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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 17-34 are pending. Claims 17-34 are examined herein.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings and specification examined are the original drawings and specification provided on 05/29/2024, including the provided amendments.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: H6, on page 8 in line 7, and 12, on page 5 line 12.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "17" and "18" have both been used to designate the same duct. Reference numeral 17 is called a valve in Figure 1. Thus, it appears that in Figure 3, reference numeral 17 should to be changed to 18.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 20, 26, and 27 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 misspells “material” in line 3. It is being assumed that the word “material” is meant to be used for the purposes of examination.
Claim 26 uses the word “below” in line 4, which introduces some relativeness into the limitation. Examiner interpreted this as if “below” was not in the limitation and suggests removing it. Claim 27 has the same issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-34 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “facing” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “facing” 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. The position and orientation of the casing is rendered indefinite by the use of "facing the core", because the face of the casing has not been defined, so it is unclear what is meant by facing the core. Furthermore, it would appear that any object outside of the core would inherently be “at least partly facing the core”. Thus, the casing structure and positioning is unclear. It is unclear if the casing structure completely surrounds the core, and the inner wall of the casing radially faces the core.
In claim 17 the phrase “the neutron transparent or neutron absorbing medium inside the casing in front of the active part of the core” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the claim wording should be interpreted as “to replace, at least in part, the neutron reflecting operating fluid in front of the active part of the core in the upper volume with neutron transparent or neutron absorbing medium from the lower volume”.
The term “facing” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “facing” 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. The location of the "a lower part" of the upper volume is rendered indefinite by the use of "facing" as neither the face of the upper volume nor the face of the casing containing the upper volume have been defined..
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the operating fluid" in lines 4, 5, and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is the “neutron reflecting operating fluid” introduced in claim 17 or a second fluid held in the upper volume of the casing. This unclear wording is also in claims 19-25 and 29.
Claim 18 recites “at least one siphon”, which allows for one or plural siphons. Thus, later reciting “the at least one siphon or siphons” is unclear and lacks proper antecedent basis because the claim does not require plural siphons. Also, the phrase “the at least one siphon having a greater diameter and a siphon with a smaller diameter” is unclear in its meaning. It is unclear whether the at least one siphon comprises a first siphon having a first diameter and a second siphon having a second diameter, wherein the first diameter is greater than the second diameter. Also note similar wording in claims 26 and 29.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the respective siphons" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “facing” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “facing” 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. The position of the neutron absorbing material is rendered indefinite by the use of the term facing, as no faces have been defined for the neutron absorbing material. .
Claim 21 recites the limitation "neutron reflecting fluid" in lines 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this a third fluid in the upper volume or a third way of referring to the fluid in the upper volume.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the siphons" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the primary fluid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the gas" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the volume" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the service volume" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "one or more siphons" in line 4. It is unclear whether this is referring to the “at least one siphon”, the “at least one siphon and a siphon”, the “at least one siphon or siphons”, the “respective siphons”, a new siphon, or new siphons.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the siphon or siphons" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the primary fluid" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 27 at line 4, it is unclear what constitutes a “bodybody”.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the cover gas" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the upper part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The phrase “for example to an earthquake” is unclear. It is unclear whether “accidental wave motion of the primary fluid” is only caused by an earthquake. With regard to the wording “for example”, it is unclear what other events (if any, that can cause an accidental wave motion) are similar to an earthquake.
A first phrase “said elastic body being contained inside the outer volume which contains gas,” in line 6 of claim 27 is later contradicted on line 9 of claim 27 by a second phrase “causes overflowing of primary fluid inside the outer volume”. It is unclear what substance is in the outer volume and whether the second phrase was supposed to mean “causes overflowing of primary fluid into the outer volume” or whether the “said elastic deformable body inside the outer volume” was meant to contain the gas in the first phrase.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the primary fluid" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the body" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the siphons or siphons" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the two ducts" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “facing” in claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “facing” 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. The location of the "the lower part of the upper volume" is rendered indefinite by the use of "facing" as neither the face of the upper volume nor the face of the casing containing the upper volume have been defined.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the lower part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lower part of the upper volume is only introduced in claim 18, upon which claim 30 does not depend. Claim 31 carries this error forward. Please correct claim 31 as well.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the collapsible portion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the lower part" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lower part of the upper volume is only introduced in claim 18, upon which claim 32 does not depend.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the primary system" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 mentioned is rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not directed to that which is new in the art to which the claimed invention pertains (e.g., replacing neutron reflecting fluid for shutdown). The Abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following Abstract is suggested:
A fast nuclear reactor includes a protection system for shutdown in accidental conditions. The system comprises shutdown devices that surround the reactor core. Each shutdown device has an upper volume and a lower volume separated by a septum. The upper volume contains a neutron reflecting fluid adjacent to the active part of the core to facilitate reaching critical mass of the core. The lower volume contains a neutron transparent medium (e.g., gas) or a neutron absorbing medium (e.g., boron carbide balls immersed in a coolant). Movement of the neutron reflecting fluid away from the active part reduces reactor reactivity. Reactor shutdown involves replacing at least some of the neutron reflecting fluid in the upper volume with neutron transparent or neutron absorbing medium from the lower volume.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is too generic for the recited invention. The Title also corresponds to conventional prior art. The following Title is suggested: “Fast nuclear reactor having neutron reflector fluid arranged radially outside of active part of core during reactor operation, where the neutron reflector fluid can be replaced with a neutron absorber medium to cause reactor shutdown”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 18-34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY MARIE COOPERRIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-0532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/K.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights