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 Group I and Species A without traverse in the Reply filed 20 April 2026 is acknowledged. The election encompasses claims 1-2. Claims 3-8 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention/Species. 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 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 phrases "small modular nuclear power plant" and "small fuel assemblies" are unclear. In these phrases it is unclear what constitutes the relative term “small”. The dividing boundary between “small” and non-small is unknown and unclear. In these phrases the term “small” 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 claim.
It is unclear what constitutes a "cross-sectional arrangement area". The claim does not specify the direction the cross-section is to be taken. For example, it is not specified whether the cross-section is to be taken perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the reactor main body or of the fuel assemblies. The wording allows for the cross-section to be taken in different planes, including a vertical cutting plane through the fuel assemblies. The skilled artisan cannot unambiguously determine which geometrical configurations of the fuel assemblies fall within the scope of the expression "cross-sectional arrangement area". Thus, the claim scope is unclear.
The phrase “a plurality of second arrangement areas located in a perimetric region of the first arrangement area” is unclear. If the first and second arrangement areas are distinct and separated areas (as the claim implies), then it is unclear how the second areas can be located inside the first area.
The phrase “spaced apart from each other” is unclear. It is unclear what components are “spaced apart from each other”: the first and second arrangement areas; the second arrangement areas; or something else.
The phrases “first size” and “second size” are unclear. The skilled artisan cannot unambiguously determine which geometrical configuration (e.g., length, area, volume, etc.) of the fuel assemblies correspond to the recited “size”.
It is unclear what constitutes "densely arranged” fuel assemblies. The dividing boundary between “densely” and non-densely is unknown and unclear. The term “densely” 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 claim.
The phrase "a nuclear fuel element . . . comprising a plurality of fuel assemblies" is unclear. A “nuclear fuel element" is commonly used in the art to designate an individual fuel rod. In some contexts, it is used in the art to designate a fuel assembly as a whole. However, under neither of these established meanings does the phrase make technical sense. The phrase is therefore technically incoherent and does not allow the skilled artisan to determine the claim scope. In view of the specification, it is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as "a nuclear reactor core . . . comprising a plurality of fuel assemblies".
Claim 2
The phrases “quadrangular cross-section” and “cross-sectional size” (twice) are likewise unclear for reasons discussed above with regard to "cross-sectional” wording.
The phrase “the second nuclear fuel assembly” may lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 mentions “second nuclear fuel assemblies” (plural).
The phrase “the first nuclear fuel assembly” may lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 mentions “first nuclear fuel assemblies” (plural).
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 3
The claim includes “cross-section” wording.
The phrase “the second nuclear fuel assembly” may lack antecedent basis.
The phrase “the first nuclear fuel assembly” may lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 4
Direction (e.g., vertical or horizontal) and structure of the “stepped form” may be unclear.
The phrase “the first nuclear fuel assembly” may lack proper antecedent basis.Claim 5
The claim includes “fuel element” wording.
It would appear that (cylindrical) rods are inherently arranged to face (360°) outward, which would include facing the reflector.
The phrase “the second nuclear fuel assembly” may lack antecedent basis.
Claim 6
The claim includes the “fuel element” wording.
The functional phrase “placed to be adjacent to” may be unclear. A location is either “adjacent to” or it isn’t.
It would appear that (cylindrical) rods are inherently arranged to face (360°) outward, which would include facing the reflector.
The meaning of “but not placed in a region via which a center region of the ex-vessel instrument and a center region of the second nuclear fuel assembly are connected” may be unclear.
The phrase “the second nuclear fuel assembly” may lack antecedent basis.
Claim 7
Which component (guiding tube, in-vessel instrument, or something else) “is installed in the second nuclear fuel assembly” may be unclear.
The phrase “the second nuclear fuel assembly” may lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama (US 6,088,420).
Claim 1
Yokoyama (cited via IDS) teaches a [small modular] nuclear power plant with [small] fuel assemblies (implicit from the disclosure of a nuclear reactor core which must be comprised within a nuclear power plant), comprising:
a reactor main body (e.g., reactor pressure vessel);
a [nuclear fuel element] core (10) accommodated in the reactor main body, comprising fuel assemblies (11) and having a cross-sectional arrangement area (cross-sectional arrangement areas in vertical cutting plane),
the cross-sectional arrangement area comprising:
a first arrangement area (Figure 2: more central area of the core); and
a plurality of second arrangement areas (Figure 2: more peripheral area of the core)
located in a perimetric region of the first arrangement area and
spaced apart from each other;
the fuel assemblies comprising:
first nuclear fuel assemblies (13) each having a first size (e.g., length) and arranged in the first arrangement area; and
second nuclear fuel assemblies (14) each having a second size (e.g., length) smaller than the first size (Figures 1-2) and arranged in the second arrangement areas.
Claim 2
Particularly note Figures 1-2.
Claims 1-2, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiraiwa (JPH04305190A).
Hiraiwa (cited via IDS) teaches a [small modular] nuclear power plant with [small] fuel assemblies (implicit from the disclosure of a nuclear reactor core which must be comprised within a nuclear power plant), comprising:
a reactor main body (e.g., reactor pressure vessel 101);
a [nuclear fuel element] core (1) accommodated in the reactor main body, comprising fuel assemblies (2, 3) and having a cross-sectional arrangement area (cross-sectional arrangement areas in vertical cutting plane),
the cross-sectional arrangement area comprising:
a first arrangement area (more central area of the core); and
a plurality of second arrangement areas (more peripheral area of the core)
located in a perimetric region of the first arrangement area and
spaced apart from each other;
the fuel assemblies comprising:
first nuclear fuel assemblies (3) each having a first size and arranged in the first arrangement area; and
second nuclear fuel assemblies (2, 22) each having a second size smaller than the first size (Figures 1 and 5) and arranged in the second arrangement areas.
Claim 2
Particularly note Figures 1 and 5.
Claims 1-2, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US 2015/0170766).
Singh teaches a [small modular] nuclear power plant with [small] fuel assemblies (implicit from the disclosure of a nuclear reactor core which must be comprised within a nuclear power plant; [0053]), comprising:
a reactor main body (e.g., reactor pressure vessel 500);
a [nuclear fuel element] core (e.g., 100) accommodated in the reactor main body, comprising fuel assemblies (110, 120) and having a cross-sectional arrangement area (cross-sectional arrangement areas in vertical cutting plane),
the cross-sectional arrangement area comprising:
a first arrangement area (more central area of the core); and
a plurality of second arrangement areas (more peripheral area of the core)
located in a perimetric region of the first arrangement area and
spaced apart from each other;
the fuel assemblies comprising:
first nuclear fuel assemblies (110) each having a first size (e.g., length) and arranged in the first arrangement area; and
second nuclear fuel assemblies (120) each having a second size (e.g., length) smaller than the first size ([0048, 0050, 0056]; Figures 3-4) and arranged in the second arrangement areas.
Claim 2
Particularly note [0050].
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because it contains unclear wording noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Also, the relative wording “closely arranged” is unclear.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it contains unclear wording noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, in view of the specification, reference characters “210” and “220” appear to be in switched (incorrect) locations in Figure 2.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the reference character “SE” which is not mentioned in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) 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. 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 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 drawing objections will not be held in abeyance.
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