DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 31-64 are pending.
Election
Applicant’s election of Invention I without traverse in the Reply filed 3 August 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 31-48. Claims 49-64 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention(s). The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 31-48 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 31
The claim recites “at least one hollow rod” (allowing for plural). Thus, the phrase “the hollow rod” (allowing only for singular) lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the control rod assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The functional phrase “inserted into the hollow rod before loading the hollow rod with the containers” is unclear. This subject matter is defined by an intended result (i.e., insertion before loading) 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.
The phrase “a damping element at a lower end of the hollow rod” is unclear. It is unclear whether the phrase should be interpreted as: (1) the damping element is a particularly part of the hollow rod and is located within it, at its lower end; (2) the damping element is part of the fuel assembly and is located in an area around (or under) the lower end of the hollow rod; or (3) something else.
The mention of a “fuel assembly” is unclear, especially since no nuclear fuel is being positively recited. Thus, it is unclear what constitutes a “fuel assembly”.
Claim 32
It is unclear whether “a finger of a flow restrictor” is being positively recited, or whether it applies to intended use. It is unclear whether the fuel assembly comprises a “flow restrictor” and “a finger of a flow restrictor”.
It is unclear what structure constitutes “a flow restrictor” and “a finger of a flow restrictor”. It would appear that any structure subject to reactor fluid would restrict at least some flow thereof, and thus constitute a “flow restrictor”. Thus, it is unclear how the “flow restrictor” differs from other reactor structure. It is also unclear whether the “flow restrictor” has plural fingers, with regard to “a finger” (singular) of a flow restrictor.
Claim 33
It is unclear what location constitutes “adjacent to a bottom of the hollow rod”. The dividing boundary between “adjacent to” and “not adjacent to” is unknown and unclear. The “adjacent to” wording 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.
Claim 31 mentions “a damping element at a lower end of the hollow rod”. Thus, it would appear to be inherent that the phrase “the damping element is adjacent to a bottom of the hollow rod” (claim 33). Hence, it is unclear how the phrase further limits the fuel assembly structure.
Claim 34
The phrase “a plurality of containers are provided are arranged within the hollow rod” is unclear. It is also unclear whether “containers” are being positively recited, or whether they apply to intended use. It is unclear whether the fuel assembly comprises “a plurality of containers”.
The functional phrase “a plurality of containers are . . . arranged within the hollow rod” is unclear. It appears that this subject matter is defined by an intended result (i.e., arranging) 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 35
The claim lacks an end period. It is unclear whether the claim is missing words, and thus is incomplete.
Claim 38
Claim 37 already recites that the damping element is hollow. Thus, it is unclear how claim 38 further limits the fuel assembly structure. Alternatively, it is unclear what constitutes the difference between: (1) an element having opening extending along a longitudinal axis; and (2) an element that is hollow.
Claim 40
The phrase “further comprising the one or more containers with the material to be activated” is unclear. It is unclear whether “containers” are being positively recited, or whether they apply to intended use. It is unclear whether the fuel assembly comprises “one or more containers”. It is unclear whether the fuel assembly comprises “material to be activated”. The phrase also lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 42
As best understood, the feature of a “material to be activated” is not positively recited in claim 40. Thus, it is unclear how further describing this feature (in claim 42) further limits the fuel assembly structure.
Claim 44
The feature of a “material to be activated” is not positively recited in claim 31. Thus, it is unclear how further describing this feature (in claim 44) further limits the fuel assembly structure.
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 31-40, 42, and 44 as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda (JP 2000-046979A).
Claim 31, 33, and 35
Fukuda (cited via IDS) teaches a fuel assembly comprising a hollow rod (30, 39) being a control rod guide tube. The rod is configured to hold a container that contains a material (41) to be activated. A damping element (49) is at a lower end of the hollow rod. Particularly note Fukuda at Figure 3. Note that Fukuda was also used in rejecting claims in the corresponding PCT application.
Claim 32
Fukuda teaches a flow restrictor (31).)
Claim 34
Fukuda teaches a second damping element (69).
Claims 36-38
Fukuda teaches a helical spring.
Claim 39
Fukuda teaches that the hollow rod has a bottom opening (e.g., near end plug 33).
Claim 40
At least one (tolerance) gap would be inherent.
Claim 42
Fukuda’s material is implicitly sintered, casted, and/or alloyed.
Claim 44
Fukuda discloses cobalt.
Claims 31, 33, and 35-40, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by each of: Murakami (US4933137); Suzuki (US4292131); Hellandbrand (US20080137799); Huh (KR101502703B1); and Kunzel (US3762994).
Murakami teaches a hollow rod (22) and a damping element (36).
Suzuki teaches a hollow rod (13) and a damping element (12).
Hellandbrand teaches a hollow rod (10) and a damping element (46).
Huh teaches a hollow rod (2) and a damping element (14).
Kunzel kami teaches a hollow rod (2) and a damping element (51).
These references should be carefully reviewed for all features taught therein.
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 41, 43, and 45-48, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (JP 2000-046979A) as applied to claims 31 and 40 above.
Claims 41 and 43
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a material to be activated can be implemented with various geometries and shape (e.g., full body, hollow body, etc.), necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use a certain geometry and shape in light of the specific activation design. The skilled artisan would also understand that a hollow body would allow for interior cooling of the material (to meet temperature limit requirements) and also provide a space for produced gases. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fukuda to have implemented the material to be activated as a hollow body to meet a particular activation design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 45-47
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that different arrangements can be used to space and/or support different containers, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use a certain spacing/supporting arrangement in light of the specific design. The skilled artisan would also understand that provision of intermediate elements (or a damping element) for maintaining a predetermined spacing and/or support is part of available normal design options. The skilled artisan would further understand that other issues (e.g., cost, material strength, availability, etc.) can be a factor in the manner in which intermediate elements (or a damping element) are obtained and employed. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fukuda to have implemented an intermediate element arranged between adjacent containers (and/or a particular outer diameter of a damping element) to meet a particular design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 48
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that providing perforations for heat dissipation control (and/or moderation purposes) is part of available normal design options. The skilled artisan would also understand that a perforated hollow rod would allow for interior cooling of the rod to meet temperature limit requirements. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fukuda to have employed a perforated hollow rod for the advantages thereof. 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:
second damping elements (claim 34).
second damping elements provided at a top of containers (claim 34).
second damping elements provided between containers (claim 34).
damping element is a helical spring (claim 36).
damping element is a leaf spring (claim 36).
damping element is a group of disc springs (claim 36).
damping element comprises each of a helical spring, a leaf spring, and a group of disc springs (claim 36).
a gap between material and an inner surface of container (claim 40).
material to be activated has a hollow body (claim 41).
outer shape of the material to be activated has a star-shape in a plane orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of a container (claim 43).
intermediate element has an outer diameter smaller than diameter of container (claim 45).
hollow rod is perforated at its circumference (claim 48).
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.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes unclear wording addressed in the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. For example, the wording “a control rod guide tube of the fuel assembly for the control rod assembly” is 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 does not correspond to the elected invention. Nor does it correspond to the structure of recited apparatus invention.
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
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights