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 .
Claim Status
1. Claim 1 is pending and examined herein.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
3. Claim 1 is 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.
4. Claim 1 is replete with instances of unclear antecedent basis. For example, “the folded cells” was not previously introduced, and the subsequent recitation of “the cells” is unclear because it is not known whether that recitation is intended to refer to previously recited “folded cells” or “hexagonal cells” or introduce a third type of cell. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the diameter of the circle inscribed between the three points of the radius elements.” There was no introduction of a diameter or even of a circle.
5. Further regarding claim 1, it is unclear what structure the recitation “made of a single sheet” imparts to the spacer grid. At a minimum, it is unclear what is made of the single sheet.
6. Further regarding claim 1, the recitations directed to the “end faces” of the spacer grid are unclear because the spacer grid, as recited, does not have any particular shape.
7. Further regarding claim 1, the recitations directed to “bends and cuts for the cells” does not clearly delineate what structure is required of the spacer grid. It is not clear what is bent and cut and how the bends and cuts structurally cooperate with one another and with the previously recited single sheet and/or hexagonal rim.
7. Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “designed to form radius elements” and “forming screw deflectors” does not clearly impart any metes and bounds on the claimed structure. What structure must the “bends and cuts” (themselves unclear, as described above) possess to meet such functional limitations?
8. Finally regarding claim 1, the value k in the recited formula is not adequately defined in the claim or the specification, such that a skilled artisan would be unable to determine whether a given spacer grid meets the recited relationship between the cell size and diameter of the fuel element. There is no antecedent basis for “the springing of the bent radius element” or for “the “cell – fuel element” connection” and it is further unclear what the quotation marks about the cell – fuel element phrase is intended to denote.
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.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinnov, RU 2632572 in view of Kim et al., US 2021/0110941.
10. Regarding claim 1, as best understood Chinnov discloses a spacer grid of a nuclear reactor fuel assembly, comprising a hexagonal rim with a field of hexagonal cells fixed therein, made of a single sheet, so that the folded cells have bends and cuts for the cells in one row of cells arranged on one end face of the spacer grid, and bends and cuts for the cells of the parallel row are placed on the other end face of the spacer grid, wherein the cuts for the cells are designed to form radius elements at the ends of the cell, bent in opposite directions and forming screw deflectors at the ends of the cell (see Figs. 1-5 of Chinnov as compared to Figs. 1-5 of the instant application; lines 46-53 of the Espacenet translation attached hereto; see also [0006] of the instant application publication US20240428959A1)
Chinnov does not disclose how far the bends and cuts protrude toward the center of the cell. Kim teaches a nuclear reactor spacer grid wherein the amount of protrusion of bends and cuts (see Fig. 3, 120) into the cell (i.e., the D of the circle inscribed thereby) is related to the diameter of the fuel element in the cell, by a spring coefficient of the bends and cuts to ensure tension between the protruding elements and the fuel rod (see [0037]). Kim states that this factor predictably provides that “the fuel rod is elastically supported by the springs,” which would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to apply this teaching to the bends and cuts of the fuel rod spacer grid of Chinnov. Kim further teaches that the cooling water mixing performance is determined according to the “bending angle” of mixing vanes ([0009]), which is the function of the bends and cuts of Chinnov (see lines 46-51). Accordingly, Kim provides further motivation to modify the amount of protrusion of the bends and cuts of Chinnov into the cells, by establishing that such a factor would result in “coolant water mixing performance.”
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights