pool. Nevertheless, Aburomia shows (Figures 1, 3, and 4) that it is well known in the art to immerse a heat exchanger (34) in an open pool (36).
Substitution of one cooling source for another substantially equivalent cooling source is within the skill of the artisan. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). Thus, modification of Ageron to have had the heat exchanger located in an open pool, as suggested by the combination of Lee and Aburomia, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
it is unclear whether the “reactor” is a nuclear reactor.
it is unclear what constitutes “significantly cools”, especially in comparison to non-significantly cools.
it is unclear what constitutes an ICS.
the phrase ‘be their own loop around and penetrations to the reactor” is unclear in its meaning.
The Abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Note the similar objection in the parent application.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it does not correspond to the elected invention (method). The Title is also objected to because it includes unnecessary wording (i.e., “Multi-mode heat removal systems”). Note the similar objection in the parent application. The following Title is suggested:
“Dual-mode heat removal method that allows first direction natural circulation flow through a heat exchanger of an isolation condenser pool during nuclear reactor emergency cooling and allows opposite direction forced flow through the heat exchanger during decay heat removal”.
Additional Comments
With regard to the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the below clean versions of amended claims 9-11 are provided for Applicant’s consideration.
Claim 9. (For Consideration) A method of forming and operating a heat removal system of
a nuclear reactor having a condensation loop separate from a primary coolant loop,
the condensation loop having a supply line from the reactor,
wherein the supply line connects to a heat exchanger at a first axial height of the reactor, and
wherein the heat exchanger connects to a return line,
wherein the return line connects to the reactor at a second axial height of the reactor,
whereby reactor coolant can flow via natural circulation in a first flow direction from the reactor through the supply line, through the heat exchanger, through the return line, and back into the reactor,
wherein the first axial height is above the second axial height,
the method comprising:
adding a pump to the return line,
wherein the pump is configured to cause reactor coolant to be pumped:
into the return line from the reactor,
into the heat exchanger from the return line,
into the supply line from the heat exchanger,
and into the reactor from the supply line;
whereby reactor coolant can be pumped in a second flow direction from the reactor through the return line, through the heat exchanger, through the supply line, and back into the reactor,
wherein the second flow direction is opposite the first flow direction.
Claim 10. (For Consideration) The method of claim 9,
wherein the adding the pump includes
adding a recirculation line,
wherein the pump is in the recirculation line,
wherein the recirculation line is in parallel with a part of the return line,
the method further comprising:
operating the pump to pump liquid coolant
from the reactor,
through the recirculation line to the heat exchanger,
and into the reactor through the supply line.
Claim 11. (For Consideration) The method of claim 9,
wherein the heat exchanger includes a plurality of parallel tubes configured to carry the reactor coolant,
and wherein the heat exchanger is immersed in an open pool.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Interview Information
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.
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