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 .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitations “a first door that divides the first space from the second space and is configured to be opened and closed” and “a second door that divides the second space from a third space which is external to the pool, and is configured to be opened and closed” do not link the “configured to be opened and closed” phrases to the structure they modify. Appropriate correction is required. The following is suggested: a first door configured to be opened and closed, the first door dividing the first space from the second space…a second door configured to the opened and closed, the second door dividing the second space from a third space, which is external to the pool.”
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/26 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive in view of the claim amendments. The claim amendments have rectified the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
4. Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner does not agree that the combination of Martin and Kleimola as applied to previously presented claim 2 fails to make obvious present claim 1, as amended. Martin discloses a nuclear power plant comprising the three spaces as recited and further includes the first door. Martin lacks a clear disclosure of the claimed second door. Kleimola teaches such a door and provides motivation for its combination with martin. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al., US 2015/0194226 in view of Kleimola, US 3,865,688.
9. Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a nuclear power plant (Figs. 2 and 3) comprising a pool, the pool comprising a first pool filled with cooling water and forming a first space (50) where spent nuclear fuel (52) is placed [0024]) and a second pool forming a second space (40a) divided from the first space and including a small modular reactor (10a) therein, wherein the pool further comprises a first door (54a) that divides the first space from the second space and is configured to be opened and closed ([0025]) and a third space (70a), which is external to the pool (see Fig. 3). Martin is silent as to how the “storage area” (70a) is connected to the second space (40a). Kleimola teaches a nuclear power plant having a door (311) dividing a third space (“equipment shaft” 306) from a second pool (reactor cavity 202), the door configured to be opened and closed to “provid[e] access to the reactor building (see Fig. 4 and column 13, lines 21-26). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have fond it obvious to employ such a door in the nuclear power plant of Martin to mitigate the risk of radiation leaking from the reactor cavity.
10. Regarding claim 3, Martin as modified by Kleimola makes claim 1 obvious. Martin further discloses a nuclear power plant wherein the second space comprises a plurality of second spaces (40a, 40b; [0023]), and the second spaces are arranged along a perimeter of the first space at regular intervals and spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 3). Although Martin does not disclose that the first space is circular or elliptical, such a change in shape is an obvious matter of design choice. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the claimed shape, because applicant has not disclosed that having such a shape itself solves any stated problem, the claimed shape does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the spent fuel pool is polygonal as in Martin or circular, as claimed. Overall, applicant has not established any criticality of the claimed shape, and thus selecting the claimed shape would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
11. Regarding claim 6, Martin as modified by Kleimola makes claim 1 obvious. Martin further discloses a nuclear power plant further comprising a crane installed outside the pool, wherein the crane is configured to introduce equipment necessary for maintenance of the small modular reactor into the second space ([0025], [0034]).
12. Regarding claims 7-10, the nuclear power plant of Martin as modified by Kleimola as applied to claim 1 above makes obvious a method comprising steps of:
closing the first door to divide the first space from the second space (see Martin at [0025]: during refueling operations 54a is opened, which means that prior to such operations it is closed);
discharging and replenishing cooling water from the second space using a cooling water controller (see Martin at [0025])
opening and closing the second door and introducing equipment necessary for maintenance of the small modular reactor by crane from the outside of the pool into the second space (see Martin at [0025] and [0034); and
performing the maintenance of the small modular reactor by the equipment ([0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
14. Should applicant amend claim 1 with any of the allowable limitations from claims 4, 5, 11, and 12, claim 7 could be placed in condition for allowance by amending its preamble to “ A maintenance method of the nuclear power plant according to claim 1, the method comprising:”
Finality
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Interviews
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.
Additional References
The attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892) cites additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights