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 .
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 solid radioactive waste supply pipe (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsui (JP 11002695). Matsui discloses a liquid radioactive waste injection system for injecting liquid radioactive waste into a vitrification melter that vitrifies radioactive waste, comprising: a waste storage tank (1) storing the liquid radioactive waste; and a waste injection device (3) receiving the liquid radioactive waste from the waste storage tank and is capable of dispensing the received liquid radioactive waste into the vitrification melter (SEE [0011] & Figure 1). In re claim 2, Matsui further discloses that the waste storage tank (1) includes an agitator (6), which mixes the liquid radioactive waste.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du et al (CN 115077264). Du et al discloses a liquid radioactive waste injection system (100) for injecting liquid radioactive waste (SEE Abstract) into a vitrification melter (10) that vitrifies radioactive waste, comprising: a waste storage tank (21) storing the liquid radioactive waste (SEE [0055]); and a waste injection device (20) receiving the liquid radioactive waste from the waste storage tank and injecting the received liquid radioactive waste into the vitrification melter (SEE Figure 1). In re claim 8, Du et al further discloses that if the vitrification melter includes a solid radioactive waste supply pipe, the waste injection device is mounted in the supply pipe (22) and injects the liquid radioactive waste into the vitrification melter (10) through the supply pipe (22).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al (KR 20220111841). Jeong et al discloses a liquid radioactive waste injection system (SEE Figure 1) for injecting liquid radioactive waste into a vitrification melter (100) that vitrifies radioactive waste, comprising: a waste storage tank (200) storing the liquid radioactive waste; and a waste injection device (300) receiving the liquid radioactive waste from the waste storage tank and injecting the received liquid radioactive waste into the vitrification melter (SEE Abstract). In re claim 3, Jeong et al further discloses that the waste injection device (300) includes an injection pipe (320), which injects the liquid radioactive waste into the vitrification melter (100), a cooling pipe (331), which contacts the injection pipe and through which cooling water flows to cool the injection pipe, and a housing (310), which encloses and accommodates the injection pipe and the cooling pipe. In re claim 4, Jeong et al discloses that the cooling pipe (331) includes an inlet for the inflow of the cooling water on one side and an outlet (332) for the outflow of the cooling water on the other side (SEE Figure 1). In re claim 6, Jeong et al discloses that the cooling water is drained to the outside through the outlet (cooling water discharge part 332). In re claim 7, Jeong et al discloses in Figure 1 that the injection pipe is positioned at a center of the housing (310). In re claim 8, Jeong et al discloses wherein if the vitrification melter includes a solid radioactive waste supply pipe (SEE [0002]-[0003]), the waste injection device is mounted in the supply pipe and injects the liquid radioactive waste into the vitrification melter through the supply pipe (SEE Figures 1 & 2).
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 (or as subject to pre-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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (KR 20220111841) in view of Richaazu (JP 2862673). Jeong et al discloses the applicants primary inventive concept as stated above including a waste injection system in a vitrification process facility including a storage tank (200) for the waste liquid, but does not go into detail about the tank. Richaazu teaches an apparatus for waste vitrification which includes a tank (14) which contains the waste liquid and further includes an agitator (16) that mixes and froths vitrizable and waste materials such that it 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 subject matter pertains to have incorporated the teaching of an agitator as was commonly known in the art and taught by Richaazu into the storage tank for waste liquid for vitrification of Jeong et al and arrived at the applicants claimed invention for the purpose of maintaining the liquid state of the waste material as its being fed the injection device (300).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:00am-4:30pm.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights