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 1–7 and 9–13 in the reply filed on 06/16/2016 is acknowledged. Claims 14–20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/16/2016.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in ¶ 26 of the published application, “Nobel” should be “noble”. 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 1–7 and 9–13 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 indefinite because the first two clauses are redundant.
Claims 5 and 6 each recites the limitation "a stand". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this newly introduced stand is distinct from the one recited in parent claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a second stand". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no stand or first stand has yet been introduced, and so it is unclear what claim 7’s stand is “second” to.
Claim 11 recites “including electrical instrumentation cabling routed through the containment vessel and the reactor pressure vessel to sensor and measuring devices having lower ends extending down into the reactor core.” This limitation is indefinite, as it appears to miss some subjects/verbs. Is “sensor” a verb or a subject? What is the relationship between the phrase “…to sensor and measuring devices”?
Claim 11 recites “…causing lower ends of the plurality of in-core instruments to slide up and out.” This limitation is indefinite because the claim recites that the upper and lower portions of the reactor and containment vessels are disconnected and separated, but does not specify if the upper portions are lifted upwards off of the lower portions, or if the lower portions are pulled downwards away from the upper portions, or both. Therefore, it does not make sense for the claim to recite that the instruments “slide up and out.” If the lower reactor vessel head (with the core) and the lower containment head are pulled downwards to separate from the upper portions, then how could the instruments slide upwards? The instruments in this scenario could be stationary. Accordingly, it is unclear how the instruments are being slid up and out.
Claims 1–6 are indefinite because claims 1 and 3 recite that the “containment vessel” and the “reactor pressure vessel” (in other words, wholly intact) are configured to be transported to the refueling bay. But, then subsequent claims 4, 5, and 6 instead recite that the “lower containment head” and “lower reactor vessel head” are configured to be placed in refueling bay stands. It is unclear if, in claims 4, 5, and 6, the intact “reactor pressure vessel” and intact “containment vessel” are sitting in stands (and, if so, are they in the same stand as each other?), or if there is some missing intermediate detachment of the heads from the upper portions of the vessels.
Claims 7 and 9–13 are indefinite because claims 7, 10, and 12 recite that the “containment vessel” and the “reactor pressure vessel” (in other words, wholly intact) are configured to be transported to the refueling bay. But, then subsequent claim 9 instead recites that the “lower reactor vessel head is configured to sit in the second stand” in the refueling bay. It is unclear if, in claim 9, the intact “reactor pressure vessel” is sitting in the second stand (and, if so, what happened to the containment vessel?), or if there is some missing intermediate detachment of the head from the upper portion of the vessel.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the first clause recites a configuration in which the lower reactor vessel head is configured to sit in a stand, but the second clause recites that the (intact) reactor pressure vessel is configured to be detached from its head. Should these clauses be reversed?
Claim 9 is indefinite because it recites that the lower reactor vessel head remains seated in the stand but the (intact) reactor pressure vessel is configured to be lifted up and moved out of the refueling bay where the stand is location. This does not make sense because the lower reactor vessel head is part of the reactor pressure vessel (as recited in claim 7). So, how can the reactor pressure vessel, which includes its own lower head, be moved out of the refueling bay when its lower head remains behind? Both of these things cannot be simultaneously true.
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are 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. Examiner cannot determine any limitations in claims 5 or 6 that are not already present in parent claim 4. 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
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, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NuScale1 (NuScale Plant Design Overview, 2012).
Regarding claim 1, NuScale discloses a nuclear reactor module (Figure 2-1), comprising: a reactor pressure vessel (reactor pressure vessel) including a removably attached lower reactor vessel head configured to house a reactor core (see the reactor pressure vessel in Figure 2-1: there is a flange just above the core—above this flange is the top end of the RPV and below it is the bottom end of the RPV; the top and bottom ends are removable from each other at that flange: “In the refueling area, flange bolting tools are used to detach the lower portion of the containment structure and then the lower reactor vessel, including the core,” page 29, § 5.5 Refueling Operations); a lower reactor vessel head removably attached to the reactor pressure vessel and configured to house the reactor core (id.); a containment vessel (containment vessel) encapsulating the reactor pressure vessel; and a lower containment head removably attached to the containment vessel (“…detach the lower portion of the containment structure,” full citation above) and configured to house the lower reactor vessel head, the containment vessel and the reactor pressure vessel being configured to be lifted and transported between a reactor bay and a refueling bay within a nuclear reactor building (the reactor operates in the reactor bay and is transported to the refueling bay, whereafter: “In the refueling area, flange bolting tools are used to detach the lower portion of the containment structure and then the lower reactor vessel, including the core,” page 29, § 5.5 Refueling Operations) via a crane (“Overhead Crane,” Figure 5-2).
Regarding claim 2, NuScale anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein at least one of the reactor bay or the refueling bay is partially submerged in water (as best seen in the color version of Figure 5-2; see also “The refueling pool is connected directly to the reactor pool via a canal able to accommodate underwater transport of the NSSS module,” page 28, § 5.4).
Regarding claim 3, NuScale anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the containment vessel and the reactor pressure vessel are transported between the reactor bay and the refueling bay while at least partially submerged under water (as best seen in the color version of Figure 5-2; see also “The refueling pool is connected directly to the reactor pool via a canal able to accommodate underwater transport of the NSSS module,” page 28, § 5.4).
Regarding claim 6, NuScale anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the lower reactor vessel head is configured to sit into a stand located in the refueling bay (“The lower reactor vessel and core are staged in a refueling stand,” page 29, § 5.5 Refueling Operations).
Regarding claim 7, NuScale discloses a nuclear reactor module (Figure 2-1), comprising: a reactor pressure vessel (reactor pressure vessel) including a lower reactor vessel head removably attached to the reactor pressure vessel, the lower reactor vessel head configured to house a reactor core (see the reactor pressure vessel in Figure 2-1: there is a flange just above the core—above this flange is the top end of the RPV and below it is the bottom end of the RPV; the top and bottom ends are removable from each other at that flange: “In the refueling area, flange bolting tools are used to detach the lower portion of the containment structure and then the lower reactor vessel, including the core,” page 29, § 5.5 Refueling Operations); and a containment vessel (containment vessel) encapsulating the reactor pressure vessel and including a lower containment head removably attached to the containment vessel (“…detach the lower portion of the containment structure,” full citation above), the lower containment head configured to house the lower reactor vessel head, wherein the containment vessel and the reactor pressure vessel are configured to be lifted and transported between a reactor bay and a refueling bay within a nuclear reactor building (the reactor operates in the reactor bay and is transported to the refueling bay, whereafter: “In the refueling area, flange bolting tools are used to detach the lower portion of the containment structure and then the lower reactor vessel, including the core,” page 29, § 5.5 Refueling Operations) via a crane (“Overhead Crane,” Figure 5-2).
Regarding claim 9, NuScale anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein: the containment vessel and the reactor pressure vessel are configured to be moved over a second stand in the refueling bay and the lower reactor vessel head is configured to sit into the second stand (both the vessels are moved to the refueling bay and the lower reactor vessel head is placed in a stand: “In the refueling area, flange bolting tools are used to detach the lower portion of the containment structure and then the lower reactor vessel, including the core” and “The lower reactor vessel and core are staged in a refueling stand,” page 29, § 5.5); the reactor pressure vessel is configured to be detached from the lower reactor vessel head (“In the refueling area, flange bolting tools are used to detach the lower portion of the containment structure and then the lower reactor vessel, including the core,” page 29, § 5.5); and the containment vessel and the reactor pressure vessel are configured to be lifted up and moved out from the refueling bay while the lower reactor vessel head remains seated in the second stand (“After detaching the lower vessel sections, the reactor building crane transports the upper portion of the NSSS module to the dry dock,” § 5.5).
Regarding claim 10, NuScale anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the containment vessel and the reactor pressure vessel are moved between the reactor bay and the refueling bay while at least partially submerged under water (as best seen in the color version of Figure 5-2; see also “The refueling pool is connected directly to the reactor pool via a canal able to accommodate underwater transport of the NSSS module,” page 28, § 5.4).
Regarding claim 12, NuScale anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the containment vessel and the reactor pressure vessel are configured to be lifted and transported between a reactor bay and a refueling bay within a nuclear reactor building by a crane (“Overhead Crane,” Figure 5-2).
Regarding claim 13, NuScale anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the crane moves on a rail that extends over the reactor bay and the refueling bay (see the unlabeled rail for the Overhead Crane in Figure 5-2).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NuScale in view of Malandra (US 5,225,150).
Regarding claim 11, NuScale anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses including a plurality of in-core instruments (e.g., control rods) wherein disconnection and separation of the lower containment head from a bottom end of the containment vessel and disconnection and separation of the lower reactor vessel head from a bottom end of the reactor pressure vessel retain the reactor core within the lower reactor vessel head causing lower ends of the plurality of in-core instruments to slide up and out of the reactor core, lower reactor vessel head, and lower containment head: because the control rods are inserted into the top of the reactor core from above, and because NuScale’s core remains attached to the lower reactor vessel upon separation (§ 5.5 as cited above), then when NuScale’s lower reactor vessel head with the core inside is detached from the upper components, the control rods will remain behind. As is known in the art, the control rods are attached to their control rod drive mechanisms (CRDMs) from above the core2 and the rods are inserted down into the core to reduce reactivity and are pulled upwards back out of the core when the reactivity is acceptable. The control rods would not remain in the core when the core was removed in a downward direction unless someone severed or otherwise detached the rods from their controlling CRDMs above.
NuScale does not explicitly state that the in-core instruments include a sensor and a measuring device.
Malandra does. Malandra is also in the art area of nuclear reactors (abstract) and teaches that it was known in the art to insert in-core instruments including both control rods (36, Fig. 1) as well as electrical instrumentation cabling (86) routed through the reactor pressure vessel (24) to sensor and measuring devices having lower ends extending down into the reactor core: “Control rods 36 as well as instrumentation tubes 42 are movably mounted to be extendable through penetrations 44, 48 in the reactor vessel head 50,” col. 3, ll. 52-55 and “The control rod positioning apparatus and the instrumentation tubes for the sensors (or their connecting cables) extend through pressure penetrations in the head of the reactor vessel,” col. 1, ll. 40-43) and “The instrumentation tube structures 42 contain sensor arrangements such as a plurality of axially spaced sensors responsive to neutron and gamma radiation, and preferably at least one temperature sensor,” col. 4, ll. 6-9.
A purpose for this teaching is, as described by Malandra (col. 3, ll. 5-9), in order to provide “sensors movable into certain of the thimble tubes for monitoring local conditions in the reactor fuel assemblies,” such local conditions include gamma radiation, neutron radiation, and temperature (col. 4, ll. 6-9).
The combination of the sensor and measuring device of Malandra with the in-core instruments of NuScale would have produced a plurality of in-core instruments including control rods and instrumentation tubes with sensors and measuring devices inserted into the top of a reactor pressure vessel (RPV), i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Malandra, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Malandra’s sensor and measuring device with NuScale's in-core instruments would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of inserting control rods and instrumentation tubes equipped with sensors into an RPV. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Malandra (col. 3, ll. 5-9), in order to provide “sensors movable into certain of the thimble tubes for monitoring local conditions in the reactor fuel assemblies,” such local conditions include gamma radiation, neutron radiation, and temperature (col. 4, ll. 6-9).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NuScale in view of “JP587” (JP-2001324587-A3).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, NuScale anticipates all the elements of parent claim 1 and further discloses wherein the refueling bay includes stands into which the lower containment head and the lower reactor vessel head are configured to sit, respectively (“The lower reactor vessel and core are staged in a refueling stand,” page 29, § 5.5 Refueling Operations). It is implicit that the lower containment head remains in the refueling bay because only the upper sections of the containment and reactor pressure vessels are transported to the dry dock: “The dry dock provides maintenance access to the upper section of the containment vessel and reactor pressure vessel,” end of § 5.4. It is further implicit that the lower containment head is set on a stand because it cannot float in midair after the crane which brought it to the refueling bay leaves for the dry dock. However, because NuScale does not explicitly state that the lower containment head is set on a stand, JP587 is cited.
JP587 is also in the art area of nuclear reactors and teaches (Fig. 1) a containment vessel with a head (1) that is removed and placed on a stand (14). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize such a stand in order to prevent the head “from directly contacting the work floor,” top of page 2.
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 32-page NPL reference. Examiner suggests viewing the document in color at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ml1221/ml12216a392.pdf
2 as noted by NuScale in § 3.3.1: “The top of the upper head of the reactor pressure vessel provides support for the control rod drive mechanisms.”
3 See attached 10-page foreign reference.
Prosecution Insights