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
Claims 1, 3–4, and 6 are under examination.
Applicant and Examiner have already held an interview during this round of examination. Since October 1, 2025, the Office has limited interviews to 1 per round of examination. However, due to at least the 112(b) rejections made herein, which Examiner finds to be critical in order to understand the invention and properly apply art, she is willing to request an after final interview from her supervisor if Applicant would like.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome many of the 112(b) rejections, but Examiner has identified indefiniteness issues that have become evident now that much of the claims are clear.
Applicant’s replacement drawing Figure 7 overcomes that drawing objection, which is withdrawn.
Applicant’s deletion of claim 2 overcomes the associated 112(d) rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 06/12/2026 and 08/03/2026, have been fully considered but they are moot because they are directed towards amendments to the claims, which are addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “19” has been used to designate both the coolant passage (fig. 1) and the small fuel rods (fig. 8).
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. 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 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, 3–4, and 6 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the fuel rods and their surrounding subchannels. Examiner is unclear if the subchannels are physical structures, or if they are merely representations of the area where water flows around the fuel rod. Figure 8 does not show any subchannels, which implies the subchannels are not physical structures but are general areas around rods where water is believed to be flowing. However, Figure 4 shows subchannels 411, 412, and 413 in solid lines, as opposed to the dashed line showing the inner portion 401. The inner portion 401’s dashed line is understood to not be a physical structure, implying that the solid lines around the subchannels 411, 412, and 413 are physical structures. Furthermore, if the subchannels are physical structures, are they distinct from the spacers? If the subchannels = spacers, then the term “spacer” should be used instead of “subchannel.” Spacers are used in BWRs to separate the fuel rods from each other, but they would not be considered “channels,” which is a term that implies an elongated shape. Spacers are not tubes--—they are more like bands or grids. If the subchannels are not physical structures, then it is unclear to Examiner how these areas are drawn around the fuel rods. It would appear that Examiner could draw any arbitrary square around any of the fuel rods in Fig. 4 and call it a subchannel.
Please confirm which interpretation is correct in the next Response. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has presented art for both interpretations.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the fuel rod 11 (outermost layer of fuel rods in Fig. 4) and its subchannel 411. Figure 4 shows that the subchannel 411 extends from the inner wall of the channel box 17 to a midpoint of the fuel rod 11. The Specification (see the published application) describes this as: “A subchannel 411 formed between the wall surface portion of the channel box and the fuel rod 11” at ¶ 123. Claim 1 recites that this subchannel is “between a wall surface in the channel box and one of the first fuel rods.” Examiner is unclear as to if the claimed recitation of the subchannel 411 only extends to the midpoint of fuel rod 11. Neither the claim nor the Specification states what is shown in Fig. 4 with the subchannel 411 only covering half of the fuel rod 11. It is crucial to know the answer to this question because the claim only works if |Dh1 - Dh2| is greater than or equal to another value. Looking at Fig. 4, 411 is clearly larger than 412. If if subchannel 411 were to extend all the way around the entirety of fuel rod 11, then 411 would be much larger than 412, making the value of |Dh1 - Dh2| much greater. This change would affect whether or not the formula described in the claim (written in equation form in the Specification [US20240404715] in ¶ 50) is fulfilled or not. Examiner asks that Applicant clarify if the claimed subchannel 411 is intended to be interpreted as shown in Fig. 4. If so, the claimed language should be amended to reflect that the subchannel only extends to the midpoint of the fuel rod.
Similar to the above: the second flow path subchannel is recited as simply “around another one of the first fuel rods.” This is shown as 412 in Fig. 4 where this subchannel fully encompasses the fuel rod. However, there is no language in the claim preventing the second flow path subchannel from also being the same shape as 411, partially (or entirely) around a fuel rod to the left or right of 411 in Fig. 4. If this were the case, then |Dh1 - Dh2| would be zero, and it is unclear if Applicant intends this to be an acceptable embodiment of the invention. Please clarify (and amend the claim if necessary) if the claimed second flow path subchannel can be “around” (which could be interpreted as partially or entirely around) any other one of the first fuel rods, or if it must be around one that is radially interior of the outermost row of fuel rods.
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 and 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bupp (US 4,059,484).
This art is cited for the interpretation that the subchannels are physical structures. However, Examiner notes that these are cited as Bupp’s spacer grids, not as subchannels distinct from spacer grids, a distinction which remains unclear.
Regarding claim 1, Bupp discloses a fuel assembly (Fig. 3) comprising: a channel box (10) that is a square cylinder having a square cross section, and a plurality of fuel rods (small rods 12, large rods 46) disposed in a square lattice shape in the channel box, the fuel rods being filled with a nuclear fuel material inside, the plurality of fuel rods including: a plurality of first fuel rods (12) disposed in an outer layer portion in the channel box; and a plurality of second fuel rods (46) disposed in an inner layer portion in the channel box and each having a diameter larger than each of the first fuel rods, wherein an absolute value of a difference between a hydraulic equivalent diameter of a first flow path subchannel between a wall surface in the channel box and one of the first fuel rods and a hydraulic equivalent diameter of a second flow path subchannel around another one of the first fuel rods is more than or equal to a value obtained by multiplying an absolute value of a difference between the hydraulic equivalent diameter of the second flow path subchannel around the another one of the first fuel rods and a hydraulic equivalent diameter of a third flow path subchannel around one of the second fuel rods by a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the inner layer portion of the channel box to a cross-sectional area of the entire channel box: as shown in the below Examiner-annotated Figure, if compared to Applicant’s Figure 4, it would appear that, if Applicant’s Figure 4 fulfills the claimed formula, then so would Bupp’s.
PNG
media_image1.png
914
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the first fuel rods (12) are disposed in 12 rows and 12 columns in the channel box (as shown in Fig. 3, there are at least 12x12 fuel rods).
Regarding claim 6, Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein a plurality of the fuel assemblies according to claim 1 are loaded (Figs. 1 and 3 show only 1 of many fuel assemblies in the reactor, as is known in the art).
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukazawa (JPH04198892A, cited via IDS).
This art is cited for the interpretation that the subchannels are not physical structures.
Regarding claim 1, Fukazawa discloses a fuel assembly (Fig. 4) comprising: a channel box (1) that is a square cylinder having a square cross section, and a plurality of fuel rods (22, 23) disposed in a square lattice shape in the channel box, the fuel rods being filled with a nuclear fuel material inside, the plurality of fuel rods including: a plurality of first fuel rods (22) disposed in an outer layer portion in the channel box; and a plurality of second fuel rods (23) disposed in an inner layer portion in the channel box and each having a diameter larger than each of the first fuel rods, wherein an absolute value of a difference between a hydraulic equivalent diameter of a first flow path subchannel between a wall surface in the channel box and one of the first fuel rods and a hydraulic equivalent diameter of a second flow path subchannel around another one of the first fuel rods is more than or equal to a value obtained by multiplying an absolute value of a difference between the hydraulic equivalent diameter of the second flow path subchannel around the another one of the first fuel rods and a hydraulic equivalent diameter of a third flow path subchannel around one of the second fuel rods by a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the inner layer portion of the channel box to a cross-sectional area of the entire channel box: a side-by-side comparison of Fig. 4 of Fukazawa and Figure 4 of the instant invention shows that they are nearly identical per the relative size, location, and relative arrangement of the hydraulic equivalent diameters, subchannels, and small vs. large fuel rods. It appears to Examiner that, if Applicant’s Figure 4 reads on claim 1, then so would Fukazawa’s Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 6, Fukazawa anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein a plurality of the fuel assemblies according to claim 1 are loaded (Figs. 3 and 4 show only 1 of many fuel assemblies in the reactor, as is known in the art).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
It should be noted, as stated in MPEP 2173.06, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore, no art rejections have been made for claim 3 due to the indefiniteness issues noted above. Claim 3 is very specific towards the relative arrangement and orientation of the claimed features, which is in question as detailed in the above indefiniteness rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
