DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 15-30 are pending.
Elections
Applicant’s elections of Invention I and from Species A, B, and C without traverse in the Reply filed 20 April 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention/Species encompasses claims 15-17, 20, 23, and 26-29. Claims 18-19, 21-22, 24-25, and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s). The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 15-17, 20, 23, and 26-29 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 15-16 and 27
The term “strictly” is unclear. It is an expression in which the criteria or degree of comparison is unclear. The dividing boundary between “strictly” and non-strictly is unknown and unclear. The term usage 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.
Claims 17 and 20
Claim 17 indicates that the first cladding material is an aluminum alloy or a zirconium alloy. Claim 20 indicates that the second cladding material is an aluminum alloy or a zirconium alloy. That is, the recited subject matter allows for an embodiment where both the first cladding material and the second cladding material are the same material. However, claim 15 implies that the first cladding material differs from the second cladding material. Thus, as best understood, claims 17 and 20 may conflict with each other. It is also unclear where the specification provides support for using the same material (for the first and second claddings) with different levels of hardness. Clarification is requested. (Note a similar issue of conflict regarding claims 18 and 21).
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 15-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US 3,070,880).
Claims 15 and 17
Davis teaches a nuclear fuel element comprising a core (7), a frame (2, 9, 11), and two cover plates (1). The frame is made of a first metallic cladding material (e.g., Zircaloy II). The cover plates are made of a second metallic second cladding material (e.g., 1010 cold rolled steel). The first cladding material has a hardness greater than the second cladding material.
Claims 16 and 23
Davis teaches that the first cladding material hardness is lower than the core material (e.g., Zircaloy II-uranium alloy).
Claims 15-17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurford (US 3,070,527).
Hurford teaches (e.g., Figure 8) a nuclear fuel element comprising a core (120), a frame (114), and two cover plates (116). The frame is made of a first metallic cladding material (e.g., zirconium alloy, stainless steel, or combinations thereof). The cover plates are made of a second metallic second cladding material (e.g., zirconium alloy, stainless steel, or combinations thereof). The first cladding material has a hardness greater than the second cladding material. Note Hurford at col. 8, lines 30-50.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 3,070,880) as applied to claim 15 above.
Davis implies (e.g., col. 4, lines 10-14) that other materials (e.g., zirconia, alumina, etc.) can be used for the two cover plates (1). Thus, modification of Davis to have employed an aluminum alloy or a zirconium alloy as the second cladding material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 3,070,880) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of either Stepnik (US 10,847,275) or Chandler ("Conceptual fuel element design candidates for conversion of High Flux Isotope Reactor with low-enriched uranium silicide dispersion fuel." In EPJ Web of Conferences, vol. 247, p. 08017, 2021).
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a fuel element can be implemented with various contents of uranium, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain uranium contents in light of the specific nuclear reactor core design. For example, Stepnik (cited via IDS) shows using uranium contents from 2.7 gU/cm3 to ≥ 6.0 gU/cm3. Chandler shows using uranium contents from 4.8 - 5.3 gU/cm3. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Davis to have implemented the fuel element with a uranium content within the recited range to meet a particular reactor design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The phrase “a core made of a fissile material and a cladding” is unclear. The specification does not discuss a core made of a cladding.
The phrase “a central aperture receiving the core and two cover plates” is unclear. The specification does not discuss a central aperture receiving cover plates.
As discussed above, use of the term “strictly” is unclear.
The Abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following Abstract is suggested:
A plate-shaped nuclear fuel element includes a fissile material core, a frame, and two cover plates. The frame comprises a central aperture for receiving the core therein. The two cover plates are arranged to sandwich the frame and the core therebetween. The frame is made of a metallic first cladding material. The cover plates are made of a metallic second cladding material. The hardness of the first cladding material is greater than the hardness of the second cladding material.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it refers to a non-elected invention.
The following Title is suggested:
“Plate-Shaped Nuclear Fuel Element In Which Frame Material Hardness Is Greater Than Material Hardness Of Cladding Cover Plates”
Citation of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered related to plate-shaped nuclear fuel elements.
Additional Comment
The prosecution in corresponding Japanese Patent Application 2024-523386 has been noted.
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
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 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 Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights