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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-24 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome the Drawing objection, which is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are still largely rejectable under Singh, albeit with updated citations, as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 07/22/2026, have been fully considered but they are moot because they are directed towards limitations newly introduced into the claims, which are therefore addressed below.
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 21-24 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 21 recites “a downwardly open recess in fluid communication with an upper portion of the cavity at a bottom and with the air outlet duct at a top” in the final clause. Examiner cannot determine the meaning of this limitation. At a bottom of what? A top of what? Thie limitation “a downwardly open recess in fluid communication with an upper portion of the cavity” makes sense, but it is unclear what the phrases after this limitation mean.
Claim 22 recites “curved branches extending vertically.” It is unclear how a curved branch can also be extending vertically. Vertically is typically understood as straight up and down, but the claim recites that the branches are curved.
Claim 23 recites “an orifice plate disposed at one end of the air outlet duct, the orifice plate comprising a plurality of orifice openings extending through the orifice plate, the plurality of orifice openings collectively defining a cumulative open area through the orifice plate. Initially, Examiner thought this limitation meant that the holes shared a “collective” “open area,” i.e., the holes were not totally distinct from each other. However, Applicant’s Figure 28 shows the holes 251 being distinct from each other, and therefore, it is unclear how each individual hole 251 has its own opening, but taken all together, somehow they have a shared open area?
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US 2011/0255647).
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses (figs. 2, 4, 5, and 8) a passively ventilated nuclear fuel storage cask (100) comprising: an elongated cask body (20) configured for mounting a majority of its length below grade (60, shown in fig. 8), the cask body comprising an outer shell (21) and an inner shell (22) defining an internal cavity (24) extending along a longitudinal axis, the internal cavity being configured for holding a nuclear fuel storage canister (90); a lid (30) attached to a top end of the cask body, the lid comprising a housing top plate (42), the lid configured for above grade placement (as shown in fig. 8); a natural convective ventilation system comprising: a vertical annular downcomer (23) formed between the inner and outer shells, the annular downcomer being in fluid communication with a lower portion of the internal cavity (“the space 23 formed between the inner shell 22 and the outer shell 21 acts as a passageway for cool air,” ¶ 43); a plurality of cooling air inlet ducts (33) formed through the lid, the air inlet ducts each in fluid communication with the annular downcomer to fluidly couple the lower portion of the internal cavity with ambient atmosphere (“The lid 30 is specially designed to facilitate in both the introduction of cool air to the space 23 (for subsequent introduction to the cavity 24) and the release of warmed air from the cavity 24,” ¶ 58); a cooling air outlet duct (38) formed through the lid, a top of the cooling air outlet duct in fluid communication with an air outlet opening (41) formed in the housing top plate (42) of the lid; and a flow restrictor (wall 44 with its small holes, ¶ 63) disposed at one end of the air outlet duct, the flow restrictor having a configuration selectable to regulate an amount of ambient air which flows through the internal cavity of the cask (“a plurality of small holes (not illustrated) in the wall 44 of the cap 43 just below the overhang of the roof 45 of the cap,” ¶ 63, said holes allow airflow but at a reduced amount than the amount of airflow that would be permitted if the wall had large holes, and further at an increased amount than if the wall were entirely solid).
Regarding claim 2, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the flow restrictor is an orifice plate (fig. 3: flow restrictor is the wall 44 with its “small holes,” ¶ 63) configured to create a resistance to air flow through the air outlet duct of the lid which in turn creates backpressure on the air inlet ducts to reduce the amount of ambient air which can be drawn through the internal cavity of the cask via natural convective circulation (said holes allow airflow but at a reduced amount than the amount of airflow that would be permitted if the wall had large holes, thereby fulfilling the claimed capability of creating backpressure on the inlets).
Regarding claims 9-11, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the outlet duct extends vertically through a central portion of the lid (as shown in fig. 5, the entire lid 30 is circular, and the outlets 38 are placed towards the interior of the lid 30), wherein the air outlet duct (38) comprises a plurality of curved branches configured such that there is no straight line of sight from the internal cavity of the cask to ambient atmosphere through the air outlet duct (“The outlet vents 38 are specifically curved so that a line of sight does not exist therethrough,” ¶ 66), a cap structure (43, fig. 4) disposed on the lid which encloses the outlet air duct (38), the cap structure comprising a top cover plate (45) and cylindrical sidewall (flange surrounding 44) including a perforated screen (see holes penetrating the flange).
Regarding claims 19-20, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein an annular riser (where insulation 26 is located, fig. 8) is formed between the canister and inner shell of the cask body when the canister (90) is placed in the cask, and wherein the annular riser is in fluid communication with a lower portion of the annular downcomer at bottom and the air outlet duct at top (as shown in fig. 8).
Regarding claim 21, Singh discloses (figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8) a passively ventilated nuclear fuel storage cask (100) comprising:
a cask body (20) comprising an outer shell (21) and an inner shell (22) defining a cavity (24) configured for holding a nuclear fuel storage canister (90); a lid (30) attached to a top end of the cask body, the lid comprising a housing including a housing top plate (42) and a housing bottom plate (37); and a natural convective ventilation system comprising: a downcomer (23) formed between the inner and outer shells, the downcomer being in fluid communication with a lower portion of the cavity (“the space 23 formed between the inner shell 22 and the outer shell 21 acts as a passageway for cool air,” ¶ 43); a plurality of air inlet ducts (33) formed through the lid, the air inlet ducts each in fluid communication with the downcomer to fluidly couple the lower portion of the cavity with ambient atmosphere (“The lid 30 is specially designed to facilitate in both the introduction of cool air to the space 23 (for subsequent introduction to the cavity 24) and the release of warmed air from the cavity 24,” ¶ 58); and an air outlet duct (38) formed through the lid and extending between the housing top plate and the housing bottom plate; wherein the lid further comprises a central plug extension (32) projecting downwardly from the housing bottom plate (37) and sized to be received in a top opening of the inner shell, the plug extension defining a downwardly open recess (e.g., fig. 5, plug 32 has openings 39 that are downwardly open) in fluid communication with an upper portion of the cavity at a bottom and with the air outlet duct at a top (see the indefiniteness rejection; as best understood by Examiner, Singh’s downwardly projecting plug 32 in fig. 6 indeed is in fluid communication with an upper portion of the cavity 24).
Regarding claim 22, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the air outlet duct (38) comprises a plurality of curved branches extending vertically through the lid (“The outlet vents 38 are specifically curved so that a line of sight does not exist therethrough,” ¶ 66).
Regarding claim 23, Singh discloses (figs. 2, 4, 5, and 8) a passively ventilated nuclear fuel storage cask (100) comprising:
a cask body (20) comprising an outer shell (21) and an inner shell (22) defining a cavity (24) configured for holding a nuclear fuel storage canister (90); a lid (30) attached to a top end of the cask body; and a natural convective ventilation system comprising: a downcomer (23) formed between the inner and outer shells, the downcomer being in fluid communication with a lower portion of the cavity (“the space 23 formed between the inner shell 22 and the outer shell 21 acts as a passageway for cool air,” ¶ 43); a plurality of air inlet ducts (33) formed through the lid, the air inlet ducts each being in fluid communication with the downcomer to fluidly couple the lower portion of the cavity with ambient atmosphere (“The lid 30 is specially designed to facilitate in both the introduction of cool air to the space 23 (for subsequent introduction to the cavity 24) and the release of warmed air from the cavity 24,” ¶ 58); an air outlet duct (38) formed through the lid; and an orifice plate (44 which has “small holes,” ¶ 63) disposed at one end of the air outlet duct, the orifice plate comprising a plurality of orifice openings extending through the orifice plate (¶ 63), the plurality of orifice openings collectively defining a cumulative open area through the orifice plate (each hole has an opening, and, when these openings are considered all together, they exhibit a cumulative open area) through the orifice plate; wherein the cumulative open area of the orifice plate (44 which has “small holes,” ¶ 63) is selected to provide resistance to flow of ventilation air through the air outlet duct (38) and regulate an amount of ambient air drawn through the cavity of the cask by natural convective circulation (“a plurality of small holes (not illustrated) in the wall 44 of the cap 43 just below the overhang of the roof 45 of the cap,” ¶ 63, said holes allow airflow but at a reduced amount than the amount of airflow that would be permitted if the wall had large holes, and further at an increased amount than if the wall were entirely solid; said holes further allow airflow but at a reduced amount than the amount of airflow that would be permitted if the wall had large holes, thereby fulfilling the claimed capability of affecting ambient air drawn in).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Springman (US 2014/02479161).
Regarding claim 3, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the orifice plate has an open area (“holes,” ¶ 63).
Singh does not explicitly disclose that the orifice plate’s open area may be selected to maintain a canister temperature at or near a predetermined canister maximum temperature limit. Examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the orifice plate is capable of some type of adjustment such that, for example, in the summer, the orifice plate is capable of permitting greater airflow therethrough and in the winter, the orifice plate is capable of permitting less airflow therethrough. This interpretation is in line with the Specification, which repeatedly states that in order to maintain the temperature around a maximum limit, e.g., the ventilation airflow rate “may be adjusted seasonally if needed … to maintain the foregoing desired canister maximum temperature limit,” see the PGPub at ¶ 11.
Singh’s plate 44 with “holes,” ¶ 63, does not appear to be adjustable.
Springman, however, does teach this. Springman is also in the art area of nuclear fuel storage casks and teaches (fig. 1) a cask lid (500) having an orifice plate (“The overpack lid 500 is a weldment of steel plates filled with a plain concrete mass 515,” ¶ 33) that has an open area (outlet vents 550 have an open area for heated air 7 exit and this open area is adjustable based on shutters 800B) selected to maintain a canister temperature at or near a predetermined canister maximum temperature limit: “The throttle plates 800B of the air-outlet throttle mechanism, on the other hand, are adjustably coupled to the ventilation module 600 as to be capable of selectively obstructing the air-outlet vents 550 of the ventilation passageway …. Similarly, the air-outlet throttle mechanism comprises a throttle plate 800B for each the air-outlet vents 550. Each of the throttle plates 800B is adjustably coupled to the lid 500 so as to be alterable to various selectable positions that obstruct a desired percentage of the air-outlet vent 550 to which it operably coupled, thereby restricting (or increasing) the flow of the exiting heated air 3 in order to throttle (up or down) the natural convective flow of the air through the ventilation passageway. As such, the throttle mechanism can be used to alter the heat rejection rate of the ventilated storage system 1000, thereby allowing a user to control the temperature of a desired portion of the ventilated storage system, ” ¶ 39.
The combination of the shutters of Springman with the outlet vents of Singh would have produced a fuel storage cask having inlets and outlets for airflow in the lid, wherein the outlets had adjustable shutters, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Singh, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Springman’s shutters with Singh's outlets would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a fuel storage cask having inlets and outlets for airflow in the lid, wherein the outlets had adjustable shutters. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of being able to optimize the airflow as needed, as described by Springman at ¶ 39: “Each of the throttle plates 800B is adjustably coupled to the lid 500 so as to be alterable to various selectable positions that obstruct a desired percentage of the air-outlet vent 550 to which it operably coupled, thereby restricting (or increasing) the flow of the exiting heated air 3 in order to throttle (up or down) the natural convective flow of the air through the ventilation passageway. As such, the throttle mechanism can be used to alter the heat rejection rate of the ventilated storage system 1000, thereby allowing a user to control the temperature of a desired portion of the ventilated storage system, ” ¶ 39.”
Regarding claim 6, the above-described combination of Singh with Springman teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Singh further discloses wherein the orifice plate (40) has a circular configuration (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, the above-described combination of Singh with Springman teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Singh further discloses wherein the orifice plate (40) is mounted to a circular outlet opening (e.g., see the rim around 32) disposed in a center of the lid (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses a second orifice plate (one of the other plates 800B on a different one of the outlet vents 550, fig. 1) interchangeable with the orifice plate (the vents are the same size, and their plates are the same size as each other), the second orifice plate having a different open area than the orifice plate (the amount of open area provided by the plates is optimizable, as described above: “Each of the throttle plates 800B is adjustably coupled to the lid 500 so as to be alterable to various selectable positions that obstruct a desired percentage of the air-outlet vent 550 to which it operably coupled, thereby restricting (or increasing) the flow of the exiting heated air,” ¶ 39).
Claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Moricca (US 2010/0133269).
Regarding claim 11, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim. In the event Applicant does not consider Singh’s “small holes,” ¶ 63 to reasonably be considered a “screen,” Moricca is cited for this screen.
Moricca is also in the art area of radiation casks and teaches (fig. 1) such a cask with a cap structure (16, 17) enclosing an outlet air duct, the cap structure comprising a perforated screen (filter 20, fig. 1). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the screen filter as suggested by Moricca in the apparatus of modified Singh prior to the effective filling date of the invention in order to allow gas flow through the lid (Moricca, ¶ 54) without allowing passage of larger debris.
Claims 4, 14-17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh.
Regarding claim 4, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the orifice plate comprises a plurality of orifice holes as cited above but does not explicitly describe their shape. However, Singh states that other holes may be different shapes: “However, the shape and orientation of the inlet and outlet vents 33, 38 can be varied,” ¶ 66). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use circular holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere shape change in the component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Singh states that “the outlet vents may be angled or sufficiently tilted so that such a line of sight does not exist” although their “shape and orientation…can be varied,” ¶ 66. Using vents/holes that were circular in cross-section would not have affected the desired lack of line of sight and would have been an unchallenging modification to the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the invention, without producing any unexpected or surprising results.
Regarding claim 14, Singh teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Singh teaches wherein the lid (30) has a shape and the inlet ducts (33) are located in peripheral regions of the lid (fig. 3). Singh does not explicitly disclose that shape may be rectilinear, although it is implied when Singh states that the shells of the body can be rectangular (“While the shape of the inner and outer shells 22, 21 is cylindrical in the illustrated embodiment, the shells can take on any shape, including without limitation rectangular,” ¶ 42), and obviously if the body is rectangular, then the lid would also have to be rectangular. Even so, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a rectangular shape for the body and lid, since such a modification would have involved a mere shape change in the component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Using a rectangular instead of cylindrical shape would have been an unchallenging modification to the ordinary skilled artisan, without producing any unexpected or surprising results.
Regarding claims 15-17, Singh teaches all the elements of the parent claim in view of the abilities of the ordinary skill artisan, as described above. Additionally, Singh teaches wherein each inlet duct (33) has a lateral entrance opening located beyond the outer shell of the cask (see fig. 3), the inlet ducts each being laterally open to atmosphere and downwardly open towards the annular downcomer (“Each inlet vent 30 provides a passageway from an opening 34 in the side wall 35 to an opening 36 in the bottom surface 37 of the flange portion 31,” ¶ 61), wherein the outer shell (21) comprises an outwardly protruding lid mounting flange (31) (they are connected: “Similarly, when the lid 30 is positioned atop the body portion 20 of the HLW storage container 100, the second gasket seal 47 is compressed between the bottom surface 37 of the flange portion 31 of the lid 30 and the top edge of the outer shell 21, thereby forming a second seal,” ¶ 69) having a complementary rectilinear (as modified above in claim 14) configuration to the lid, the mounting flange having air inlet passageways (34) which coincide in location and general shape to the air inlet ducts (33) of the lid, and wherein each air inlet passageway is upwardly open and radially inwardly open in fluid communication with the annular downcomer (as shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Singh anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the plurality of orifice openings are spaced-apart orifice holes (“small holes,” ¶ 63) , and wherein solid ligaments of the orifice plate are disposed between adjacent ones of the orifice holes (implicit due to the holes being provided in plurality, this means they are distinct from each other, so there are portions of the plate 44 separating them) as cited above but does not explicitly describe their shape. However, Singh states that other holes may be different shapes: “However, the shape and orientation of the inlet and outlet vents 33, 38 can be varied,” ¶ 66). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use circular holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere shape change in the component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Singh states that “the outlet vents may be angled or sufficiently tilted so that such a line of sight does not exist” although their “shape and orientation…can be varied,” ¶ 66. Using vents/holes that were circular in cross-section would not have affected the desired lack of line of sight and would have been an unchallenging modification to the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the invention, without producing any unexpected or surprising results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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 (571) 272-6878. 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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 second named inventor cited herein to avoid confusion with the primary reference Singh.
Prosecution Insights