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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 05/20/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 05/20/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 18-35 are pending in the application and examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Analysis - 35 USC § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]’.” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. 101: the USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 Guidance”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
The claims are first evaluated to determine if they are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim 18 recites “[a] method ... for determining at least one candidate loading pattern for a core of a nuclear reactor” including a series of steps, and, therefore, is directed towards a process. Claims 33 and 34 recite “[a] non-transitory computer storage” and “[a] computing device”, respectively, and are therefore directed towards a machine/manufacture. The claims recite at least one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. 101 and are directed towards a statutory category.
Step 1: YES
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Step 2A, Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claims 18 and 33-34 are evaluated to determine if the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas, i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. The focus of claims 18 and 33-34 is performing and repeating calculations and simulations in order to determine “at least one candidate loading pattern” based on “performance value[s]”, i.e., mathematical operations performed using a generic computer as a tool or mental processes.
Specifically, claim 18 recites the method is accomplished by: “receiving data representing a set of current assemblies”, “identifying groups”, “counting a number of symmetric positions”, “forming families”, “selecting ... a selected template loading pattern”, “within a numerical simulation, assigning ... respective initial positions..., thereby defining an initial loading pattern”, “testing, by said numerical simulation, the initial loading pattern ... by calculating an initial performance value”, “simulating a swap operation..., thereby defining a swapped loading pattern”, “testing, by said numerical simulation, the swapped loading pattern ... by calculating a subsequent performance value”, “repeating the simulated swap operation and subsequent testing the swapped loading pattern step..., thereby obtaining a set of candidate patterns”, and “selecting ... at least one candidate pattern ..., the selected candidate pattern being the one having a calculated performance value indicating satisfaction of said predetermined performance criterion”. The method of claim 18 therefore relies on receiving data, grouping data, manipulating data, calculating data, and comparing data.
It is determined that the “receiving data” limitation in claims 18 and 33-34 recites a mental process that can be performed by a human, or by a human using pen and paper, involving observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. In other words, a human can “receiv[e]” the data. The limitation does not appear to be limited to any particular acts or operations that would prevent the limitation from being performed in the human mind as such step amounts to mental observations and/or evaluations. The limitation therefore falls within the mental process category of abstract ideas.
It is determined that the “identifying”, “counting”, “forming”, “selecting”, “assigning”, “testing”, “simulating”, “testing”, “repeating”, and “selecting” limitations in claims 18 and 33-34 recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Under the 2019 Guidance, these mathematical formulas, mathematical relationships, and mathematical calculations fall within the “mathematical concepts” groupings. Furthermore, these limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. A mere recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions” in claim 18, “[a] non-transitory computer storage, storing instructions of a computer program” and “a processor of a processing circuit” in claim 33, and “[a] computing device comprising a processing circuit” in claim 34) performing mathematical operations does not take the calculating out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claims 18 and 33-34 also recites mental processes, which is a second one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Guidance.
Therefore claims 18 and 33-34 recite an abstract idea and we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two to determine whether the claims are “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: YES
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Step 2A, Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Additional limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)); and (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). In contrast, additional limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include (1) adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)); (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and (3) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, apart from the limitations directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., the “receiving”, “identifying”, “counting”, “forming”, “selecting”, “assigning”, “testing”, “simulating”, “testing”, “repeating”, and “selecting” limitations discussed above), the only additional elements that are recited in claim 18 are the “computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions”, “core having a defined core geometry comprising a multiplicity of cells positioned symmetrically relative to a plurality of axes of symmetry”, and “output[ting] data representing said at least one selected candidate loading pattern to said memory or an output device”. In claim 33, the only additional elements that are recited are the “non-transitory computer storage” and “processor of a processing circuit.” In claim 34, the only additional elements that are recited are the “computing device comprising a processing circuit.”
These additional limitations (1) do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant discloses the purpose of the claimed invention is to “reduce[] the speeds of creating reloading patterns while designing cores which are optimized from a safety and operational point of view” ([64]). However, using generic computer systems to perform calculations or carry out numerical simulations is not an advancement or an improvement in the art and the process of designing is an abstract idea which uses a computer as a tool. Using a processor to more quickly create core loading patterns is nothing more than the abstract idea itself (i.e., mental processes, mathematical concepts/calculations). Applicant’s asserted improvements to the abstract idea result from routine application of computers as tools, not from any technical innovation, and the claims do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system. The claims recite generic computer hardware components (e.g., “a processor”, “a non-transitory memory”) which are merely used to perform the abstract idea. Thus, to the extent that claims 18 and 33-34 recite an improvement, the improvement is directed towards an improvement to the abstract idea, which is still an abstract idea.
Instead, the additional elements identified above are directed towards limitations identified by the courts as not integrating a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements of the computer structures are mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Adding a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Furthermore, the claims do no more than require generic, purely conventional computer elements. These features therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The additional element of the nuclear reactor structures only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. The elements of the claimed reactor are identified as the “core” and “assemblies”. These elements are generic and used in their ordinary capacity. They only contribute nominally to the execution of the claimed method and are merely directed towards field of use.
The additional element of “output[ting]” data is merely directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering/outputting and only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 19-32 specify the calculations and data manipulation steps of claim 18. The claims do not impose a meaningful limit to the judicial exception as the claims merely recite another judicial exception of an abstract idea. Claim 35 recites “utilizing the output data representing said at least one selected candidate loading pattern to configure a nuclear reactor core loading sequence for subsequent use in reloading the core of the nuclear reactor”. The claim is merely insignificant post-solution activity that merely instructs one to apply the abstract idea and is not adequately “meaningful” to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two: NO
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As noted above, for Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
The pertinent issue is, namely, whether the additional elements recited in the claim (i.e., the claim element in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Apart from the limitations that recite an abstract idea, the only additional elements in claims 18 and 33-34 are the use of a computer, the nuclear structures, and the “output[ting]” data step. As discussed above, these elements are mere instructions to apply the exception to a generic computer, limitations linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities.
The computer and nuclear structures are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, claim 18 recites “a computer system comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory storing computer-executable instructions”. These structures (e.g., a processor, storage, computer-executable instructions) are fundamental and well-known components of a computer1,2. The disclosure also describes the computer system with a high-level of generality: “Applicant’s Figure 52 shows the claimed computer system which is described as “comprising a memory MEM capable of storing at least the instructions of a computer program ... and a processor PROC cooperating with the memory MEM in order to execute these instructions. The device DEV may further comprise an input interface IN with which the processor PROC cooperates in order to receive, for example, data relating to the assemblies..., and an output interface OUT with which the processor PROC cooperates in order to deliver, for example, the data of a candidate pattern” ([43]). Thus, the additional elements of the computer structures, described in generic terms, serve merely to analyze and generate data and are well-known, routine, and conventional. Similarly, the nuclear reactor structures (e.g., the “core” and “assemblies”) are also well-known, conventional, and routine components that were previously known in the industry, as evidenced by at least Schultz and Nissan as applied below. This is further evidenced by the high-level of generality with which the disclosure describes the reactor core with no apparent improvement to the reactor structures themselves. The claimed computer system and reactor are operated in their normal, ordinary capacities and there is nothing to suggest that “output[ting] data representing said at least one selected candidate loading pattern to said memory or an output device” would change how the computer or reactor operates beyond its normal, operating capacity.
As discussed above, claims 19-32 are directed towards judicial exceptions and claim 35 is insignificant post-solution activity. The claims merely recite further embellishments on the abstract idea, reciting additional mathematical operations or insignificant extra-solution activities, or mere instructions to “apply it” that do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 18-35 fail to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 18-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. As shown in the above analysis, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea and lack an additional element that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 35 recites “utilizing the output data representing said at least one selected candidate loading pattern to configure a nuclear reactor core loading sequence for subsequent use in reloading the core of the nuclear reactor”. There is insufficient support for this limitation in the original disclosure. While the specification discloses “testing several reloading strategies”, there does not appear to be any discussion of “configur[ing] a nuclear reactor core loading sequence for subsequent use in reloading the core” by “utilizing the output data representing said at least one selected candidate loading pattern” as recited in amended claim 35. This limitation therefore appears to be new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 18-35 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following phrases in claims 18, 20-23, 25, 27-29, and 33:
“the average assembly burnups” (claim 18)
“the average burnups of the current assemblies” (claim 18)
Claims 18 and 20-29 recite various features which use the same term(s) and/or appear to be referring to similar or same features. However, the claim does not clearly identify the relationship between these various phrases and it is unclear which (if any) of these phrases using the same terminology and/or referring to similar subject matter are referring to the same features.
“pattern”:
claim 18: “at least one candidate loading pattern” (p. 2, l. 3), “a said nuclear reactor core loading pattern” (p. 2, l. 12), “predefined template loading patterns” (p. 3, l. 16), “a selected template loading pattern” (p. 3, l. 17), “the selected template pattern” (p. 3, l. 21), “an initial loading pattern” (p. 3, l. 22), “a swapped loading pattern” (p. 4, l. 6), “a set of candidate patterns” (p. 4, l. 12), “at least one candidate pattern” (p. 4, l. 14), “the selected candidate pattern” (p. 4, l. 15)
claim 23: “the loading pattern composed of the current assemblies”
claim 24: “a first candidate pattern”, “a second candidate pattern”, “an intermixed pattern”
claim 25: “an intermixed pattern”
claim 27: “each core loading pattern tested”
claim 28: “a candidate loading pattern”, “possible loading patterns”
claim 29: “a loading pattern”
For example, are the “initial loading pattern” and “swapped loading pattern” one of the “predefined template loading patterns”? Claim 18 recites “assigning to the current assemblies respective initial positions corresponding to positions of the assemblies in the chosen selected template pattern, thereby defining an initial loading pattern”, thereby suggesting the “initial loading pattern” is the same as the “selected template pattern”. Are the “set of candidate patterns” referring to the “initial loading pattern” and the “swapped loading pattern” (repeated)?
“assembly”:
claim 18: “a set of current assemblies” (p. 2, l. 10), “a first category of assemblies” (p. 3, l. 1), “a second category of assemblies” (p. 3, l. 3), “a third category of assemblies” (p. 3, l. 6), “assemblies within a single family” (p. 3, ll. 12-13), “a number of current assemblies” (p. 3, l. 14), “the current assemblies” (p. 3, l. 19), “the current assemblies” (p. 3, l. 20), “the assemblies in the chosen selected template pattern” (p. 3, l. 21), “selected current assemblies” (p. 4, l. 4), “assemblies” (p. 4, l. 6), “
claim 21: “an assembly”, “said current assemblies”, “the assemblies of said families”, “said central position assembly”, “the assemblies positioned in a same group of positions”, “current assemblies”
claim 23: “current assemblies”, “the current assemblies”
claim 25: “assemblies of the first candidate pattern”, “assemblies”
claim 26: “the assemblies”, “the swapped assemblies”
“family”:
claim 18: “families from said set of current assemblies” (p. 3, l. 12), “a single family” (p. 3, l. 13), “by family” (p. 3, l. 18), “by formed family” (p. 3, l. 19), “a same family” (p. 4, l. 5), “different families” (p. 4, l. 5), “the previously formed families of assemblies” (p. 4, ll. 5-6)
claim 21: “said families”, “a same family”
claim 22: “a same family”, “the family”
claim 23: “families”, “two different families”
claim 25: “a subset of the families of assemblies of the first candidate pattern”, “remaining families of assemblies”, “these same families”
“cell”:
claim 18: “a multiplicity of cells” (p. 2, l. 8), “cell positions” (p. 3, l. 10)
claim 20: “N cells”, “M cells”
For example, are the “cell positions” referring to positions of the “multiplicity of cells”? Are the “N cells” referring to cells of the “multiplicity of cells”?
“criterion”:
claim 18: “at least one predetermined performance criterion” (p. 4, ll. 2-3), “said predetermined performance criterion” (p. 4, l. 8), “said predetermined performance criterion” (p. 4, ll. 16-17
claim 23: “said predetermined criterion”
claim 28: “said predetermined criterion”
“position”:
claim 18: “cells positioned symmetrically” (p. 2, l. 8), “cell positions” (p. 3, l. 10), “a number of symmetric positions” (p. 3, l. 11), “a number of positions” (p. 3, l. 15), “respective initial positions” (p. 3, l. 20), “positions of the assemblies” (p. 3, l. 21), “positions of selected current assemblies” (p. 4, l. 4)
claim 20: “N cells positioned on said axes”, “M cells not positioned on said axes”
claim 21: “a central position”, “groups of positions”, “the assemblies positioned in a same group of positions”
claim 22: “each assembly position”
claim 23: “the positions of current assemblies”, “said swapped positions”
claim 25: “positions of a subset of the families”, “positions which coincide with positions of these same families”, “these positions”, “other groups of available positions”
“group”:
claim 18: “groups of cell positions” (p. 3, l. 10), “one of said identified groups” (p. 3, l. 15)
claim 20: “groups of N cells”, “groups of M cells”
claim 21: “groups of positions”, “a same group of positions”
claim 25: “other groups of available positions”, “said other groups”
Claim 18 is indefinite for the following reasons:
As discussed above, it is unclear what distinguishes a “current assembl[y]” from another assembly. In other words, it is unclear how the term “current” is intended to modify the assembly.
The phrase “a said nuclear reactor core loading” is unclear. It is unclear if the loading is referring to the previously recited “proceeding with loading the nuclear reactor” or another loading.
It is unclear which feature is “for preparing a said nuclear reactor core loading pattern”.
It is unclear what is meant by the fuel assemblies “falling according to at least three categories”.
It is unclear if the “nuclear reactor” on page 2, line 14 is intending to refer to the previously recited “nuclear reactor” in the preamble of the claim.
It is unclear if the “previous production cycle” associated with the first category is referring to the same cycle as the “previous production cycle” associated with the second category. Similarly, it is unclear if the “at least two previous production cycles” associated with the third category include(s) the “previous production cycle” associated with the first category and/or the second category.
It is unclear what is encompassed by a “family”. Are the families referring to one or more of the “assemblies”?
It is unclear from the limitation, “selecting, from a database of predefined template loading patterns satisfying predetermined safety constraints, a selected template loading pattern for which the average assembly burnups, by family, exhibit a minimum deviation, based on a defined metric, from the average burnups of the current assemblies, by formed family, and, within a numerical simulation, assigning to the current assemblies respective initial positions corresponding to positions of the assemblies in the chosen selected template pattern, thereby defining an initial loading pattern”, where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear what feature is “based on a defined metric”, what feature is “by formed family”, and what feature is “within a numerical simulation”.
It is unclear the relationship between the tested “loading pattern”, “at least one predetermined performance criterion”, and “performance value” in the “testing” and “simulating” steps. Does “testing ... in relation to at least one predetermined criterion” refer to comparing the pattern and the criterion? Or is the pattern tested in some manner to determine if it meets “at least one predetermined performance criterion”? Alternatively, is the pattern tested under the constraints of “at least one predetermined performance criterion”?
It is unclear if the “calculated performance value” is referring to one of the previously recited “initial performance value” or “subsequent performance value”, or another value.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the swap operations” is referring to the steps of “simulating a swap operation”, “repeating the simulated swap operation”, or another “swap”.
Claim 20 recites “groups of [] cells” are “considered in said method” and “considered included in said method”. It is unclear what is meant by these phrases. The claims do not appear to previously recite “consider[ing]” any groups of cells and it is unclear the relationship between “consider[ing]” cells and the previously recited “identifying groups of cell positions”.
Claim 21 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “in the context of a numerical simulation”. For example, it is unclear if the remaining steps (“placing an assembly”, “placing the assemblies of said families”) are done via numerical simulation or if numerical simulation is utilized in a different manner. It is further unclear the relationship between the “placing” steps in claim 21 and the previously recited steps in parent claim 18. Is the claim further specifying a previously recited step? For example, are the assemblies placed in the manner recited in claim 21 in the “assigning to the current assemblies respective initial positions” step? How does this placement relate to the various “loading patterns”?
Claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the swap operation” is referring to the step of “simulating a swap operation”, “repeating the simulated swap operation”, or another “swap”.
Claim 23 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the swap operations” is referring to the step of “simulating a swap operation”, “repeating the simulated swap operation”, or another “swap”. It is further unclear the relationship between the “simulating a swap operation” and the “simulating a swap operation for swapping positions of selected current assemblies” previously recited in parent claim 18. It is further unclear the relationship between the “testing” and the “testing” previously recited in parent claim 18. It is further unclear the relationship between the tested “loading pattern” and “said predetermined criterion”. Does “testing ... in relation to said predetermined criterion” refer to comparing the pattern and the criterion? Or is the pattern tested in some manner to determine if it meets “said predetermined criterion”? Alternatively, is the pattern tested under the constraints of “said predetermined criterion”?
Claim 24 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the swap operation and testing step” is referring to the step of “simulating a swap operation”, “repeating the simulated swap operation”, or another “swap” and the step of “testing ... the initial loading pattern”, “testing ... the swapped loading pattern”, “subsequent testing”, or another “testing”. It is further unclear the relationship between the “predetermined number of iterations” and “predetermined number of additional iterations” and the “predetermined number of iterations” previously recited in parent claim 18. It is further unclear the relationship between the “repeated” steps and the “repeating the simulated swap operation and subsequent testing” previously recited in parent claim 18.
Claim 25 is indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “assemblies”, “groups”, “subset of families”, and “members”.
Claim 26 is indefinite because it appears that there is no physical assembly. Rather, the assemblies exist via simulation. It is therefore unclear if the “face” refers to a physical, tangible face or merely a face in the simulation. It is further unclear if each assembly includes “a face”, or if the assemblies as a whole include a face.
Claim 27 is indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “values” and the “performance value[s]” previously recited in parent claim 18.
Claim 28 recites “wherein said estimated values are used in a calculation of a core-loading pattern evaluation expression (CPE), and a candidate loading pattern is selected, among possible loading patterns, which has a smallest CPE, and wherein said smallest CPE is said predetermined criterion”. Parent claim 18 previously recites “testing, by said numerical simulation, the initial loading pattern, in relation to at least one predetermined performance criterion by calculating an initial performance value”, “testing, by said numerical simulation, the swapped loading pattern, in relation to said predetermined performance criterion by calculating a subsequent performance value”, and “selecting from the set of candidate patterns at least one candidate pattern for loading the nuclear reactor, the selected candidate pattern being the one having a calculated performance value indicating satisfaction of said predetermined performance criterion”. Parent claim 18 therefore appears to require the existence of the “criterion” in order to perform the “testing” which then allows for the selection of the “candidate pattern”. However, claim 28 suggests that the “criterion” requires selecting the “candidate loading pattern”. It is therefore unclear the relationship between the various steps involving the “numerical simulation”, “performance value[s]”, “testing”, and “selecting”.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The following prior art rejection represents Examiner’s best interpretation of the claims in view of the numerous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections discussed above. Examiner has made a diligent attempt to extract the examinable elements from the claims and apply art to them. It should be understood that clarification of the application (via claim amendments) may necessitate future prior art rejections thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 18 and 33-34, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by “An Overview of AI Methods for in-Core Fuel Management” (“Nissan”).
Regarding claim 18 Nissan (previously cited) (see FIGS. 3 (p. 15), 4 (p. 16)) discloses a computing device comprising a processor and storage for implementing a method for determining an optimal loading pattern for a core of a nuclear reactor (Abstract, p. 15: “nuclear power reactor core”), the nuclear reactor core comprising a multiplicity of cells for receiving fuel assemblies (p. 14: “Fuel assemblies ... are inserted vertically into the core”; p. 15: “fuel assembly location”), the method comprising the following steps:
(1) categorizing the fuel assemblies into three categories, wherein the three categories include a first category of fuel assemblies which have not been used in a previous production cycle and which have a burnup below a first threshold (“fresh”), a second category of fuel assemblies which have been used in a previous production cycle and which have a burnup between the first threshold and a second threshold that is greater than the first threshold (“one-burnt”), and a third category of fuel assemblies which have been used in at least two previous production cycles and which have a burnup above the second threshold (“twice-burnt”) (pp. 16-17: “the three batches of fuel units (fresh, one-burnt, and twice-burnt)”; p. 17: “the relevant criterion is how many times the fuel unit has already been used. This is reflected in a cumulated burnup degree. Twice burnt fuel has the highest burnup degree”),
(2) identifying groups of the cells which are symmetric relative to a plurality of axes of symmetry and counting a number of the cells in each of the groups (FIG. 4 (p. 16), p. 14: “The core is symmetrical, so reasoning for the application with which we are concerned in this article—namely, fuel allocation to the grid positions—is done on just a one-eighth slice o the core schema”),
(3) forming families of the fuel assemblies such that the fuel assemblies of each of the families have a similar burnup (p. 17: “For the purposes of fuel reload pattern design, the relevant criterion of classification is how many times the fuel unit has already been used. this is reflected in a cumulated burnup degree”; p. 18: “FUELCON came into the picture, generating families of configurations”), a number of the fuel assemblies in each of the families corresponding to the number of the cells in a respective one of the groups (p. 19: “A heuristic ruleset finds a good position for a given fuel-assembly, this is done recursively, until the entire core is filled with all of the available fuel units”),
(4) selecting, from a database of possible loading patterns, a first loading pattern (p. 17: “FUELCON expert system applies a heuristic ruleset and generates alternative candidate solutions by the hundreds, these then being simulated for parameter prediction, and visualized as ‘clouds’ of dots in the plane of power peaking and cycle length”), and
(5) testing, by the numerical simulation, the first loading pattern and calculating a first performance value (p. 17: “FUELCON expert system applies a heuristic ruleset and generates alternative candidate solutions by the hundreds, these then being simulated for parameter prediction, and visualized as ‘clouds’ of dots in the plane of power peaking and cycle length”),
(6) selecting a second loading pattern, testing, by the numerical simulation, the second loading pattern, calculating a second performance value (p. 17: “FUELCON expert system applies a heuristic ruleset and generates alternative candidate solutions by the hundreds, these then being simulated for parameter prediction, and visualized as ‘clouds’ of dots in the plane of power peaking and cycle length”; p. 18: “Adaptation can be by shuffling indeed, i.e., by swapping again and again the positions of two (or more) fuel assemblies in the one-eight slice of the core and evaluating by simulation whether the configuration obtained is safe, could keep the nuclear reaction going long enough, and is efficient”), and
(7) repeating step (6) to determine a candidate pattern which best satisfies a predetermined criterion and outputting data representing the candidate pattern (FIG. 5, p. 17: “FUELCON expert system applies a heuristic ruleset and generates alternative candidate solutions by the hundreds, these then being simulated for parameter prediction, and visualized as ‘clouds’ of dots in the plane of power peaking and cycle length”; p. 18: “expert systems (which, like FUELCON, have a ruleset prune the search space, seeking good configurations”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
Applicant argues the claimed method “integrates the computer assisted method into a practical application” because (1) “[t]he present method operates on data representing specific physical entities ... with distinct physical properties”, (2) “[t]he present method steps are integrated into the practical application of nuclear fuel core management ... and represents a concrete process to solve the technical problem of safely and efficiently arranging fuel in a reactor”, (3) “[t]he present method receives specific data ... and produces a tangible output..., directly useful in operation and management of a nuclear reactor”, (4) “[t]he claimed method provides a technical improvement over conventional or manual methods by systematically exploring a vast combinatorial space under specific physical and operational constraints ... to identify high-performing, safe loading patterns, which is computationally intensive and complex to achieve manually”, and (5) provides a technical improvement (Remarks, pp. 12-13). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding (1) and (3), as discussed above, the claimed features of “receiving data representing a set of current assemblies” is also directed towards a judicial exception as discussed above (i.e., a mental process). Additionally, the claimed feature of “output[ting] data” is merely directed towards the insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering/outputting. Examiner also notes that the claimed method does not appear to actually use the “receiv[ed] data” in any substantial manner. Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information (e.g., “receiv[ed] data”) to generate additional information (e.g., “output data”) is not patent eligible. Further, the nuclear aspect of the data only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Limiting information to particular content does not change its character as information or prevent its collection from being abstract. The features of “receiving” and “output[ting]” data, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g)-(h).
Regarding (2), (4), and (5), the present claims are directed towards “[a] method ... for determining at least one candidate loading pattern for a core of a nuclear reactor” (claim 18). According to Applicant, “systematically exploring a vast combinatorial space under specific physical and operational constraints” (Remarks, p. 12) by “categorizing fuel, forming specific families tied to geometry, selecting a template based on burnup deviation, assigning initial positions, performing iterative swaps while retaining families, testing against a performance criterion..., and outputting pattern data” (Remarks, p. 12) provides the technological improvement of “identify[ing] high-performing, safe loading patterns, which are computationally intensive and complex to achieve manually” (Remarks, pp. 12-13). As disclosed in the specification, the claimed invention “reduces the speeds of creating reloading patterns while designing cores which are optimized from a safety and operational point of view” ([64]). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. It is noted that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. In other words, an improvement of the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in a technology or technical field.
Examiner first notes that “categorizing fuel, forming specific families tied to geometry, selecting a template based on burnup deviation, assigning initial positions, performing iterative swaps while retaining families, testing against a performance criterion” (Remarks, p. 12) and the claimed features of “forming ... families”, “selecting a template”, “assigning initial positions”, “performing iterative swaps”, and “testing against a performance criterion” are part of a “mental process” and “mathematical concept/calculation” identified as an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. It is the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions in the claim that must provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Nevertheless, even if the “forming”, “selecting”, “assigning”, “performing”, and “testing” features were considered as “additional elements” rather than as part of the abstract idea, these features do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, are not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components), do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applicant’s asserted improvement is merely an improvement on the calculations (i.e., the abstract idea) themselves, rather than an improvement to a computer or a technology, and Applicant’s invention does not use a computer or a nuclear reactor outside of its ordinary capacity. Claim 18 does not recite any step that integrates the abstract computational methods, or the “data representing said at least one selected candidate loading pattern” obtained therefrom, into a practical application. The claim merely recites a series of abstract computational steps to produce mathematically calculated core loading pattern data, but does not include any steps that apply the calculated data in a practical way. The non-abstract steps in claim 18 involve generic computer-related steps for performing the abstract computational steps and extra-solution activities of data gathering/outputting. The fact that Applicant’s abstract computational methods might be better than other abstract computational methods does not demonstrate that the claimed steps are integrated into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the above rejections. Additionally, as noted above and in the prior Office actions, it is unclear from the claims the relationship between the “assemblies”, “groups”, and “families” in addition to numerous other 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues. The claims are therefore being interpreted as best understood by Examiner in view of the numerous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
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