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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) and Species B (bilateral design) in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. However, because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP 818.01(a). Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species A), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application with claims 4 and 15 withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are examined herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “16”. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181(I), claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The phase “a member for locking” in claim 9 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “Storage device” should recite “A storage device”
Claims 1-2, 9, and 12-13: “male member” should recite “male coupling member”
Claims 1-2, 9, and 12-13: “female member” should recite “female coupling member”
Claims 2-3, 5, 9-14: “Storage device” should recite “The storage device”
Claims 6 and 9: “the male and female members” should recite “the male and female coupling members”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 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 it is unclear where one feature ends and another begins in the preamble of the claim. For example, it is unclear which feature “includ[es] adjacent housings”.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrases “the cavity”, “the direction”, and “the guideway” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the transverse structures each being arranged in a transverse plane of the storage device”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to require each of the transverse structures is arranged in a same transverse plane (as appears to be currently recited), each of the transverse structures is arranged in a different transverse plane (as appears to be shown in FIG. 2), or another interpretation.
Claim 1 recites “the female member taking the form of a groove housing the male member and forming therewith a guideway connection the direction of the guideway of which is parallel to or inscribed in the transverse plane wherein the transverse structure concerned lies”. It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature “form[s] therewith a guideway connection”, what feature is “the direction of the guideway”, and what feature is “parallel to or inscribed in the transverse plane”. It is further unclear what feature the phrase “of which” is referring to in the claim. It is further unclear the relationship between the “groove”, “male member”, “guideway connection”, and “guideway”. It is further unclear what the phrase “the transverse structure concerned lies” is referring to in the claim. The claim previously recites “a plurality of transverse structures” and “at least one of the transverse structures”. It is unclear which (if any) of these previously recited “transverse structures” the “transverse structure concerned” is intending to refer to in the claim.
Claim 2 is indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the two opposite longitudinal ends of the projection” in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if the “longitudinal ends” (of each of the female member and the male member) are referring to ends in relation to the previously recited “longitudinal direction” in parent claim 1, or something else. This further renders the phrase “on of its two opposite longitudinal ends in the direction of the guideway” unclear.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear which feature is “in a stacking direction of the male and female coupling members”. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the holding” in the claim. It is further unclear which (if any) of the previously recited “longitudinal ends” of the projection the phrase “the longitudinal end” is intending to refer to in the claim. It is further unclear how the term “stacking” is intending to modify the “direction” as there is no prior recitation of, for example, stacking the male and female coupling members.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature is “in the stacking direction of the male and female components”. It is further unclear how the term “stacking” is intending to modify the “direction” as there is no prior recitation of, for example, stacking the male and female coupling members. It is further unclear the scope of the structure encompassed by a “bilateral design”. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrases “the extraction” and “the opening” in the claim. It is further unclear if the “male and female components” are intending to refer to the previously recited “male coupling member” and “female coupling member” in parent claim 1, the “first component” and “second component” in parent claim 1, or something else.
Claims 6-8 are indefinite because it is unclear if the “Device” is intending to refer to the “storage device”, the “connecting device”, or another device.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature is “in the stacking direction of the male and female members”.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature is “in a stacking direction of the male and female coupling members”. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrases “the guideway axial abutment”, “the associated longitudinal end”, “the holding”, and “the longitudinal end”. It is further unclear if the “stacking direction” is referring to the same “stacking direction” previously recited in parent claims 5 and 6. It is further unclear what feature “its” is referring to in the phrase “as well as its two opposite lateral sides”. Further, there is no prior recitation of a contour of the projection and it is unclear the relationship between the “profile” and the “contour”.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear what feature “hold[s] the male member relative to the female member”. Additionally, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “transverse structure” is intending to refer to the previously recited “at least one of the transverse structures” in parent claim 1, or another structure. Additionally, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). It is further unclear what feature “partly delimit[s] at least one of the trhough-openings”.
The term “generally” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrases “the longitudinal central axis” and “the beam” in the claim. It is further unclear what feature the phrase “of which” is referring to in the claim.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature “connects using another connecting device”, what feature “form[s] therewith a guideway connection”, what feature is “the direction of the guideway”, and what feature is “parallel to or inscribed in the transverse plane”. It is further unclear what feature the phrase “of which” is referring to in the claim. It is further unclear the relationship between the “male coupling member”, “female coupling member”, “groove”, “guideway connection”, and “direction of the guideway” and the same features previously recited in parent claim 1. It is further unclear what the phrase “the transverse structure concerned lies” is referring to in the claim. It is further unclear if the “said transverse structure” and “the transverse structure concerned” are intending to refer to the “at least one of the transverse structures” in parent claim 1, or another structure. It is further unclear if “this other connecting device” is intending to refer to the “another connecting device”.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. It is further unclear if the “other connecting device” is intending to refer to the previously recited “another connecting device” in parent claim 12, or something else. It is further unclear which (if any) of the previously recited “groove”, “female member”, “direction of the guideway”, “projection”, and “male member” in parent claims 1 and 12 the same phrases in the claim are intending to refer to. It is further unclear if the “longitudinal ends” (both instances) are referring to ends in relation to the previously recited “longitudinal direction” in parent claim 1, or something else. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrases “the two guideway axial abutments”, “the two guideway connections”, “the movement of the first component”, “the direction of the third component”, “the movement of the third component”, and “the direction of the first component” in the claim.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear which (if any) of the previously recited “transverse structures” in parent claim 1 “the transverse structure” is intending to refer to. Additionally, the phrase is generally unclear. It is unclear what feature is “wherein it is inscribed”.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-3 and 5-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication No. 2008/0123798 (“Andre”).
Regarding claim 1, Andre (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1, 8) discloses a storage device (1) for transporting and/or storing nuclear fuel assemblies, the storage device being intended to be housed in the cavity of a packaging (70) for transporting and/or storing nuclear fuel assemblies, and including adjacent housings, each intended to receive a nuclear fuel assembly (FIG. 7, [0060]-[0061], [0097]),
the storage device comprising a plurality of transverse structures (6a, 6b, 88) spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction (8) of the storage device using spacing means ([0102]-[0104]), the transverse structures each being arranged in a transverse plane of the storage device, and each comprising a plurality of through-openings (2) for passing nuclear fuel assemblies through ([0061]),
wherein at least one of the transverse structures includes a first component (88) as well as a second component (6a, 6b, 20) attached to one another by a connecting device ([0102]-[0103]), the connecting device comprising:
- a male coupling member borne by the first component, the male member taking the form of a projection ([0103]);
- a female coupling member provided on the second component, the female member taking the form of a groove housing the male member and forming therewith a guideway connection the direction of the guideway of which is parallel to or inscribed in the transverse plane wherein the transverse structure concerned lies ([0103]).
Regarding claim 2, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 1. Andre discloses the groove forming the female member has, at one of its two opposite longitudinal ends in the direction of the guideway, a guideway axial abutment (34) cooperating with one of the two opposite longitudinal ends of the projection forming the male member (FIG. 8A).
Regarding claim 3, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 2. Andre discloses the guideway axial abutment and the associated longitudinal end of the projection have a complementarity of shape ensuring the holding of the longitudinal end of the projection in the groove, in a stacking direction of the male and female coupling members, the stacking direction being orthogonal to the direction of the guideway as well as to an opening plane of the groove (FIGS. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 1. Andre discloses the guideway connection is of bilateral design in a stacking direction of the male and female coupling members, the projection and the groove having a complementarity of shape preventing the extraction of the projection outside of the groove via the opening thereof, in the stacking direction of the male and female components (FIGS. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 5. Andre discloses the projection has two opposite lateral sides having a complementarity of shape with two opposite lateral sides of the groove with which they respectively cooperate, so as to prevent the extraction of the projection outside of the groove via the opening thereof, in the stacking direction of the male and female members (FIGS. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 6. Andre discloses the projection has a section, in a plane orthogonal to the direction of the guideway, in the shape of a T (FIG. 8b).
Regarding claim 8, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 6. Andre discloses the guideway axial abutment and the associated longitudinal end of the projection have a complementarity of shape ensuring the holding of the longitudinal end of the projection in the groove, in a stacking direction of the male and female coupling members, the stacking direction being orthogonal to the direction of the guideway as well as to an opening plane of the groove, and wherein said longitudinal end of the projection, as well as its two opposite lateral sides, have a continuous profile along the entire length of a U-shaped contour of the projection (FIGS. 3c, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 1. Andre discloses a member for locking the guideway connection, holding the male member relative to the female member in the direction of the guideway, the member for locking the guideway connection preferably being a screw passing through the male and female members (FIGS. 8, [0103]).
Regarding claim 10, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 1. Andre discloses the first and second components are two peripheral components of the transverse structure, and, preferably, partly delimiting at least one of the through-openings of this transverse structure (FIGS. 2, 8b).
Regarding claim 11, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 1. Andre discloses the first or the second component has a generally straight beam shape, of which the longitudinal central axis of the beam is parallel to or coinciding with the direction of the guideway (FIGS. 3, 8a).
Regarding claim 12, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 1. Andre discloses said transverse structure includes a third component (e.g., element 88 on opposite end of elements 6a, 6b, 20) arranged so that the second component is located between the first and third components that it connects using another connecting device (FIGS. 1-2, 8, [0102]-[0103]), this other connecting device comprising:
- a male coupling member borne by the third component, the male member taking the form of a projection ([0103]);
- a female coupling member provided on the second component, the female member taking the form of a groove housing the male member and forming therewith a guideway connection the direction of the guideway of which is parallel to or inscribed in the transverse plane wherein the transverse structure concerned lies ([0103]).
Regarding claim 13, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 12. Andre discloses in said other connecting device, the groove forming the female member has, at one of its two opposite longitudinal ends in the direction of the guideway, a guideway axial abutment (34) cooperating with one of the two opposite longitudinal ends of the projection forming the male member, and wherein on the second component, the two guideway axial abutments, respectively provided on the two guideway connections, are oriented so as to prevent the movement of the first component relative to the second component in the direction of the third component, and so as to prevent the movement of the third component relative to the second component in the direction of the first component (FIGS. 2, 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 14, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andre.
Regarding claim 14, Andre discloses the storage device according to claim 1. Andre shows that a thickness of the transverse structure (e.g., horizontal dimension in FIG. 3c) is less than a width of the transverse structure (e.g., vertical dimension in FIG. 3c), but appears to be silent as to the specific ratio between the thickness and the width. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to have the ratio in the range of less than 0.1 since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. A POSA would have been aware that varying the thickness and width of the transverse structure would affect the size of the through-openings and the rigidity of the storage device.
Additional References
The following references would also appear to be relevant to Applicant’s invention and are therefore cited in the attached PTO-892:
US Patent No. 4,770,844: discloses a storage device (3) for transporting and/or storing nuclear fuel assemblies (6) and comprising a plurality of transverse structures (7a-j) spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction of the storage device, wherein at least one of the transverse structures includes a first component (15a) and a second component (15b) attached to one another by a connecting device (12a, 12b) (FIGS. 1-2, Abstract, 3:43-55, 4:3-49).
US Publication No. 2011/0108746: discloses a storage device (10) for transporting and/or storing nuclear fuel assemblies and comprising a plurality of transverse structure (M1-M4) spaced apart from one another in a longitudinal direction of the storage device using spacing means (4) and comprising a plurality of through-openings (2a, 2b) for passing nuclear fuel assemblies through, wherein at least one of the plurality of transverse structures includes a first component (3a) and a second component (3b) attached to one another by a connecting device (7) (FIGS. 1-2, 4, [0001]-[0009], [0034], [0064]-[0065], [0073]).
US Publication No. 2017/0229199: discloses a storage device (1) for transporting and/or storing nuclear fuel assemblies and comprising a transverse structure (6, 8, 10) comprising a plurality of through-openings (2) for passing nuclear fuel assemblies through, wherein the transverse structure includes a first component (10) and a second component (6, 8) attached to one another by a connecting device (9), the connecting device comprising a male coupling member (94) borne by the first component and having the form of a projection, and a female coupling member (defined by elements 85) provided on the second component and having the form of a groove configured to house the male coupling member (FIGS. 1-4, Abstract, [0044]-[0048], [0060]).
WO Publication No. 2014/010386: discloses a storage device for transporting and/or storing nuclear fuel assemblies (7) and comprising a plurality of transverse structures (20, 34) comprising a plurality of through-openings (S) for passing nuclear fuel assemblies through, wherein at least one of the transverse structures includes a first component (34) and a second component (20) attached to one another by a connecting device (24, 34), the connecting device comprising a male coupling member (34a, 34b) borne by the first component and having the form of a projection, and a female coupling member (24a, 24b) provided on the second component and having the form of a groove configured to house the male coupling member and discloses another embodiment teaching a spacing means (191) for spacing apart the plurality of transverse structures (40A-40D) in the longitudinal direction (FIGS. 1-3, 10-11, 15, pp. 6-7, 13, 22-24).
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Application Status Information
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights