DETAILED ACTION
Elections
Claims 1-12 are pending. Applicant’s elections of Invention I and the Species “A” and “Radiation dose” without traverse in the Reply of 20 May 2026 are acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 1-7. Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(/Species. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-7 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 broad phrase “dealing with” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether said phrase means “responding to”, “taking action in response to”, “watching a video”, or something else. For example, it is unclear whether “dealing with” a LOCA means watching a training video on how to respond to a LOCA.
The broad phrase “break size and a break location” is unclear. It is unclear what feature is associated with the “break”. There is nothing in the claim that links the “break” to a nuclear reactor component or to a LOCA.
Said broad phrase allows for the “break” to correspond to a person’s broken leg. For example, including the steps of: identifying the size and location of the break in the person’s leg; identifying the severity of the break (accident level) based on the break size and break location; and operating a safety feature (e.g., immediately treating the patient; calling for emergency medical assistance; etc.) based on the break severity.
Said broad phrase also allows for the “break” to correspond to a tidal wave. For example, including the steps of: identifying the size and location of the tidal wave break; identifying the severity of the tidal wave break (accident level) based on the break size and break location; and operating a safety feature (e.g., seeking higher ground; notifying government authorities; etc.) based on the severity of the tidal wave break.
The claim is also improper because, based on the above scenarios covered by the claim, the full scope of the claim does not have support in the specification.
The claim is further improper because the recited invention is different from what is discussed in the specification. As a result, it appears that the inventors have failed to set forth the subject matter which they regard as the invention.
Claim 4
The claim requires two different identifications to occur, but they conflict with each other. It is unclear how the water level of the reactor head water level indicator can be both above and below a certain level.
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.
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 1-3 and 5-7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon (KR 2009-0032374A).
Claim 1
Yoon (cited via IDS) teaches a method of responding to a loss-of-coolant accident in a nuclear power plant. The method includes identifying a break size and a break location (e.g., abstract, Figure, claim 1; "fracture size”; “fracture location”). The method also includes identifying an accident level based on the break size and break location (e.g., “step of setting the extreme type of analysis, which selects the extreme type through analysis of the fracture diameter . . . and the fracture location”). The method further includes operating a safety feature based on the accident level (“safety-related operator measures”).
Claim 2
Yoon teaches safety features (e.g., a safety injection).
Claim 3
Yoon teaches the features (e.g., abstract, claim 1).
Claim 5
Yoon teaches a look-up table. (e.g., Table 1).
Claim 6
See Yoon’s steps 1 -11.
Claim 7
Yoon verifies the accident level based on a verification parameter.
Claim 1 as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zou (CN 113972016A).
Zou (cited via IDS) teaches "If there is a water loss accident outside the containment, continue to judge the size of the break [this discloses "identifying a break size"], and according to the size of the break [this discloses "identifying an accident level based on the break size"] carry out the corresponding treatment of the water loss accident [this discloses "operating safety feature based on the accident level"], including the treatment of the very small water loss accident, the small and medium break water loss accident handling and handling of large break water loss accidents" [0073]. Zou also discloses “In order to ensure the safety of the reactor and reduce the loss of the primary circuit coolant, it is first necessary to try to find and isolate the breach as soon as possible. In order to find the location of the breach as soon as possible, it is necessary to check the status of all normally closed valves on the pipeline penetrating the containment, ensure that the normally closed valves are closed, and close the opened valves in sequence to identify and isolate the breach, and observe the pressure of the primary circuit by observing the pressure of the primary circuit. Change to determine whether the breach has been isolated” [0012] [this discloses "identifying break location"].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 2009-0032374A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Na ("Detection and Diagnostics of Loss of Coolant Accidents Using Support Vector Machines").
Na (cited via IDS) shows that the recited features are well known in the art (e.g., at Section A "Identification of the Break Location", page 629). Modification of Yoon to have included using of a reactor head water level indicator to determine which leg is broken, as suggested by Na, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Additional Comment
Note the similar prior art based rejections that were made in corresponding patent application EP23784892.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because it includes redundant an unnecessary wording (e.g., “The present invention”; “the present invention”; “a system therefor”). The Title is also objected to because it includes unclear wording (i.e., “dealing with”), as discussed above. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is not directed to the elected (method) invention. The Title is also objected to because it includes unclear wording (i.e., “dealing with”), as discussed above.
Citation of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered related to Applicant's disclosure with regard to a method of responding to a loss-of-coolant accident in a nuclear power plant.
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