DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
Claims 1 and 15
The phrase “small nuclear reactor cooling system” is unclear. It is an expression in which the criteria or degree of comparison is unclear. The dividing boundary between “small” and non-small (with regard to a nuclear reactor cooling system) is unknown and unclear. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
The phrase “severe accident” is unclear. It is an expression in which the criteria or degree of comparison is unclear. The dividing boundary between “severe” and non-severe (with regard to a nuclear reactor accident) is unknown and unclear. The term “severe” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
The term “accident” (with regard to a nuclear reactor) is unclear. The dividing boundary between “accident” and non-accident (with regard to a nuclear reactor incident) is unknown and unclear. The term “accident” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
The use of “first cooling fluid” when there is no mention of a “second cooling fluid” is unclear and confusing. The use of “first cooling fluid” implies that there is a “second cooling fluid” in the same claim. However, claims 1 and 15 lack mention of a “second cooling fluid”. Thus, these claims appear to be incomplete. An independent claim’s clarity should be able to stand on its own merits, without relying on the subject matter in some later dependent claim.
Claim 1
The following method features in apparatus claim 1 render the claim unclear: “which performs cooling processing corresponding to a severe accident in the cooling system when the severe accident occurs in the small nuclear reactor"; and “the cooling unit provides a first cooling fluid so as to perform the cooling processing in response to heat generated by the severe accident”. As shown, subject matter in claim 1 is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Claim 2
It is unclear what constitutes a “passive cooling body”. The broad wording allows for even an ice cube to constitute a “passive cooling body”. It is unclear where the specification provides support for all generic passive cooling bodies.
The following method feature in apparatus claim 2 renders the claim unclear: “the cooling unit . . . provides the first cooling fluid to the small nuclear reactor based on the heat generated by the severe accident”. As shown, subject matter in claim 2 is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Claim 3
The phrase “the small nuclear reactors” (plural) lacks proper antecedent basis.
The following method feature in apparatus claim 3 renders the claim unclear: “the passive cooling body is positioned on at least a portion of a peripheral portion of each of the small nuclear reactors and allows the first cooling fluid to be provided”. As shown, subject matter in claim 3 is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Claim 4
The phrase “the inner panel portion facing the first passive cooling body of the first outer panel portion” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the inner panel portion facing the second passive cooling body of the inner panel portion” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5
The phrase “the outside” is unclear. Outside of what?
Claim 6
It is unclear what constitutes each of a “needle-type structure”, a “bar-type structure”, and a “panel-type structure”. Addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression renders it indefinite. It is also indefinite because it is unclear what the term "type" is intended to convey. Note MPEP 2173.05(b)IIIE.
Claim 10
It is unclear what constitutes a “chimney-type cooling body”. Addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression renders it indefinite. It is also indefinite because it is unclear what the term "type" is intended to convey.
Claim 11
It is unclear what constitutes each of an “immersion-type cooling body”, a “first exposure-type cooling body”, and a “second exposure-type cooling body”. Addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression renders it indefinite. It is also indefinite because it is unclear what the term "type" is intended to convey.
The phrase “a portion of the first exposure-type cooling body in a height direction being exposed to the outside” is unclear. Outside of what?
The phrase “a portion of the second exposure-type cooling body in the height direction being exposed to the outside” is unclear. Outside of what?
Claim 14
The phrase “so as to correspond to” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the second cooling fluid: (1) actually corresponds to a total heat equivalent; (2) is intended to correspond to a total heat equivalent; or (3) something else. Regardless, it is unclear how the feature further limits the structure of the recited system, especially since the claims do not positively recite that any heat is “generated”.
Claim 15
The claim recites the phrase “positioning a small nuclear reactor in a cooling system”. Thus, the later phrase “wherein the small nuclear reactor is positioned in the cooling system” is unclear and appears to be redundant.
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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (KR 2021-0108767A).
Lim (cited via IDS) teaches a passive cooling system for a nuclear reactor building (10) with an integrated nuclear reactor (A). The reactor building is located within a water tank filled with external cooling water. The system includes a heat exchanger (100) placed inside the reactor building, which cools steam generated within the reactor building. The inside of the heat exchanger is filled with external cooling water which naturally circulates within the heat exchanger through heat exchange. The reactor building is passively cooled by this natural circulation. Thus, Lim teaches a nuclear reactor positioned in a cooling unit which is able to provide a cooling fluid. Note similar application of Lim in rejecting claims in the corresponding PCT application.
Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liszkai (US 2016/0276046).
Claims 1 and 15
Liszkai teaches a nuclear reactor cooling system (700, 710, 810) and a nuclear reactor therein. In an accident, coolant is supplied into an enclosure (830) to cool the heat. Coolant located outside the enclosure (830) can pass through plural holes (815) into the enclosure, and then reversely pass out of the enclosure in order to cool the reactor containment vessel located therein [0068]. The holes enable emergency core cooling of the containment vessel. Particularly Figures 7- 8B, and description thereof.
Claim 2
Liszkai teaches a plurality of nuclear reactors which include a first reactor accommodated in a first nuclear reactor bay (nuclear reactor receiving body). The first bay includes one side wall (panel), another side wall (panel; the second wall of the first bay in Figure 4, or the rightmost side wall in Figure 4), and a bottom portion (panel) (i.e., nuclear reactor pool is bounded by the bottom of building).
Claim 3
Liszkai teaches plural bays for plural reactors. As a result, a passive cooling body would be positioned on at least a portion of a peripheral portion of each of the nuclear reactors.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR20210108767A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liszkai (US 2016/0276046).
Claim 2
Liszkai discloses a plurality of nuclear reactors which include a first reactor accommodated in a first nuclear reactor bay (nuclear reactor receiving body). The first bay includes one side wall (panel), another side wall (panel; the second wall of the first bay in Figure 4, or the rightmost side wall in Figure 4), and a bottom portion (panel) (i.e., nuclear reactor pool is bounded by the bottom of nuclear reactor building). Modification of Lim to have provided the cooling unit in a bay to allow for multiple reactors, as suggested by Liszkai, 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.
Claim 3
Modification of Lim to have included plural bays for plural reactors, as suggested by Liszkai, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As a result, a passive cooling body would be positioned on at least a portion of a peripheral portion of each of the nuclear reactors.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liszkai (US 2016/0276046) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mochizuki (JP 2012-233737A).
Mochizuki (cited via IDS) discloses that when the reactor is stopped or scrammed, and the cooling water temperature inside the reactor vessel reaches a predetermined temperature due to decay heat, then a water supply valve is automatically opened, which allows for cooling water stored in a tank to be passively supplied to the inside of the reactor vessel via gravity. Modification of Liszkai to have passively provided the coolant, as suggested by Mochizuki, 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.
Objection to the 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 or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
sixth passive cooling body (claim 8). The specification and drawings lack a corresponding reference numeral for the recited feature.
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. 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.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes an unclear long rambling sentence. It is unclear where one feature ends and another feature begins. It is suggested that the long rambling sentence be broken into several shorter clear sentences.
For reasons discussed above, it is unclear what constitutes “small” and “severe”.
Use of a “1st cooling fluid” without mention of a “2nd cooling fluid” is confusing and unclear.
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 unclear what constitutes “small”. The Title is further objected to because it is directed to a conventional nuclear reactor system.
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