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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 01 September 2026, with respect to the drawings, the abstract, the specification, and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the drawings, the specification, and the abstract, and the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01 September 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, see pages 3 and 5, that none of the cited art addresses the problem addressed by the invention, and that that the structure disclosed in Shimojo is more complex than the claimed invention, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP § 2144 (IV)).
In response to applicant’s argument, see pages 3-4, that Shimojo discloses a radioactive waste container comprises four layers and that Shimojo fails to teach alternation of protection against photonic and neutron radiation, the claims do not preclude the presence of further layers in addition to the claimed three layers. Furthermore, Shimojo is not relied upon to teach the three layers as claimed; the teachings of Shimojo are relied upon only to modify the intermediate layer disclosed in Singh (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, that Shimojo fails to teach the layers having the same thickness, have been considered but are moot because the rejection does not rely on Shimojo to teach the layers having the same thickness.
In response to applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, regarding the claimed envelope forming a thermal heat dissipation bridge, the claims require only that each concrete piece has a metal envelope which contacts the inner and outer ferrules and forms a thermal heat dissipation bridge between the inner and outer ferrules. FIG. 3 of Shimojo (annotated below) shows that each piece (12) has an envelope (15), each envelope (15) comprising a short part (15a) and a long part (15b), wherein the lowermost end of the long part (15b) contacts the inner ferrule (8) and the short part (15a) contacts the outer ferrule (9), wherein the envelopes (15) are made of metal (paragraph 0041, lines 10-11: “[t]he heat transmission fin 15 is composed of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, copper or a copper alloy”). Shimojo further discloses that the envelopes (15) form a thermal heat dissipation bridge (14) between the inner and outer ferrules (paragraph 0041, lines 1-6: “between the inner shell 8 and the outer shell 9, a plurality of heat transmission fin rows 14 for thermally connecting the inner shell 8 and the outer shell 9 and preferably transmitting decay heat…from the inner shell 8 to the outer shell 9”, emphasis added). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1: Shimojo FIG. 3
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0265182 A1), hereinafter Singh, in view of Shimojo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0114856 A1), hereinafter Shimojo.
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses a radioactive waste container, suitable for housing a canister or rack containing the radioactive waste constituting a source of radioactive emission (paragraph 0029); characterized in that it comprises:
- an inner containment barrier (FIG. 1, element 15) against photon radiation (paragraph 0049), delimiting a housing (FIG. 1, element 6) for the canister or the rack for the radioactive waste to be stored (paragraph 0050), and comprising: a cylindrical inner steel ferrule (paragraph 0051), a base (FIG. 1, element 117) and a lid (FIG. 1, element 13);
- an outer containment barrier (FIG. 1, element 120) against photon radiation (paragraph 0049), forming an outer surface of the radioactive waste container (FIG. 1), and comprising: a cylindrical outer steel ferrule (paragraph 0051), a base (FIG. 1, element 55) and a lid (FIG. 1, element 56), and
- an intermediate concrete layer arranged between said inner and outer ferrules, and forming a shield against neutron radiation (paragraph 0051).
Singh fails to disclose that the intermediate concrete layer has a plurality of concrete pieces each concrete piece with a metal envelope which contacts the inner and outer ferrules, and which forms a thermal heat dissipation bridge therebetween, wherein the inner ferrule, the outer ferrule and the intermediate concrete layer, have the same thicknesses.
However, optimizing the thicknesses of the inner ferrule, the outer ferrule, and the intermediate concrete layer is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Singh teaches that “the greater the density and thickness of the blocking material, the better absorption/shielding of the gamma radiation” (Singh, paragraph 0005). As such, Singh identifies the thicknesses of the inner ferrule, the outer ferrule, and the intermediate concrete layer as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., improved radiation shielding. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting thicknesses of radiation shielding layers and identifies said thicknesses as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the thicknesses of the inner ferrule, the outer ferrule, and the intermediate concrete layer to meet the claimed thicknesses since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Singh fails to disclose that the intermediate concrete layer has a plurality of concrete pieces each concrete piece with a metal envelope which contacts the inner and outer ferrules, and which forms a thermal heat dissipation bridge therebetween.
However, Shimojo discloses that the intermediate shielding layer has a plurality of pieces (FIG. 2, element 12) each piece with a metal envelope (FIG. 3, element 15) which contacts the inner (FIG. 3, element 8) and outer ferrules (FIG. 3, element 9), and which forms a thermal heat dissipation bridge therebetween (paragraph 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh to include that the intermediate concrete layer has a plurality of concrete pieces each concrete piece with a metal envelope which contacts the inner and outer ferrules, and which forms a thermal heat dissipation bridge therebetween, based on the teachings of Shimojo that this advantageously transmits decay heat produced by the radioactive material towards the exterior of the container (Shimojo, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 2, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
In addition, Singh discloses that the inner and outer ferrules are concentric (FIG. 1 shows the concentric arrangement of elements 15 and 120) and delimit an intermediate cavity therebetween in which the intermediate concrete layer is housed (FIG. 1, cavity 14).
Regarding claim 4, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
In addition, Shimojo discloses that the intermediate shielding layer comprises pieces that have an annular cylinder arc configuration (FIG. 2, elements 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh in view of Shimojo to include that the intermediate concrete layer comprises concrete pieces that have an annular cylinder arc configuration, based on the additional teachings of Shimojo that this enables the intermediate layer to be manufactured by a variety of different processes, enabling flexibility in the method of constructing the container (Shimojo, paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 5, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 4 discloses the container according to claim 4.
In addition, Shimojo discloses that the pieces comprise at least one flat end (FIG. 2: each piece 12 is flat on the end facing the adjacent piece 12).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have considered it an obvious matter of design choice to include that the concrete pieces comprise at least one flat end, since the applicant has not disclosed that the flat end solves any problem or is for a particular reason. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 4 discloses the container according to claim 4.
In addition, Shimojo discloses that the pieces comprise at least one tongued (FIG. 8, element 40) or grooved end (FIG. 8, element 41) for coupling with an adjacent piece (paragraphs 0084-0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh in view of Shimojo to include that the concrete pieces comprise at least one tongued or grooved end for coupling with an adjacent concrete piece, based on the additional teachings of Shimojo that this configuration improves radiation shielding (Shimojo, paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 8, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
In addition, Singh discloses that the intermediate concrete layer is made by a concrete block as an annular cylinder, formed "in situ" by a mass of concrete poured between the inner and outer ferrules (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 10, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
In addition, Singh discloses that the intermediate concrete layer includes in its composition high-efficiency materials in the neutron radiation shielding (paragraphs 0005, 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
In addition, Singh discloses that the intermediate concrete layer includes in its composition materials with high density and photon shielding ability (paragraphs 0005, 0051-0052).
Regarding claim 12, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
In addition, Singh discloses that the intermediate concrete layer includes in its composition materials with high thermal conductivity and heat dissipation ability (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 13, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
In addition, Singh discloses that the intermediate concrete layer includes in its composition materials with high mechanical strength (paragraph 0051, combination of concrete and steel; Longe et al., the Gale Encyclopedia of Science, “Concrete”, hereinafter Longe, teaches that adding steel to concrete improves the strength of the concrete).
Regarding claim 18, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
In addition, Singh discloses that the lid is fixed to the inner ferrule by means of bolts (paragraph 0048).
Singh fails to disclose that the lid is fixed to the outer ferrule by means of bolts.
However, the disclosure of Singh demonstrates that the function of bolts is known in the art of radioactive waste containers. Singh also shows that substituting bolts for another fixing means in a radioactive waste container yields the predictable result of tightly securing the lid of the container (Singh, paragraph 0048). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh to include that the lid is fixed to the outer ferrule by means of bolts because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Arikawa et al. (JP Patent No. 2001141891 A), hereinafter Arikawa (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 9, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 8 discloses the container according to claim 8.
However, Arikawa discloses that the inner (FIG. 12, element 30) and outer ferrules (FIG. 12, element 46) comprise on facing surfaces of the inner and outer ferrules a metal (page 12, paragraph beginning “According to the above…” and following paragraph beginning “Is formed of a metal…”) connectors (FIG. 12, elements 56) embedded in the concrete block (FIG. 12, element 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh to include that the inner and outer ferrules comprise on facing surfaces of the inner and outer ferrules a metal connectors embedded in the concrete block, based on the teachings of Arikawa that the metal connectors improve heat removal performance (Arikawa, page 12, last two paragraphs).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angelo, II et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,402,455 A), hereinafter Angelo, II.
Regarding claim 14, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
Singh in view of Shimojo fails to disclose that the container comprises between the bases and between the lids closing the inner and outer containment barriers at their bottom and top, at least one radiation shielding layer, made of: concrete, steel, lead or any other material suitable for radiation shielding.
However, Angelo, II discloses that the container comprises between the bases and between the lids closing the inner (FIG. 2, floor on which containers 12 rest and FIG. 4, lid of element 16) and outer (FIG. 2, outer layer of base 44 and FIG. 4, outer layer of lid 42) containment barriers at their bottom and top, at least one radiation shielding layer (FIG. 2, element 18), made of: concrete, steel, lead or any other material suitable for radiation shielding (column 3, lines 33-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh in view of Shimojo to include that the container comprises between the bases and between the lids closing the inner and outer containment barriers at their bottom and top, at least one radiation shielding layer, made of: concrete, steel, lead or any other material suitable for radiation shielding, based on the teachings of Angelo, II that this layer improves the strength and radiation shielding ability of the container (Angelo, II, column 3, lines 19-46).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Timpert (U.S. Patent No. 7,186,993 B2), hereinafter Timpert.
Regarding claim 15, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
Singh in view of Shimojo fails to disclose that the container comprises between the bases and/or between the lids for closing the inner and outer containment barriers, elastic elements for shock absorption.
However, Timpert discloses that the container comprises between the bases and/or between the lids for closing the inner (FIG. 1, inner lid 13) and outer containment barriers (FIG. 1, outer lid 6), elastic elements for shock absorption (FIG. 1, springs 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh in view of Shimojo to include that the container comprises between the bases and/or between the lids for closing the inner and outer containment barriers, elastic elements for shock absorption, based on the teachings of Timpert that this reduces undesirable movement of the radioactive waste during transport of the container (Timpert, column 5, lines 29-39).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alvarez-Miranda Moran et al. (EP Patent No. 3594964 A1), hereinafter Alvarez-Miranda Moran.
Regarding claim 16, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
Singh in view of Shimojo fails to disclose that the lids of the inner and outer containment barriers comprise, on inner faces of the lids, metal sheets, for mounting and seating on the respective inner and outer ferrules.
However, Alvarez-Miranda Moran discloses that the lids of the inner (FIG. 1, inner lid 7) and outer (FIG. 1, outer lid 8) containment barriers comprise, on inner faces of the lids, metal sheets (paragraph 0020, stainless steel cladding), for mounting and seating on the respective inner (FIG. 2, inner seating surface 14) and outer ferrules (FIG. 2, outer seating surface 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh in view of Shimojo to include that the lids of the inner and outer containment barriers comprise, on inner faces of the lids, metal sheets, for mounting and seating on the respective inner and outer ferrules, based on the teachings of Alvarez-Miranda Moran that these metal sheets protect the sealing surfaces of the inner and outer lids (Alvarez-Miranda, paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 17, Singh in view of Shimojo as applied to claim 1 discloses the container according to claim 1.
Singh in view of Shimojo fails to disclose that the container comprises, between the lids and the respective inner and outer ferrules, respective pressure sealing gaskets.
However, Alvarez-Miranda Moran discloses that the container comprises, between the lids and the respective inner and outer ferrules (paragraphs 0027-0028), respective pressure sealing gaskets (FIG. 2, sealing joints 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Singh in view of Shimojo to include that the container comprises, between the lids and the respective inner and outer ferrules, respective pressure sealing gaskets, based on the teachings of Alvarez-Miranda Moran that the sealing gaskets prevent radioactive material leakage and protect the structural integrity of the container against impacts (Alvarez-Miranda Moran, paragraphs 0027-0028).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
