DETAILED ACTION
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 1–7 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s amendments to resolve the 112(b) issues. Some of these issues were resolved by Applicant’s 06/12/2026 submission, but many remain within or were created by said amendment. Examiner has pointed these out in detail below.
Applicant’s replacement Figure 9 resolves some, but not all, of the Drawing objections. The remaining objections are detailed below. Because claim 1 appears to rise or fall on the basis of the relative arrangement of the claimed components and the relative values of said components’ dimensions, then the Drawings must clearly show and label said relative dispositions of the claimed elements. As a suggestion, please see Figure 4 of application 18/663,145. This Figure uses shading and labels to show the relative sizes/dimensions of claimed features. This cited application is not at all an identical situation to Applicant’s, but it provides a general example of how a Figure can complement the claims in a scenario where the claims rely heavily on how features are oriented relative to each other.
The amendments made have allowed Examiner to make partial prior art rejections for Applicant’s consideration. These are detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 06/12/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments per the indefiniteness rejections, the issue is not that the claimed terms individually are unknown. The issue with the second half of claim 1 is that the terms are recited in a specific manner where the relative value/dimension/arrangement/orientation of each of the claimed features is entirely unclear. The totality of claim 1 appears to recite a conventional high-temperature gas-cooled reactor followed by an extremely specific set of relative parameters. Additionally, because the beginning of the claim is not a limitation that makes grammatical sense (“a plurality of honeycomb repeating assembly …”), the entire arrangement of the “assembly,” the “solid structures,” and the “porous structures” also is unclear.
Drawings
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 “solid structures” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The Drawings only show a single solid structure (see replacement Figure 9 in the file 06/12/2026). It is unclear if the Drawings are incomplete, or if the claim should instead only refer to a single solid structure.
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.
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 “assembly is cylindrically shaped” (claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following recited features must be shown and labeled in the Drawings or the features canceled from the claims:
the “volume of voids in the channel”—it is unclear where these voids are located relative to the other shown and recited components
an example, e.g., an arrow showing a potential average path length—it is unclear which direction(s) this length is along
total channel length—it is unclear if this is a horizontal length, e.g., a cross-section of the channel, or if this is a vertical length, e.g., a vertical height of the channel, or something else
No new matter should be entered.
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 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 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.
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 in lines 3-4 “a plurality of honeycomb repeating assembly of…”. The term “plurality” indicates more than 1 of something, but “assembly” is singular. Is there only one assembly or more than 1 assembly? Additionally, “honeycomb repeating” appears to be redundant. A honeycomb shape, by definition, includes repeating hexagons. Therefore, it is unclear if there is more than one assembly, and that is what is “repeating,” or if “repeating” is simply referring to what a honeycomb structure inherently looks like.
Claim 1 recites in lines 3-5 “a plurality of … porous media structures which the plurality of porous structures collectively represent a channel.” This limitation is indefinite because:
“porous media structures which the plurality” appears to be missing some words—perhaps in which?
“the plurality of porous structures” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
a plurality of structures cannot “represent” a channel. The term “represent” makes no sense in this context. For example: “Mary represented the USA in figure skating at the Olympics” is a proper use of the term “represent.” However, for a claim limitation in a patent, the term “represent” implies something is abstract and not physically real.
If the “channel” is formed as shown in Figure 9, then it does not make sense for the claim to say that the “porous structures collectively [form] a channel.” Rather, it would appear that the solid structure has hexagonal channels formed within it, and the porous media fills said channels.
Claim 1 defines porosity in lines 12-14. However, the terms used in this definition are not themselves defined. What is the “volume of voids in the channel”? No voids have yet been recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for the “voids.” There is further insufficient antecedent basis for the “solid structures” recited in lines 13-14. If this is the same “solid structures” introduced in line 4, it should recite “the solid structures.”
Claim 1 defines tortuosity in lines 14-15. However, the terms used in this definition are not themselves defined. What is the “average path length”? Path length of what? No feature that is traveling has yet been recited. Moreover, in order to calculate an average, numerous traveling features must be recited so that their path lengths may be average. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for the “channel media.” It is further unclear what the “total channel length” is. How is this measured? Is it a cross-section across the hexagon, or is it a vertical height within the hexagon, or some other length?
Claim 1 defines total solid fraction in lines 15-17. However, the terms used in this definition are not themselves defined. What is the “total volume of solids in the assembly”? Figure 9 shows a “solid structure”—but are the “porous media structures” not also solid? They do not appear to be liquids, gases, or plasma, so presumably, they are also solids. This would make the total solid fraction to be everything shown in Figure 9 except for the “voids,” and those are not shown at all. What is the “total volume of the assembly”? Does this include everything shown in Figure 9, i.e., the solid structures, the porous media structures, and the (not pictured) voids?
Claim 2 recites that the assembly is cylindrically shaped. See also the related Drawing objection, above. The only cylindrically shaped feature in the Drawings appears to be the core, shown as prior art in Figure 1. The invention, shown in Figs. 9-10, has no apparent cylindrically shaped features. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will assume claim 2 intended to recite the core was cylindrically shaped, not the assemblies themselves.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the solid structures.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim—specifically, it is unclear which of the following recitations in parent claim 1 is being referred to: solid structures, line 4; solid structures, lines 13-14; or solids, line 16.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "porous-tortuous structures.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No “porous-tortuous structures” have yet been introduced. Additionally, it is unclear how these structures relate to/differentiate from the solid structures and porous structures of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites that the honeycomb assembly includes a list of optional shapes. This does not make sense because the only “honeycomb” shape is the recited hexagonal-shaped structures. A honeycomb-shaped assembly presumably cannot have triangular channels/structures.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "pressure drop.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Pressure drop of what?
Claim 6 in its entirely appears to be missing some words or phrases because it does not make sense “for tortuosity ranging from about 1.5 to about 1.0 reduces pressure drop by a factor of about 4.5.” What is the subject of “reduces”? What is performing the reduction? Additionally, a reduction of a “factor” implies a comparison. A reduction of about 4.5 from what value?
Claim 7 recites “wherein the assembly results in an onset of natural convection delay of about 2 to about 5 times an open channel baseline.” The term “an open channel baseline” lacks antecedent basis, as it is entirely unclear what “an open channel baseline is”—which channel is being referred to, and what is the “baseline” for which the claim appears to be trying to describe a comparison with? In order to determine the claimed “delay,” the baseline to which the delay is being compared must be known or understood. Similarly to the above, in order to know if the assembly “results in a” delay, one must first know what is meant by “delay.” Is this a time? What units of measurement does the “delay” have? What feature or outcome is being delayed? Additionally, the phrasing “the assembly results in …” is indefinite. The assembly is a physical object. In what manner is its simple existence “resulting in” a delay?
The above indefiniteness rejections are likely not comprehensive. Examiner asks for Applicant’s assistance in identifying and resolving any indefiniteness issues missed by Examiner.
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.
A Note from the Examiner about Desired Result-type, Intended Use-type, and Capable-of type Limitations
Claims 6 and 7 appear to be, in their entirety, essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. These include:
“wherein for tortuosity ranging from about 1.5 to about 1.0 reduces pressure drop by a factor of about 4.5,” claim 6
“wherein the assembly results in an onset of natural convection delay of about 2 to about 5 times an open channel baseline,” claim 7
These clauses do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the applied reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the alleged intended use. See MPEP § 2111–2115. MPEP § 2114(II) states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Additionally, case law dictates that “Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions.” In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
This is not a rejection of claims 6 and 7 but rather a rationale as to why they, as presently drafted, appear to be “capable of”-type limitations.
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, 4, and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tobin (US 4,113,563).
Due to the unresolved indefiniteness of the “ratio” limitations, among others, in the second half of claim 1, the below rejections are made by Examiner as best as possible so that Applicants may see the relevant prior art, as best understood by Examiner. Specifically, the second half of claim 1, as well as claims 6 and 7, do not lend themselves to prior art rejections. There is a great deal of speculation required by the Examiner to interpret the second half of claim 1 and claims 6-7. Therefore, no art rejections are being presented for these. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 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. In this case, because no reasonable interpretation can be made about the structural or functional arrangement of the claimed features, any assumption on the part of the Examiner would be extraordinarily and inappropriately speculative.
Regarding claim 1, Tobin discloses a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) core (“a high temperature gas cooled reactor,” abstract), comprising: a plurality of honeycomb repeating assembly (fuel assemblies 12, Fig. 1) of i) solid structures (hexagonal graphite 14), and ii) porous media structures (graphite mixed fuel structures 40/42, Fig. 3: “The extruded fuel elements 40, 42 include a multitude of fuel particles 60 … homogeneously distributed in a high density extruded graphite matrix,” col. 7, ll. 5-7) which the plurality of porous structures collectively represent a channel (as shown best in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Tobin anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the assembly is cylindrically shaped (per the above indefiniteness rejection, Examiner assumes this refers to the core, not a single assembly: Tobin, Fig. 1, core 10 is cylindrical).
Regarding claim 3, Tobin anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the solid structures are made of one or more of graphite, yttrium hydride, silicon carbide, or ceramic/metallic nuclear fuel (hexagonal graphite assembly 14, Fig. 1, shown as graphite block 44 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Tobin anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the porous media structures are made of one or more of graphite, yttrium hydride, silicon carbide, or ceramic/metallic nuclear fuel (graphite mixed fuel structures 40/42, Fig. 3: “The extruded fuel elements 40, 42 include a multitude of fuel particles 60 … homogeneously distributed in a high density extruded graphite matrix,” col. 7, ll. 5-7).
Regarding claim 5, Tobin anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the honeycomb repeating assembly includes one or more of hexagonal-shaped, Y-shaped, cylindrical-shaped, or triangular-shaped porous-tortuous structures (fuel assemblies 12, Fig. 1, are hexagonally shaped).
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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
Prosecution Insights