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 without traverse of Group I (claims 88-97) in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 98-107 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written on a separate sheet and in narrative form (i.e., short sentences within a single paragraph). 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “90” in Figure 90. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claims 88-97 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 88, line 13, the limitation “gantry framing” appears to be misspelled and should be amended to - -gantry frame - - for a better consistency and to prevent any potential antecedent basis issues.
In claim 97, line 3, the limitation “scaping” should be amended to - - escaping - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one mechanical arm assembly comprising at least one dismantling member” in claim 1, “at least one decontaminating member” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the above limitations:
The at least one dismantling member may be a circular saw, a reciprocating saw, an oxy acetylene torch and a shear cutter (paragraph [0010]).
The at least one decontaminating member could be a shot blaster, a spray nozzle or a suction nozzle (paragraph [0012]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 88 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doll (US 20110274232 A1).
As applied to claim 88, Doll teaches a system for decommissioning a nuclear power station (paragraphs [0019] and [0020]) comprising a structure defining a chamber (chamber 80/82, paragraph [0039]) for receiving the steam generator (intended use limitation); at least one support member within the chamber (tracks 30) for supporting the steam generator (intended use limitation); a mechanical assembly within the chamber for dismantling the steam generator (intended use limitation), the mechanical assembly comprising at least one mechanical arm assembly within the chamber (10, 10’) operable for dismantling the steam generator (intended use limitation), each mechanical arm assembly comprising at least one dismantling member (tool held in 18C, paragraph [0042]) moveable into contact with the steam generator to remove a segment of the steam generator (intended use limitation) and each mechanical arm assembly (10, 10’) is operable to dismantle the steam generator into a plurality of segments (intended use limitation); a gantry frame (frame for traveling unit 12, Fig. 1b) comprising at least two vertical frame members (the member shown as rectangles in Fig. 1b) for mounting each mechanical arm assembly, each vertical frame member having a bottom end moveable along the ground (bottom of unit 12 moves along horizonal surface on track 30, Fig. 1b) and a top end opposite the bottom end; and at least one gantry guide (pinion drive gear 20 with a plurality of gear teeth) within the chamber for movable mounting the bottom end of at least one of the at least two vertical frame members of the gantry frame and for directing the movement of the gantry frame (Figs. 1-4).
The limitations of are “for receiving the steam generator, for supporting the steam generator, for dismantling the steam generator, operable for dismantling the steam generator, moveable into contact with the steam generator to remove a segment of the steam generator, to dismantle the steam generator into a plurality of segments” are considered to be intended use limitations. Although the recitations have been fully considered, it carries limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Doll meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
Claim(s) 88, 90 and 95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hyun et al. (US 20210210236A1, hereinafter “Hyun”).
As applied to claim 88, Hyun teaches a system for dismantling a nuclear reactor (title) a structure defining a chamber (chamber 102, paragraph [0069]) for receiving the steam generator (intended use limitation); at least one support member within the chamber (134/135) for supporting the steam generator (intended use limitation); a mechanical assembly within the chamber for dismantling the steam generator (intended use limitation), the mechanical assembly comprising at least one mechanical arm assembly within the chamber (110) operable for dismantling the steam generator (intended use limitation), each mechanical arm assembly comprising at least one dismantling member (111, 112) moveable into contact with the steam generator to remove a segment of the steam generator (intended use limitation) and each mechanical arm assembly (111, 112) is operable to dismantle the steam generator into a plurality of segments (intended use limitation); a gantry framing (121) comprising at least two vertical frame members for mounting each mechanical arm assembly, each vertical frame member having a bottom end moveable along the ground and a top end opposite the bottom end; and at least one gantry guide (rails 122, paragraph [0107]) within the chamber for movable mounting the bottom end of at least one of the at least two vertical frame members of the gantry frame and for directing the movement of the gantry frame.
The limitations of are “for receiving the steam generator, for supporting the steam generator, for dismantling the steam generator, operable for dismantling the steam generator, moveable into contact with the steam generator to remove a segment of the steam generator, to dismantle the steam generator into a plurality of segments” are considered to be intended use limitations. Although the recitations have been fully considered, it carries limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the apparatus of Hyun meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
As applied to claim 90, Hyun teaches the invention cited including wherein each gantry guide (122) runs adjacent to the steam generator in a direction along a longitudinal axis of the steam generator to remove contaminants from the steam generator (intended use limitation).
As applied to claim 95, Hyun teaches the invention cited including further comprising a storage bin (142, Fig. 4) within the chamber for storing a plurality of finished segments from the plurality of segments.
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.
Claim(s) 89 and 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al. (US 20210210236A1, hereinafter “Hyun”) in view of Germond et al. (FR 2579314A1, hereinafter “Germond”).
As applied to claim 89, Hyun teaches the invention cited including the at least one mechanical arm assembly but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one mechanical arm assembly further comprises at least one decontaminating member operable to remove contaminants from the steam generator (intended use limitation).
Germond teaches a system for providing repair and maintenance of steam generators of nuclear power stations wherein a mechanical arm assembly comprises decontaminating member (sandblasting nozzle 41 on tool carriage 34 in water box 10, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a decontaminating member to the mechanical arm assembly of Hyun, as taught by Germond, as an effective means of decontaminating and cleaning the chamber from any radioactive pollutant.
As applied to claim 91, Hyun teaches the invention cited including the gantry frame with vertical frame member but does not explicitly teach wherein the gantry frame further comprises at least one elevator system moveable along the longitudinal axis of each vertical frame member for moving the at least one mechanical arm assembly.
Germond teaches a system for providing repair and maintenance of steam generators of nuclear power stations including a gantry frame comprising a pair of elevators (944, 944) with each used to move along the longitudinal axis of each of the vertical frames (940, 940, Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ at least one elevator in the gantry frame of Hyun, as taught by Germond, as an effective means of facilitating the movement along the vertical direction to access different elevations.
Claim(s) 91-94, 96 and 97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyun et al. (US 20210210236A1, hereinafter “Hyun”) in view of Heim et al. (US 20150228364A1, hereinafter “Heim”).
As applied to claims 91-93, Hyun teaches the invention cited including the gantry frame with vertical frame member but does not explicitly teach wherein the gantry frame further comprises at least one elevator system moveable along the longitudinal axis of each vertical frame member for moving the at least one mechanical arm assembly (as in claim 91), that gantry frame further comprises a carrier assembly slidably mounted on the at least one horizontal frame member of the gantry frame (as in claim 92), and that the carrier assembly further comprises a segment carrier extendable from the carrier assembly to the steam generator for collecting each of the plurality of segments as the mechanical arm assembly dismantles the steam generator (intended use limitation, as in claim 93).
Heim teaches a system for dismantling a nuclear reactor including a remotely controlled heavy manipulator operatively coupled to support structure and located in a contamination control enclosure, and a control station located in a non-contaminated portion of a workspace (paragraph [0008]). The remotely controlled heavy manipulator (also referred to as an "excavator arm") is supported by a bridge and trolley system. A structural support system positions the bridge and trolley system at an appropriate elevation to allow dismantling of the associated nuclear reactor. The bridge moves on the structural support along a particular axis. The trolley moves on the bridge along an axis substantially perpendicular to the axis of movement of the bridge. The heavy manipulator is mounted on the trolley using a slewing bearing that permits the heavy manipulator to swing from side-to-side. The heavy manipulator can interface with various tools (a suite of tools), such as a hydraulic hammer, bucket and thumb, clamshell bucket, scrapper, hydraulic shear, dust suppression/contamination fixing spray equipment, and thermal cutting equipment. The described systems also include a gantry crane that moves a lifting fixture capable of supporting a waste sack into which waste materials and other demolition materials are loaded. Particular embodiments use waste containers deployed on rails to move waste sacks and other demolition materials (paragraph [0059]). The dismantling operations are performed inside a contamination control enclosure to prevent the spread of contaminated particles to the facility and the surrounding environment. The contamination control enclosure is supported by a structural frame that is part of the overall structural support system. The contamination control enclosure has a negative pressure provided by a filtered air mover system, which also maintains airflow in a particular direction to control dust and prevent the spread of contamination (paragraph [0060]). An elevator 104 provides access to multiple balconies positioned along the sides of bioshield 102 (read on claimed “elevator in claim 91, paragraph [0063], Fig. 1). FIG. 