CTNF 18/663,145 CTNF 91148 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-36-01 AIA Figure 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02 ( g ) . Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 ( d ) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet ( s ) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header ( as per 37 CFR 1.84 ( c )) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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. 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 “ a hydraulic equivalent diameter between a wall surface in the channel box and the first fuel rod” (claim 1) . Examiner sees, in the drawings, a smaller first fuel rod ( e.g., 11, Fig. 6 ) and a larger, second fuel rod ( 12 or 12-1, Fig. 6 ) but does not see a label for the above-cited parameter. In Figure 1, there is a line 19 pointing to a general space, but if this is intended to represent the above-cited parameter, it is inadequate since the limitation recites a diameter between two items—line 19 does not show a diameter but instead shows an open space. It is unclear where the beginning and end of the claimed “diameter” are positioned. Separately, Figure 4 shows a label 411 that might be intended to represent this limitation, but the language used in the Specification to describe 411 does not correspond to the language used in the claim, and therefore Examiner cannot make this assumption. Since this parameter is a claimed limitation, it must be shown and labeled or the feature ( s ) canceled from the claim ( s ) . No new matter should be entered. 06-22 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 3 ’s “a flow path area” ( recited twice ) is objected to for substantially the same reasons provided for claim 1, above. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities : each limitation following “ the plurality of fuel rods including” should be further indented if these are limitations that are sub-limitations of “the plurality of fuel rods including” . Appropriate correction is required. 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 1–6 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. 07-34-07 AIA The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Claim 1 recites the limitation in lines 4-5 “… and filled with a nuclear fuel material inside.” It is unclear what the subject of this limitation is. What is filled with nuclear fuel? Additionally, the term “inside” appears redundant. Claim 1 recites “a hydraulic equivalent diameter between a wall surface in the channel box and the first fuel rod.” Examiner understands a hydraulic equivalent diameter to be a mathematical concept for representing non-circular ( in claim 1, “square” ) flow channels for fluid flow calculations. However, the above-cited limitation is described as a distance , not a diameter. The language “…between a wall surface…and the first fuel rod” is not a diameter but is instead a linear distance. Examiner sees, in the drawings, a smaller first fuel rod ( e.g., 11, Fig. 6 ) and a larger, second fuel rod ( 12 or 12-1, Fig. 6 ) but does not see a label for the above-cited parameter. In Figure 1, there is a line 19 pointing to a general space, but if this is intended to represent the above-cited parameter, it is inadequate since the limitation recites a diameter between two items—line 19 does not show a diameter but instead shows an open space. It is unclear where the beginning and end of the claimed “diameter” are positioned. Separately, Figure 4 shows a label 411 that might be intended to represent this limitation, but the language used in the Specification to describe 411 does not correspond to the language used in the claim, and therefore Examiner cannot make this assumption. Accordingly, it is unclear if the recited diameter is, in fact, a diameter, or if it is a linear distance, or something else entirely. Claim 3 is rejected for substantially similar limitations as pointed out for claim 1, above. Claim 3 recites “a flow path area of a region in which the third fuel rod is disposed to a flow path area of a region in which the second fuel rod and the third fuel rod are disposed.” It is entirely unclear where said “flow path area ( s ) ” are located relative to the other structures. Claim 1 recites a “hydraulic equivalent diameter” for a first fuel rod and a second fuel rod. Examiner understands a hydraulic equivalent diameter to be a mathematical concept for representing non-circular ( in claim 1, “square” ) flow channels for fluid flow calculations. However, fuel rods are circular. Therefore, it is unclear why Applicant is using a non-circular equivalent parameter to represent a circular fuel rod. Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as immediately above for using substantially similar language. Claim 2 recites the limitation “ a volume of a nuclear fuel material ” in line 2 and again in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear why this feature is being re-introduced following parent claim 1. Claim 2, in its entirety, appears to Examiner to recite a circular or meaningless limitation. Claim 2 recites that a fuel volume is greater than or equal to a fuel volume when the first fuel rods are disposed in a square lattice shape ; however, the fuel rods are disposed in a square lattice shape, according to parent claim 1. Examiner cannot determine any meaning from claim 2 not already present in claim 1. Claim 5 recites a “lower end portion” and an “upper end portion” but does not recite what greater structure these features are portions of . Claim 5 recites “a fuel spacer that bundles the plurality of fuel rods is held.” This limitation does not make sense. Examiner cannot extract a structural or functional meaning from this limitation. What is being held? The spacer is being held by what? Or the fuel rods are being held? This is also an incomplete sentence—Examiner does not understand the relationship between “a fuel spacer that bundles the plurality of fuel rods is held” and all the previous limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is a continuation of a previous limitation or if it stands alone. Claim 5 recites “… a support rod without containing a fuel material is disposed at each of four corners of an outermost peripheral region of a fuel rod disposition in a cross section of the fuel assembly.” This limitation is indefinite for at least the following reasons : There is insufficient antecedent basis for “a fuel material” in lines 5-6 of the claim. Specifically, it is unclear why this feature is being re-introduced following parent claim 1. Examiner does not understand the relationship between “ a support rod without containing a fuel material… ” and all the previous limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is a continuation of a previous limitation or if it stands alone. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “each of four corners” in the claim. The phrasing “each of four corners of an outermost peripheral region of a fuel rod disposition in a cross section of the fuel assembly” is indefinite. What is a “fuel rod disposition”? The term “disposition” is generally understood to mean a tendency towards a certain aspect or behavior. A fuel rod would not qualify for such a tendency. The phrasing “an outermost peripheral region of a fuel rod” ( ignoring the “disposition” term ) would appear to refer to the radially exterior surface of a fuel rod. However, fuel rods are round. Therefore, it does not make sense to refer to “corners” of the exterior of a round fuel rod. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “a cross section” in the claim at lines 7-8. A fuel assembly cross-section was already introduced in claim 1. Therefore, the relationship between the parent cross section and claim 5’s cross section is unclear. Finally, Examiner would like to make it clear that the claim taken as a whole does not make sense because it is impossible to have a single “support rod” ( line 5 ) that is positioned “at each of four corners.” How can a single rod be present in four places at once? 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. 07-36 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 ( d ): ( d ) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection ( e ) , a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 ( d ) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites that a fuel volume is greater than or equal to a fuel volume when the first fuel rods are disposed in a square lattice shape ; however, the fuel rods are disposed in a square lattice shape, according to parent claim 1. Examiner cannot determine any meaning from claim 2 not already present in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim ( s ) , amend the claim ( s ) to place the claim ( s ) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim ( s ) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim ( s ) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA ( 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Bupp (US 4,059,484) . Regarding claim 1 , due to the above indefiniteness rejections, Examiner has interpreted claim 1 as best as understood. However, the Examiner cannot extract a meaning for the final clause of claim 1 due to said indefiniteness. Examiner has made a best attempt to cite prior art that looks extremely similar to Applicant’s Figure 8. Bupp discloses a fuel assembly ( fig. 3 ) comprising : a channel box ( 10, labeled in fig. 1 ) that is a square cylinder having a square cross section, and a plurality of fuel rods ( 12, 46 ) disposed in a square lattice shape in the channel box, and filled with a nuclear fuel material inside, the plurality of fuel rods ( 12, 46 ) including : a first fuel rod ( 12 ) disposed in an outer layer portion in the channel box ; and a second fuel rod ( 46 ) that is disposed in an inner layer portion in the channel box and has a diameter larger than the first fuel rod, wherein an absolute value of a difference between a hydraulic equivalent diameter around the first fuel rod and a hydraulic equivalent diameter between a wall surface in the channel box and the first fuel rod is more than or equal to a value obtained by multiplying an absolute value of a difference between the hydraulic equivalent diameter around the first fuel rod and a hydraulic equivalent diameter around the second fuel rod 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 noted above, Examiner cannot reasonably speculate or determine a structural or functional meaning for this limitation ; however, Bupp at Figure 3 has larger-diameter fuel rods 46 in a square channel box 10 and smaller-diameter fuel rods 12 in an outer layer of square channel box 10 ) . Regarding claim 2 , Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein a volume of a nuclear fuel material disposed in the fuel assembly is equal to or larger than a volume of a nuclear fuel material when the first fuel rods are disposed in a square lattice shape in the channel box ( as noted in the above 112d rejection, this limitation appears to recite that the fuel volume is equivalent to the fuel volume, which is taught by Bupp in Figure 3, where the fuel rods 12,46 are within square channel box 10, and their volume appears to be constant ) . Regarding claim 4 , Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the first fuel rods are disposed in 12 rows and 12 columns in the channel box ( as shown in Figure 3 of Bupp, there are at least 12 rows and 12 columns for the fuel rods ) . Regarding claim 5 , Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses ( fig. 1 ) wherein a lower end portion ( e.g., of fuel rods 12 or of tie plate 20 ) is supported by a lower fuel support member ( 16 ) , an upper end portion is supported by an upper fuel support member ( 14 ) , a fuel spacer ( 18,20 ) that bundles the plurality of fuel rods ( 12,46 ) is held, and a support rod without containing a fuel material is disposed at each of four corners of an outermost peripheral region of a fuel rod disposition in a cross section of the fuel assembly ( as best understood by Examiner, see Fig. 4 : an outermost peripheral support tube 34 is located in a square that includes fuel rods ) . Regarding claim 6 , Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses ( fig. 1 ) wherein a plurality of the fuel assemblies according to claim 1 are loaded ( Bupp discloses a nuclear reactor having a plurality of fuel assemblies 10 because he discloses a “pressurized water reactor” [PWR], abstract ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bupp in view of Schabert (US 3,179,571) . Regarding claim 3 , Bupp anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not appear to explicitly suggest a further interior and larger fuel rod. Schabert does. Schabert is also in the art area of fuel assemblies for nuclear reactors and teaches ( fig. 2 ) wherein a third fuel rod ( 15 ) having a larger diameter than a second fuel rod ( intermediate layer fuel rods 16 ) is disposed in a further inner layer of a region in which the second fuel rod is disposed ( fig. 2 shows an inner layer of rods 15 larger than some of the rods 16 of an intermediate layer ) , and an absolute value of a difference between a hydraulic equivalent diameter around the second fuel rod and a hydraulic equivalent diameter between the first fuel rod and the second fuel rod is more than or equal to a value obtained by multiplying an absolute value of a difference between a hydraulic equivalent diameter around the third fuel rod and a hydraulic equivalent diameter around the second fuel rod by a ratio of a flow path area of a region in which the third fuel rod is disposed to a flow path area of a region in which the second fuel rod and the third fuel rod are disposed ( as noted above, Examiner cannot reasonably speculate or determine a structural or functional meaning for this limitation ; however, Schabert at Figure 2 has larger-diameter fuel rods 15 in a square channel box 1 that are larger than some interior-row fuel rods 16/17, which are alternatively larger/smaller than the exterior-most fuel rods 16 ) . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/663,145 Page 2 Art Unit: 3646
Prosecution Insights