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 .
Claim Status
1. Claims 1-6 are pending and examined herein.
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.
2. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US 4,704,248 in view of Korton et al., US, 6,212,250.
3. Regarding claims 1-3, Lee discloses a nuclear fuel assembly (Fig. 5; column 1, lines 11-20) for a nuclear reactor core, comprising: at least one fuel element (20A) comprising: an elongated shell (28) defining an interior volume and having a first end (26) and a second end (24); a lattice structure disposed within the interior volume (22; see column 2, lines 62-66); at least one flow channel (30) extending through the lattice structure; at least one lattice site (32) disposed in the lattice structure; a first end (26) having a first boss (48)having a polygonal/hexagonal shape (column 3, lines 40-46); and a second end (24) having a first bore (42) having a polygonal/hexagonal shape (column 3, lines 34-38). Lee does not disclose end caps. Korton teaches a fuel element (column 1, lines 3-7; see Fig. 7) comprising an elongated shell (9) defining an interior volume and defining a first end (12) and a second end (6), a lattice structure disposed within the interior volume (“fuel matrix”); at least one flow channel (2) extending through the lattice structure; a first end cap (13) including a boss (16) having a first cross-sectional shape, the first end cap being affixed to the first end of the shell; and a second end cap (6)including a first bore having a second cross-sectional shape, the second end cap being affixed to the second end of the shell, wherein the first cross-sectional shape of the boss is the same as the second cross- sectional shape of the bore (column 3, lines 33-45). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the end caps taught by Korton to the fuel element of Lee for the predictable purpose of “avoid[ing] losses of fission products at the extreme operating conditions experienced by the fuel element” (column 1, lines 31-35).
4. Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walton US 5,410,578 in view of Lee et al., US 4,704,248 and Korton et al., US, 6,212,250 as applied to claims 1-3.
5. Regarding claims 4-6, Walton discloses a nuclear thermal propulsion rocket engine (column 1,m lines 7-9; Fig. 1) comprising a nuclear reactor core (14), comprising a first fuel element and a second fuel element (50; see Fig. 3), each of the first and second fuel elements comprising a lattice structure (“compacted carbon”) and having at least one flow channel (52) extending through the lattice structure.
As explained above, Lee in view of Korton teaches the fuel element of claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the fuel element of Lee as modified by Korton for the predictable advantages of preventing coolant leakage by providing an alignment mechanism between fuel elements (see Lee at column 1, line 44- through column 2, line 10) and “avoid[ing] losses of fission products at the extreme operating conditions experienced by the fuel element” (see Korton at column 1, lines 31-35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm 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 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights