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 with traverse of Group I, Species A, and metallic type fuel for the first material, metallic type fuel for the second material and metallic type fuel for the third material in the reply filed on 7/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that "the Restriction Requirement is improper because, contrary to the Office's assertion, claims 1 and 2 of Group I, as well as the independent claims of Groups II and III, share the claimed corresponding special technical feature of a second zone with a thickness that varies". This is found persuasive for the restriction between Groups I and III, but is not found persuasive for the restriction between Groups I, III, and II because even though the inventions of Groups I, II, III require the technical feature of "a second zone with a thickness that varies", this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of at least US Patent No. 3,104,219 ("Sulzer") and US Application 2020/321134 A1 ("O'Brien") as discussed below.
The requirement of election of one of Groups I and III or II and Species A, B, or C is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
With respect to the election between Groups I and III, Applicant’s arguments are found persuasive and this portion of the election is WITHDRAWN.
With respect to Applicant’s traversal of the restriction requirement to elect a material from the list of claimed materials, Applicant’s arguments are found persuasive. The restriction requirement for this species is WITHDRAWN.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. Claims 3-8 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are examined herein.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content is focused on the additive manufacturing process for the fuel elements, which is not the elected invention and is only recited in the preamble of a withdrawn claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The following Abstract is presented for consideration:
Fuel elements have distinct zones or concentration gradients of fuel material along the axial direction, the radial direction, or both. In an embodiment, a fuel element has three zones of different material. An inner zone extends in an axial direction and in a radial direction. An intermediate zone radially surrounds a perimeter of the inner zone. An outer zone radially surrounds a perimeter of the intermediate zone. The radial thickness of the intermediate zone and the outer zone vary along the axial direction. An additive manufacturing process can be used to produce the fuel elements.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is too generic for the elected invention. The following Title is suggested: “Fuel Element Having Radial Zoning Of Varying Thickness".
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, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, 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 terms “a first zone”, “a second zone”, and “a third zone” in claims 1 and 9 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “a first zone”, “a second zone”, and “a third zone” are not defined by the claims and no boundaries for the zones are defined. It is unclear how large the zones are and what shapes they are, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of claims 1 and 9 cannot be determined.
“A first axis”, “extending along a first axis”, “extending in the first direction”, “a first direction”, “a second direction”, and “extending outward” in claims 1 and 9 are unclear. The fuel element’s shape has not been defined, so any line through the fuel element could be considered an axis and “a first” does not specify which of the infinite number of axis the first axis is. There is no direction inherently associated with “a first axis”, so relying on the “first axis” to define a direction means “the first direction” has only been defined in relative terms. Similarly, the second direction is also defined by the indefinite “first axis”, therefore it is a relative term. Likewise, “extending outward from the first axis” does not convey any specific information. It is a relative phrase and without a finite definition for “a first axis”, it is unclear. “Extending in the first direction” is unclear for the same reasons. The use of these phrases render claims 1 and 9 indefinite.
Again, the broad scopes of claims 1 and 9 allow for any line through the fuel element to be considered an axis. However, it is unclear where the specification provides support for these infinite lines. The claim scopes are outside the scope of the specification. Thus, the claims are further indefinite because there is a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure, which renders the scopes of claims 1 and 9 uncertain (and unclear). Note MPEP 2173.03.
It is unclear whether claims 1 and 9 should be interpreted as the fuel element having a center axis extending in a longitudinal direction lengthwise of the fuel element, or something else.
The use of “first axis” when there is no mention of a “second axis” is unclear and confusing. The use of a “first axis” implies that there is a “second axis” in the same claim. However, claims 1 and 9 lack mention of a “second axis”. Thus, the claims appear to be incomplete.
The phrase “a second zone surrounding a perimeter of the first zone in the second direction” and “a third zone surrounding a perimeter of the second zone in the second direction” in claims 1 and 9 are unclear. These limitations do not specify how much of the perimeter of the first and second zones in the second direction are surround by the second and third zones, respectively. It is unclear how the second and third zones surround these perimeters. Are there portions of the second zone within the first zone and portions of the third zone within the second zone? There is not enough specific information to define the metes and bounds of claims 1 and 9.
The use of the word “thickness” in claims 1 and 9 are unclear. Thickness can refer to many things, like the radius or diameter of a circle, the depth of a three dimensional object, the distance from an ribbon of material to a reference line, or even the distance between lines. It is unclear what is meant by “the thickness” in this context. The direction of the thickness is unclear. Examiner interpreted thickness as the distance between the outer border of a zone and the vertical axis.
Claims 1 and 9 recites the phrase "the thickness" (e.g., claim 1 at lines 10 and 16). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase.
The broad scopes of claims 1 and 9 allow for many fuel element configuration that are not supported by the specification. That is, the recited fuel element encompasses subject matter that lacks specification support. For example, the recited three zones can be: (1) three different cladding layers; (2) a fuel, a lubricant, and a cladding: (3) a hollow interior, a fuel, and a cladding; (4) a fuel assembly having radially spaced fuel rods of different enrichment; etc. However, the specification portion ([0122]; Figure 13) which discusses varying radial thickness does not provide support for a generic configuration. Rather, as best understood, the specification scope is limited to each of three zones containing a nuclear fuel material (e.g., metallic type fuel, ceramic fuel, and cermet fuel). Thus, the claim scopes are outside the scope of the specification. It follows that the claims are further indefinite because there is a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure, which renders the scopes of claims 1 and 9 uncertain and unclear.
Claims 2 and 10 recite the phrase "the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase.
Claims 2 and 10 recite a broad “cermet”. It is unclear where the specification provides support for using a cermet that is not a “cermet fuel”. The claim scopes are outside the scope of the specification. Thus, the claims are further indefinite because there is a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure, which renders the scopes of claims 2 and 10 uncertain.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O'Brien (US 20200321134 A1).
Regarding claim 1, O’Brien discloses (fig. 3A, 3B, 4; par. 29, 30, 32, 40) a fuel element (300) for use in a fuel assembly (implicit) of a nuclear reactor, the fuel element comprising:
a first zone (regions 220 of the piled fuel pellets 200) extending along a first (axial) axis of the fuel element in a first (axial) direction of the fuel element and extending outward from the first axis in a second (radial) direction of the fuel element the first zone being constructed of a first material (par. 40: nuclear fuel material);
a second zone (regions 218 of the piled fuel pellets 200) surrounding a perimeter of the first zone in the second (radial) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (axial) direction, the second zone being constructed of a second material different from the first material (par. 40: region 220 with fuel, region 218 free of fuel and consisting of poison material), wherein the thickness of the second zone in the second (radial) direction varies along the first (axial) direction (implicit: the radial thicknesses of the different radial parts of the pellets vary from pellet to pellet merely due to normal production induced size uncertainties; this is surely not the aim of the invention as for examples shown in the figures, however the wording chosen for the claim allows coverage of such situations); and
a third zone (the ring formed by 1) surrounding a perimeter of the second zone in the second (radial) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (axial) direction, the third zone being constructed of a third material different from the first material and different from the second material (see par. 39 in combination with par. 29, 30, and 32), wherein the thickness of the third zone in the second direction varies along the first direction (see fig. 3B and 4).
Regarding claim 2, O’Brien discloses all the elements of the parent claim. O’Brien further discloses wherein each of the first material, the second material, and the third material is a material selected from the group consisting of metallic type fuel, ceramic fuel, and cermet (see par. 5, 28, and 46).
Regarding claim 9, O’Brien discloses (fig. 3A, 3B, 4; par. 29, 30, 32, 40) a fuel assembly (implicit) for a nuclear reactor, the fuel assembly comprising:
a plurality of fuel elements, at least one of the plurality of fuel elements comprising:
a first zone (regions 220 of the piled fuel pellets 200) extending along a first (axial) axis of the fuel element in a first (axial) direction of the fuel element and extending outward from the first axis in a second (radial) direction of the fuel element the first zone being constructed of a first material (par. 40: nuclear fuel material);
a second zone (regions 218 of the piled fuel pellets 200) surrounding a perimeter of the first zone in the second (radial) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (axial) direction, the second zone being constructed of a second material different from the first material (par. 40: region 220 with fuel, region 218 free of fuel and consisting of poison material), wherein the thickness of the second zone in the second (radial) direction varies along the first (axial) direction (implicit: the radial thicknesses of the different radial parts of the pellets vary from pellet to pellet merely due to normal production induced size uncertainties; this is surely not the aim of the invention as for examples shown in the figures, however the wording chosen for the claim allows coverage of such situations); and
a third zone (the ring formed by 1) surrounding a perimeter of the second zone in the second (radial) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (axial) direction, the third zone being constructed of a third material different from the first material and different from the second material (see par. 39 in combination with par. 29, 30, and 32), wherein the thickness of the third zone in the second direction varies along the first direction (see fig. 3B and 4).
Regarding claim 10, O’Brien discloses all the elements of the parent claim. O’Brien further discloses wherein each of the first material, the second material, and the third material is a material selected from the group consisting of metal, ceramic, and cermet (see par. 5, 28, and 46; metallic fuel is still metal).
Claims 1 is also are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sulzer (US 3104219 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sulzer discloses a fuel element (Fig. 5) for use in a fuel assembly (see claim 1) of a nuclear reactor (see title), the fuel element comprising:
a first zone (20) extending along a first (polar) axis of the fuel element (Fig. 5) in a first (parallel to the polar axis) direction of the fuel element and extending outward from the first axis in a second (longitudinal) direction of the fuel element, the first zone being constructed of a first material (col. 2 line 47 and col. 1 lines 58-62 for verification of 3 dimensional structure);
a second zone (formed by the ring of 21 and 22) surrounding a perimeter of the first zone in the second (longitudinal) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (parallel to the polar axis) direction, the second zone being constructed of a second material different from the first material (col. 2 lines 47-50), wherein the thickness of the second zone in the second direction varies along the first direction (see the changing thickness of the ring formed of 21 and 22 along the direction parallel to the polar axis in figure 5 below, additional black lines have been added to the figure below to illustrate the changing width in the first direction.); and
a third zone (the ring formed by 1) surrounding a perimeter of the second zone in the second (longitudinal) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (parallel to the polar axis) direction, the third zone being constructed of a third material different from the first material and different from the second material (col. 2 lines 50-53), wherein the thickness of the third zone in the second direction varies along the first direction (see widening and narrowing of thickness of the ring formed by 1 along a direction that is parallel to the polar direction, additional black lines have been added to the figure to illustrate this changing width).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bashkirtsev et al. (US20130322591A1).
Bashkirtsev discloses a fuel element (Fig. 5) for use in a fuel assembly (see title) of a nuclear reactor (abstract), the fuel element comprising:
a first zone (110) extending along a first (longitudinal) axis of the fuel element in a first (axial) direction of the fuel element and extending outward from the first axis in a second (radial) direction of the fuel element, the first zone being constructed of a first material ([0067]);
a second zone (100) surrounding a perimeter of the first zone in the second (radial) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (axial) direction, the second zone being constructed of a second material different from the first material ([0066]), wherein the thickness of the second zone in the second direction varies along the first direction (see figure 4); and
a third zone (120, cladding) surrounding a perimeter of the second zone in the second (radial) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (axial) direction, the third zone being constructed of a third material different from the first material and different from the second material ([0068]), wherein the thickness of the third zone in the second direction varies along the first direction (see figure 4).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wallace et al. (US 3119747 A) .
Wallace discloses a fuel element (Fig. 1) for use in a fuel assembly (implicit) of a nuclear reactor (col. 1 lines 9-11), the fuel element comprising:
a first zone (see figure below, fuel body 23) extending along a first (longitudinal) axis of the fuel element in a first (axial) direction of the fuel element and extending outward from the first axis in a second (radial) direction of the fuel element, the first zone being constructed of a first material (col. 2 lines 14-20);
a second zone (see figure below, lubricant 33) surrounding a perimeter of the first zone in the second (radial) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (axial) direction, the second zone being constructed of a second material different from the first material (col. 2 lines 60-63), wherein the thickness of the second zone in the second direction varies along the first direction (see the taper filled by the lubricant in the annotated portion of Wallace’s fig. 2 provided below and col. 2 lines 51-59); and
a third zone (see figure below) surrounding a perimeter of the second zone in the second (radial) direction of the fuel element and extending in the first (axial) direction, the third zone being constructed of a third material different from the first material and different from the second material (col. 2 line 71 – col. 3 line 9), wherein the thickness of the third zone in the second direction varies along the first direction (col. 3 lines 10 - 16). Wallace’s container (7) can be viewed as having a plurality of different zones, including a (third) zone comprising a (varying thickness) tapered area (as shown as a solid triangle in the provided fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
981
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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
Claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sulzer (US 3104219 A) in view of Bashkirtsev et al. (US20130322591A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sulzer discloses all elements of the parent claim, and discloses wherein each of the first material, the second material, and the third material is a fuel but does not disclose that the fuel material is a material selected from the group consisting of metallic type fuel, ceramic fuel, and cermet.
Bashkirtsev teaches this. Bashkirtsev is in the same art area of fuel assemblies for nuclear reactors and teaches a material selected from the group consisting of metallic type fuel ([0107]), ceramic fuel, and cermet.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to use metallic type fuel in the device of Sulzer to provide more power from the same reactor core, to advantageously reduce the risk of fuel failure, and to increase safety as an all metal design increases heat transfer within the fuel element, thereby reducing temperature variations within the fuel element and reducing the risk of localized overheating ([0008]-[0010]). Using metallic type fuels in the fuel assembly of Sulzer 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY MARIE COOPERRIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-0532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET..
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 5712726878. 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.
/K.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights