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 with traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that "the claims contain no limitation differentiating the species," and so, "the species are not - and cannot be - distinct This is not found persuasive because th
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no additional search burden, an additional search burden exists because the species require a different field of search e.g., employing different search queries (directed toward the different partitioning features and extrusions in disclosed group I vs. group II), and the prior art for one group is unlikely to apply to the second group e.g., art that contains horizontal partitions as depicted in Figure 2, is unlikely to contain the extrusions depicted in Figure 3, which create the concentric annular segments, requiring a separate search for each group.
The requirement for restriction between groups I and II is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The arguments regarding the requirement for restriction between species A and B are found persuasive, and therefore the requirement for restriction between species A and B is WITHDRAWN.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 2 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 2 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 interior collection volume and the interior chamber as recited in claim 1 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrases "defining a cylindrical geometry including..." in line 4 and "defines a cylindrical geometry including..." in line 21, should be "defined by a cylindrical geometry and comprise. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a compliance structure:
interposed between the fuel bed and the cold shell;
configured to isolate the interior cold surface from direct contact with the fuel bed over a range of operating temperatures of the fuel bed;
configured to pass propellant from the cold shell toward the fuel bed; and
configured to elastically deform radially and longitudinally to absorb thermal movement of the fuel bed over the range of operating temperatures;
in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “cold” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold” 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 invention. What temperature does a material need to be considered cold? This is relative and the metes and bounds cannot be determined.
The limitation in claim 1 regarding the moderator bore/block is unclear. It is unclear where the moderator block is relative to the fuel elements and how many moderator blocks exist. Is this supposed to be a positively recited element of the fuel element, with each fuel element having its own moderator block with a moderator bore, or is each fuel element set in a different bore in the same moderator block? This limitation is unclear and the metes and bounds of claim 1 cannot be determined.
The fuel bed is not positively recited as a component of the fuel elements or the reactor assembly. The introduction of the fuel bed in claim 1 appears to be as part of a function of the cold shell rather than as a necessary part of the reactor assembly. As the claim is written, without a cold shell there would be no fuel bed, so it is unclear if the fuel bed is intended to be a positively recited feature of the reactor assembly, the fuel elements, or the cold shell.
The meaning of the word “cooperates” in line 24 of claim 1 is unclear. How does a shell cooperate? For the purposes of examination, in view of figure 2, this limitation is being interpreted as the hot shell is located radially inward of the fuel bed and is the radially interior half of the containment structure for the fuel bed, where the compliance structure is the radially exterior half of the containment structure for the fuel bed.
The term “hot” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” 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 invention. It is unclear from the claim language what the delineation between hot and cold are in terms of actual degrees.
No means have been provided in claim 1 by which the hot shell achieves the desired result of “direct[ing] propellant, into an interior collection volume and out of the fuel element via an outlet port.” Is this a function achieved by the hot shell or by the arrangement of perforations in the hot shell? It is unclear and the metes and bounds of this limitation cannot be determined.
It is also unclear whether the “an interior chamber” being referred to in lines 21 and 22 of claim 1 is the same space/volume as “an interior collection volume” in line 26 of claim 1. It is uncertain whether there are two interior spaces within the hot shell or whether there is only one interior space. The use of these phrases renders claim 1 indefinite. Examiner is interpreting this as one interior chamber/volume in the hot shell.
It is unclear whether the “an outlet port” referred to on line 27 of claim 1 is the same outlet port as the one referred to on line 22 of claim 1. It is uncertain whether there are two outlet ports or one being referred to twice. Examiner is interpreting this as one outlet port being referred to twice.
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 (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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Design of Particle Bed Reactors for the Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program” (Ludewig et al. 1996) in view of Ales et al. (US 5047204 A) and DeMars (US 4911881 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ludewig discloses a reactor assembly ( Fig. 2.1, page 7) for a nuclear thermal propulsion system (Fig. 2.2, page 7)comprising:
a set of fuel elements (“Fuel Element”), each fuel element in the set of fuel elements comprising:
a cold shell (“Cold Frit”):
defining a cylindrical geometry including an array of cold perforations and an interior cold surface (see paragraph 3 on page 5),
arranged within a moderator bore of a moderator block (see paragraph 3 on page 5); and
configured to direct coolant radially inwardly from the moderator bore through the array of cold perforations and toward a fuel bed (see paragraph 3 on page 5);
the fuel bed (see paragraph 2 on page 5) includes a set of nuclear fuel particles configured to release thermal energy via nuclear fission (see paragraph 3 on page 5);
a hot shell (“Hot Frit”):
defines a geometry including an array of hot perforations, an interior chamber, and an outlet port (see paragraph 3 on page 5 and Fig. 2.1);
arranged coaxial with the cold shell (see paragraph 3 on page 5 and Fig. 2.1);
cooperates with the cold shell to contain the fuel bed (see paragraph 3 on page 5); and
configured to direct propellant, heated by the fuel bed, radially inwardly from the fuel bed into an interior collection volume and out of the fuel element via an outlet port (see paragraph 3 on page 5).
While Ludewig’s hot frit appears slightly tapered in Fig. 2.1 and is not explicitly cylindrical, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Ludewig’s hot frit to have a cylindrical shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Ludewig does not disclose the remaining limitations, which relate to the compliance structure, of the claim, but Ales does. Ales is in the pebble bed reactor art area and teaches a fuel element (Fig. 1 and 2) comprising:
a compliance structure (14 and fins 22):
interposed between a fuel bed (16) and a cold shell (18);
configured to isolate the interior cold surface (the inside of 18) from direct contact with the fuel bed (16) over a range of operating temperatures of the fuel bed (col. 3 lines 38-59);
configured to pass propellant from the cold shell (18) toward the fuel bed (see arrows in Fig. 2 depicting coolant flow and col. 3 lines 38-47); and
a hot shell (12):
cooperates with the compliance structure (14 and 22) to contain the fuel bed (16, col. 3 lines 15-21).
Ales further teaches the compliance structure provides the advantages of removing decay heat (col. 2 lines 56-63). It would have therefore been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have included a compliance structure, as taught by Ales, in Ludewig’s reactor assembly for the predictable purpose of removing decay heat, as taught by Ales.
Neither Ales nor Ludewig explicitly teach a compliance structure configured to elastically deform radially and longitudinally to absorb thermal movement of the fuel bed over the range of operating temperatures, but DeMars does.
DeMars is in the same particle bed fuel element art area and teaches a compliance structure configured to elastically deform radially and longitudinally (Fig. 5 220 and col. 4 lines 48-56, and 44, part of 220, which expands and contracts radially and longitudinally in response to fuel bed expansion and contraction) to absorb thermal movement of the fuel bed over the range of operating temperatures.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have combined DeMars’s compression devices with Ales’s compliance structure and included them together in Ludewig’s reactor assembly for the predictable purpose of allowing expansion and contraction within the fuel particle bed and inner and outer frits without undue pressure or looseness occurring in fuel particle bed, as taught by DeMars (col. 4 lines 57-60)
Regarding claim 2, Ludewig, Ales, and DeMars teach all the elements of the parent claim. Ales and DeMars further teach wherein the compliance structure (Ales 22 and 14) comprises:
a set of ribs (DeMars Fig. 5 44) configured to elastically deform in the axial and radial directions responsive to thermal expansion of the fuel bed (Fig. 5 220 and col. 4 lines 48-56);
a set of bed partitions (DeMars 42 and 40, 42 and 40 are flat washers that separates the fuel bed into segments) extending radially inward into the fuel bed to separate the fuel bed into axial and annular fuel segments (see the two fuel bed segments in Fig. 1).
Thus, Ludewig, modified to include Ales’s compliance structure and DeMars’s compression devices, would have resulted in the features of claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY MARIE COOPERRIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-0532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/K.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