29 shows exemplary aspects of an excavator arm 2902 (reads on claimed “carrier assembly” as in claim 92), according to one embodiment. In this embodiment, excavator arm 2902 is mounted to a gantry trolley and bridge. In a particular embodiment, the gantry trolley and bridge use the same runway girders as gantry-mounted arm 2802. Excavator arm 2902 is mounted in a manner that permits movement as the bridge moves on the runway girders, movement on the trolley, rotating on an axis centered on the bridge (swing), tipping down into the bioshield (hoist), rotating the excavator arm along its long axis (tilt), telescoping in and out to reach material (extend/retract which reads on claimed “segment carrier extendable” in claim 93), vertical movement of tools at the end of the arm (open/close), and lateral movement of the tool at the end of the arm (powertilt, paragraphs [0095] to [0103], Figs. 29 and 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ at least one elevator in the gantry frame of Hyun, as taught by Haim, as an effective means of facilitating the movement along the vertical direction to access different elevations.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a carrier assembly and a segment carrier extendable from the career assembly into the system of Hyun, as taught by Haim, as an effective means of allowing the access to any desired location of the steam generator for collecting the appropriate components during the dismantling process.
As applied to claim 94, Hyun teaches the invention cited with the exception of explicitly teaching a secondary workstation within the chamber for performing a secondary dismantling process to be performed on at least one of the plurality of segments.
Heim teaches a secondary dismantling process wherein during removal of the graphite, if other in-core materials are encountered that need size reduction, the excavator arm is reconfigured to include a shear attachment or similar tool. For example, a hydraulic shear is capable of shearing 2'' x 2'' square steel bars (e.g., bars similar to control rods) and reducing the size of control rods, tie rods, structural members and other components. The in-core materials are then reduced in size and the excavator arm is reconfigured with the bucket attachment and the size-reduced in-core materials are removed with the graphite blocks (paragraph [0126]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the system of Hyun, a secondary workstation to perform secondary dismantling steps, as taught by Haim, as an effective means of facilitating the complete dismantling of the whole steam generator in a controlled environment without exposing any personnel to contaminated and hazardous materials.
As applied to claim 96, Hyun teaches the invention cited with the exception of explicitly teaching a debris control curtain within the chamber for separating the chamber into two compartments, the two compartments comprising a dirty side wherein dismantling of the steam generator takes place, and a clean side opposite the dirty side.
Heim teaches in FIG. 21 aspects of an exemplary contamination control enclosure 2102, according to one embodiment. In a particular embodiment, contamination control enclosure 2102 is a plastic walled containment that encompasses the entire work volume of the dismantling structure. In a particular embodiment, contamination control enclosure 2102 is fabricated from polyester-reinforced PVC (polyvinyl chloride). Contamination control enclosure 2102 includes portions that surround the work area that houses the excavator and the crane, and areas where containers are loaded with waste material. One or more airlocks are provided to allow entry and exit of waste containers and equipment while maintaining a barrier between the contaminated work areas and the non-contaminated work areas (paragraph [0087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a curtain to divide up the clean and dirty portions of the chamber of Hyun, as taught by Haim, as an effective means of protecting clean side of the chamber from being contaminated from the pollutant escaping the contaminated side of the chamber.
As applied to claim 97, Hyun teaches the invention cited with the exception of explicitly teaching an air handling unit within the chamber for maintaining a negative air pressure within the dirty side to prevent contaminated air from escaping to the clean side.
Heim teaches a negative pressure unit in the contamination control enclosure prior to creating access to the bioshield (paragraph [0084]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ an air handling unit for maintaining negative pressure in the chamber of Hyun, as taught by Haim, as an effective means of protecting clean side of the chamber from being contaminated from the pollutant escaping the contaminated side of the chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boone et al. (WO 9608675) teaches a remotely operated managed maintenance robotic system used in a nuclear facility (abstract, Figs. 1-2).
Davis-Johnston et al. (GB 2586045A) teaches a surveying and dismantling system (abstract, Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 05/16/2026
Prosecution Insights