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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 13-19) and Species A1 (two-sided impact test) in the reply filed on 07/03/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP 818.01(a).
Status of Claims
Claims 13-24 are pending in the application with claims 17-18 and 20-24 withdrawn. Claims 13-16 and 19 are examined herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features in claims 15 and 16 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
“applying the three spacer grids against a stationary support” (claim 15) – none of the figures appear to show the three spacer grids (14) applied against a same stationary support (34). Rather, Figure 2 appears to show each spacer grid (14) is applied against a separate stationary support (34)
“the impact member is movably mounted by a pendulum or along a rail” (claim 16) – the figures do not appear to show any “pendulum” or “rail”
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) for the following reasons:
Reference characters “4” (see e.g., [0062]) and “74” (see e.g., [0063]) have both been used to designate the “actuator”
Reference characters “62” (see e.g., [0080]) and “64” (see e.g., [0059]) have both been used to designate the “drive device”
Reference character “4” has been used to designate both the “fuel rods” (see e.g., [0015]) and the “actuator” (see e.g., [0062])
Reference character “62” has been used to designate both the “guide rails” (see e.g., [0059]) and the “drive device” (see e.g., [0080])
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 13-16 and 19 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.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear if the structures recited in the preamble (e.g., the “nuclear fuel assembly”, “nuclear fuel rods”, “N spacer grids”) are intended to be positively recited features of the claimed method. This is further unclear in view of the below indefiniteness issues.
Claim 13 recites “providing a test assembly corresponding to a section of the nuclear fuel assembly extending on a fraction of a length of the nuclear fuel assembly, the test assembly comprising a bundle of test rods shorter than the nuclear fuel rods and three spacer grids distributed along the test rods”. It is unclear the relationship between the spacer grid(s), nuclear fuel assembly, and nuclear fuel rods recited in the preamble, and the three spacer grids, test assembly, and test rods recited later in the claims. For example, what does it mean that the test assembly “correspond[s]” to a section of the nuclear fuel assembly? Is the test assembly the same as the nuclear fuel assembly? Or is the test assembly a cut portion of the nuclear fuel assembly? Additionally, it is unclear what structure or phrase is intended to be modified by the phrase “extending on a fraction of a length of the nuclear fuel assembly”. Does the test assembly extend on a fraction of a length of the nuclear fuel assembly or the section of the nuclear fuel assembly? If the test assembly, it is further unclear what is encompassed by this arrangement. Is the test assembly arranged next to the nuclear fuel assembly? In which case, this does not appear to be shown in the drawings.
Claim 13 is further indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “spacer grid” recited in line 1, “N spacer grids” recited in line 2, “three spacer grids” recited in line 6, and “centrally located spacer grid” recited in line 7. It is unclear if these are all intending to refer to the same or different spacer grids. Similarly, claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “exactly three spacer grids” is intended to refer to one of the previously recited spacer grids in parent claim 13, or different spacer grids. In the event the “spacer grid[s]” (all recitations) of claim 13 and the “exactly three spacer grids” of claim 14 are intending to refer to the same spacer grids, the phrase “exactly three spacer grids” in claim 14 would further appear to be inconsistent with the phrase “N spacer grids ... where N is a positive integer equal to or greater than four” in parent claim 13 as claim 14 recites a number of spacer grids (3) that is less than four.
Claim 15 recites “wherein, in a two-sided impact test, generating an impact comprises”. However, it is unclear if the two-sided impact test is intended to be a positively recited step of the claimed method. Is the method of testing a spacer grid a two-sided impact test? It is further unclear if the “generating an impact” is referring to the same step of “generating an impact” recited in parent claim 13 or a different step.
Claim 15 is further indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “three spacer grids” and the “stationary support”. This is further unclear in view of the above drawing objections. The claim recites “applying the three spacer grids against a stationary support”. The claim therefore appears to suggest the three spacer grids are applied against a same stationary support. However, the specification discloses “[t]he two-sided impact test machine 32 includes three stationary supports 34 spaced apart ... each one of the three spacer grids 14 of the test assembly abutting a respective one of the stationary supports 34” ([0044]) and, as discussed above, the figures similarly show each spacer grid (14) being applied against a separate stationary support (34). Additionally, the claim later recites “the stationary support against which the centrally located spacer grid is applied”. It is unclear if “the stationary support against which the centrally located spacer grid is applied” is referring to the same stationary support as the support in the phrase “applying the three spacer grids against a stationary support”. It is therefore unclear if the claim is intending to require applying the centrally located spacer grid against a stationary support, applying each of the three spacer grids against a different stationary support, applying the three spacer grids against a same stationary support (not shown in the drawings), or something else.
Claim 15 is further indefinite because it is unclear with respect to what structure the “side” is referring to in the claim. Does the impact member impact the centrally located spacer grid on a side of the centrally located spacer grid?
Claim 19 recites “heating the test assembly upon performing the testing”. The term “upon” typically refers to something that happens after something else1. The claims are directed towards “[a] method of testing a spacer grid”. Thus, claim 19 would appear to describe an action or step (“heating”) taken after (“upon”) the claimed “testing method” (“performing the testing”). Additionally, the specification suggests the “heating” is intended to be performed “prior to and/or during the impacting of the centrally located spacer grid 14” ([0047]) (prior to and/or during the “testing”). It is therefore unclear the order in which the heating step and the performing step occur, i.e., what is meant by the phrase “upon”. Is the test assembly heated after performing the testing (once the test has been completed) as suggested by the term “upon”? Or is test assembly heated before and/or while performing the testing as suggested by the disclosure?
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-16 and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Experimental Study of New Generation WWER-1000 Fuel Assemblies at JSC NCCP” (“Enin”) in view of “Study on the Spacer Grid Dynamic Crush Strength According to Cell Sizes” (“Ryu”).
Regarding claims 13-14, Enin (newly cited) (see FIG. 6; see also figure in Table 3) discloses a method of testing a spacer grid of a nuclear fuel assembly comprising a bundle of nuclear fuel rods and N spacer grids distributed along the bundle of nuclear fuel rods, where N is a positive integer equal to or greater than four (FIG. 1), the testing method comprising:
providing a test assembly (“dummy model”) corresponding to a section of the nuclear fuel assembly extending on a fraction of a length of the nuclear fuel assembly, the test assembly comprising a bundle of test rods (“fuel rod”, “FR”) shorter than the nuclear fuel rods and exactly three spacer grids (“spacer grid”, “SG”) distributed along the test rods (p. 217: “For tests the assembly fragments and small dummy models of FA skeletons and FR bundles were used”; p. 221: “Dummy models of skeletons and FR bundles containing three spacer grids each were fabricated ... and tested”).
Enin discloses testing the spacer grids by applying a force to a centrally located spacer grid (“middle SG”) of the three spacer grids to determine mechanical characteristics and performance of the test assembly structures (p. 217: “Substantiation of design element strength and rigidity”, “This made if possible to conduct the comparison experiments and determine the required mechanical characteristics of different design modifications with small expenses”; p. 221: “The cage design makes it possible to apply a transverse force to the middle SG of dummy model”, “Skeleton and FR bundle rigidity was determined by means of bend test”), but does not appear to explicitly disclose performing an impact test on the centrally located spacer grid as recited in claim 1. Ryu (newly cited) (see FIG. 4) is similarly directed towards a method of testing a nuclear fuel assembly spacer grid (“test grid”, “specimen”, “GRID”) comprising providing a test assembly comprising a bundle of test rods (“fuel rod cladding”, “guide tubes”) and the spacer grid (Abstract, p. 2: “Short fuel rod cladding and guide tubes are inserted in each cell of the test grid”). Ryu teaches the testing method comprises: generating an impact on the spacer grid (p. 2: “During the test, the spacer grid is impacted by the pendulum hammer”); and measuring and recording at least one impact parameter and/or at least one displacement of the spacer grid (FIG. 5, p. 2: “The dynamic crush strength in each group was determined at the maximum impact load before buckling”). Ryu further teaches the pendulum impact test provides the advantage of verifying seismic performance and mechanical integrity of the spacer grid by investigating the dynamic crush behavior of the spacer grid (Abstract, p. 1: “it is necessary to study the crush strength variations according to the cell sizes in order to verify the seismic performance and mechanical integrity of the fuel. And it can be improved to enhance grid buckling and maintain higher strength throughout the operating life time through structural design of the mid grid”). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include Ryu’s impact testing in Enin’s method for the predictable advantage of investigating the dynamic characteristics of the spacer grid, as suggested by Ryu.
Regarding claim 15, Enin in view of Ryu teaches the testing method according to claim 13. Ryu teaches in a two-sided impact, generating an impact comprises applying the centrally located spacer grid against a stationary support (“load cell”, “back plate”), and impacting the centrally located spacer grid with an impact member (“hammer”) on a side of the centrally located spacer grid opposite the stationary support against which the centrally located spacer grid is applied (FIG. 4, p. 2: “the spacer grid is impacted by the pendulum hammer”). Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Enin in view of Ryu teaches the testing method according to claim 15. Ryu teaches the impact member is movably mounted by a pendulum to project the impact member against the centrally located spacer grid (FIG. 4, p. 2: “pendulum impact test equipment”). Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Enin in view of Ryu teaches the testing method according to claim 13. Ryu teaches heating the test assembly prior to and/or during the performing the impact test (p. 2: “The temperature for this test is chosen as operating temperature”, “Three groups of specimens were tested at 600°F temperature”). Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing, would have resulted in the features of claim 19.
Claims 15-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enin in view of Ryu further in view of “Development and Demonstration of a New Testing Capability for Simulating Multiple Fuel Assembly Impact During a Seismic Event” (“Zhao”).
Alternatively, in the event claim 15 is intending to require applying each of the three spacer grids against a respective stationary support (as suggested by Figure 2 and paragraph [0044] of the instant application), the following rejections are made.
Regarding claim 15, Enin in view of Ryu teaches the testing method according to claim 13. Ryu teaches in a two-sided impact, generating an impact comprises applying the centrally located spacer grid against a stationary support (“load cell”, “back plate”), and impacting the centrally located spacer grid with an impact member (“hammer”) on a side of the centrally located spacer grid opposite the stationary support against which the centrally located spacer grid is applied (FIG. 4, p. 2: “the spacer grid is impacted by the pendulum hammer”).
The modified Enin does not appear to teach each of the three spacer grids is applied against a respective stationary support. However, as discussed above, Enin discloses the test assembly comprises three spacer grids (FIG. 6, Table 3). It was known in the art to provide a stationary support for each spacer grid of a test assembly for a pendulum impact test. For example, Zhao (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 2-3, 6) is also directed towards a method of conducting a pendulum impact test on a test assembly (“fuel assembly”, “FA”) comprising a bundle of test rods (“fuel rod”) and spacer grids (“spacer grid”, “grid”) distributed along the test rods, the impact test comprising generating an impact on a centrally located spacer grid (“Grid 5”) of the spacer grids (Abstract, p. 2: “a series of impact tests of spacer grids were performed”; p. 3: “a prototype fuel assembly was tested using selected pendulum parameters”). Zhao teaches the test assembly includes stationary supports, each of the spacer grids being applied against a respective stationary support during the generating of the impact on the centrally located spacer grid (FIGS. 8-10, p. 3: “It can be seen that the impact loads on the two sides of the grid were close to each other”). Zhao further teaches providing each of the spacer grids with a respective stationary support provides the advantages of measuring and recording impact parameters of multiple spacer grids of the test assembly, allowing for the investigation of the mechanical characteristics of multiple spacer grids (FIGS. 8-10, p. 4: “a comparison of the impact forces at various spacer grid locations for pendulum at Grid 5 elevation”, “It shows impact loads at various grid locations and Grid 5 deformation as a function of time. It can be seen that impacts at different spacer grids occur at different time instances”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a stationary support for each of the modified Enin’s three spacer grids for the predictable purpose of examining the characteristics and performance of each of the spacer grids, as suggested by Zhao.
Regarding claim 16, Enin in view of Ryu and Zhao teaches the testing method according to claim 15. Ryu teaches the impact member is movably mounted by a pendulum to project the impact member against the centrally located spacer grid (FIG. 4, p. 2: “pendulum impact test equipment”). Therefore, Enin’s method, modified to include Ryu’s impact testing and additional stationary supports as taught by Zhao, would have resulted in the features of claim 16.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP 2159. See MPEP 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1). For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-16 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 7, 14, 16, and 21 of copending Application No. 17/544,021 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are substantially similar to the limitations recited in the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) 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 Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/upon
Prosecution Insights