DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Elections
Applicant’s election of Species A without traverse in the Reply filed 13 April 2026 is acknowledged. The election encompasses claims 1-2 and 5-6. Claims 3-4 and 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s). It is noted that claim 7 depends on claim 3 and is thus withdrawn therewith. The election 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 1-2 and 5-6 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.
Claim 1
The phrase “The tomographic image acquisition device” (line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
It is unclear how detection members located within a fuel assembly can detect radiation emitted from the fuel assembly. As best understood, radiation emitted away from the fuel assembly would be radiation that is located outside of the fuel assembly.
It is unclear which component is used “to detect radiation” (line 3). For example, it is unclear whether the first detection unit or some other component is configured to detect radiation. The claim does not require that the first detection unit be configured to detect radiation. It is unclear whether the claim wording should be interpreted as “a first detection unit configured to detect radiation, wherein the first detection unit is arranged at a location outside of the fuel assembly, wherein the first detection unit is configured to detect radiation emitted from the fuel assembly while arranged at the location”.
It is unclear which component is used “to detect radiation” (line 6). For example, it is unclear whether the second detection unit or some other component is configured to detect radiation. The claim does not require that the second detection unit be configured to detect radiation. It is unclear whether the claim wording should be interpreted as “a second detection unit, wherein the second detection unit includes a rod-shaped sealing unit arranged within the fuel assembly, wherein the second detection unit includes detection members arranged within the sealing unit, and wherein the detection members are configured to detect radiation emitted by the fuel assembly while arranged within the fuel assembly”.
It is unclear whether the “fuel assembly” is a “nuclear fuel assembly” or another type of fuel assembly. It is unclear where the specification supports a generic fuel assembly.
Claim 2
The phrase “the outer surface” lacks proper antecedent basis.
It is unclear in “which” component the detection members is arranged.
It is unclear “which” component is associated with “of which”.
It is unclear “which” component “has a slit”.
Claim 5
The phrase “the axial direction” (first mentioned) lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the central axis” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear what component has “the central axis”. It is unclear what component is capable of “rotating around the central axis”.
The functional phrase “so detects radiation” is unclear in its meaning.
The phrase “corresponding to the axial direction of the fuel rods” is unclear in its meaning. For example, it is unclear whether said phrase means “substantially parallel to the axial direction of the fuel rods” or something else.
Claim 6
The phrase “the axial direction” (first mentioned) lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “corresponds to the axial direction of the fuel rods” is unclear in its meaning. For example, it is unclear whether said phrase means “is substantially parallel to the axial direction of the fuel rods” or something else.
The phrase “can move linearly in the axial direction” is unclear. The claim refers to more than one axial direction. Thus, it is unclear whether “the axial direction” in said phrase is: an axial direction of the second detection unit; an axial direction of the fuel rods; or the axial direction of some other component.
The phrase “can move linearly in the axial direction” is further unclear. It would appear that removal of the detection unit from the fuel assembly would inherently result in a linearly movement in the axial direction. Lifting a fuel assembly would also inherently cause said linearly movement.
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.
Other comments based on cursory review
Claim 4
All “members” inherently constitute a “plurality”. Thus, the phrase “the detection members are formed in plurality” may contain unnecessary redundant wording.
The phrase “the divided internal spaces” may lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7
The phrase “the axial direction” (first mentioned) may lack antecedent basis.
The phrase “the central axis” may lack proper antecedent basis. Note claim 5.
The phrase “the rotation angle” may lack proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the number of detection members arranged” may lack proper antecedent basis.
The functional phrase “so detects radiation” may be unclear in its meaning.
Claim 8
The phrase “the detection member” (a single member) may lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 mentions plural “detection members”.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (KR102254651B1) in combination with Yim (KR20190064869A).
Claim 1
Min (cited via IDS) discloses a gamma ray detection module for detecting gamma rays emitted by a nuclear fuel assembly. Min discloses a first detection unit (100a) and a second detection unit (100b). The detection units are arranged outside the fuel assembly (10). The detection units can detect radiation (e.g., gamma-rays). Particularly note paragraph [0045] and Figure 2.
Yim (cited via IDS) shows that it is well known in the art to have a radiation-electrical signal conversion unit within a guide tube (120) between fuel rods in a nuclear fuel assembly. The unit is capable of measuring a partial defect in the fuel assembly. The unit is provided with multiple unit radiation-electrical signal conversion devices (110). Each conversion device (110) includes a scintillator (111), a photovoltaic cell (112), a reflector (113), and a device structure (114). Particularly note paragraphs [0010] and [0025]-[0026], and Figures 2-4.
Modification of Min to have employed a detection unit within the fuel assembly to have enhanced measurement of emitted radiation, as suggested by Yim, 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.
Claims 5-6
The skilled artisan would understand that detection units can be arranged in different orientations. Yim shows that it is well known in the art to have a detection unit (110) arranged in the axial direction of fuel rods. Min’s detection units are capable of being arranged in different orientations. Thus, further modification of Min to have employed a detection unit arranged in the axial direction of fuel rods to have obtained further measurements of emitted radiation, as suggested by Yim, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With further regard to claim 5, Min’s fuel assembly can rotate around its central axis. Note the axis of rotation (C) shown in Figure 2.
With further regard to claim 6, Yim discloses that the radiation-electrical signal conversion devices can be inserted linearly in the axial direction between fuel rods at a predetermined depth. Particularly note paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and Figure 4. Thus, modification of Min to have employed a detection unit inserted linearly in the axial direction between fuel rods at a predetermined depth to provide accurate positioning, as suggested by Yim, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min (KR102254651B1) in combination with Yim (KR20190064869A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chagi (JPH1090473A).
Chagi (cited via IDS) shows that it is well known in the art to have a detector (e.g., a nuclear fission ionization chamber) inside a neutron measurement tube (20, 24) that is covered with (surrounded by) a lead shield (25), and where a hole (slit) is formed toward a specific fuel assembly to allow radiation to pass therethrough. Particularly note paragraph [0021] and Figure 8. Further modification of Min to have employed shielding and directional measuring of radiation to have enhanced measurements, as suggested by Chagi, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because it includes an unclear long rambling sentence which contains redundant subject matter. It is unclear where one feature ends and another feature begins. It is suggested that the long rambling sentence be broken into several shorter clear sentences.
The Abstract is further objected to because it contains undefined and/or unclear wording:
high-quality
densely arranged
inventive concept
may comprise
The Abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it contains undefined/unclear wording:
High-definition
high density
Citation of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered related to tomographic imaging.
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