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 Invention II, Species B, Species b1, Species 1, and Species a2 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is "no showing for requiring restriction among these claims", there is "no serious burden if restriction were withdrawn", and there is "not an unreasonable number of species". This is not found persuasive because the requirement for restriction is that inventions must be independent or distinct as claimed and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required (MPEP 803 1.). “Applicant agrees that each identified invention is patentably distinct over each other,” from Applicants Arguments. A serious search burden exist because the inventions require a different field of search (e.g.. G21C 15/18, G21C 15/26, and G21D 1/02 , and employing different word search queries) and prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention. Applicant’s third argument is also not found persuasive because restriction between the species is proper if the species are independent and distinct.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/06/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 10-15 are examined herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the coolant" in line 4. This should be “the liquid coolant”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the reactor with guard vessel" in line 3. The reactor and guard vessel introduced in claim 10 are introduced as “the nuclear reactor” and “the guard vessel” respectively.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the insulation" in line 1. This was introduced as "a thermal insulation" in claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10-15 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.
It is unclear if the coolant in claim 10 is in contact with the pressure vessel. lines 3-4 require that the liquid coolant contacts the bottom of the nuclear reactor vessel. However, it is unclear how the coolant source must be configured to provide this result in view of line 5 requiring that the guard vessel surround the bottom of the nuclear reactor vessel and it provide “thermal insulation directly to an outer surface of a pressure vessel of the nuclear reactor. Figure 4, as described in [0029] of Applicant’s specification, shows the heat-sinking coolant directly contacting guard vessel 302. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. MPEP 2173.03.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the divided flow channel" in line 5 of this claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because this term was not previously introduced.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the divided flow channel" and “the RVACS” in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The RVACS and the divided flow channel are only introduced in claim 13, while claim 14 is dependent upon claim 11.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the coolant is configured to flow out of the divided coolant channel” in line 5. The coolant has its antecedent basis in claim 11, where it is used to denote the coolant from the coolant source of claim 10, which is a different coolant than the fluid in the RVACS. The RVACS contains the divided flow channel. It is unclear how the coolant from the flooding system of claim 10 is entering the separate RVACS system and is configured to flow out of the divided coolant channel. This limitation is unclear and renders claim 14 indefinite.
The phrase “insulation includes an inert gas between the pressure vessel and the guard vessel” in line 2 of claim 15. The guard vessel, introduced in claim 10, is providing the insulation as its function. No thermal insulation has been positively recited as a component of any part of the system. The metes and bounds of claim 15 are undefined and claim 15 is indefinite.
Any claims that have been rejected but not explicitly mentioned are rejected for depending on a rejected 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.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 5080857 A) in view of Hunsbedt et al. (US5406602A).
Regarding claim 10, Miller discloses a flooding system (Fig. 1) for removing decay heat from a nuclear power plant, the flooding system comprising:
a coolant source (120) configured to provide a liquid coolant that contacts a bottom of a nuclear reactor (116 and col. 1 lines 62 - 66); but Miller does not disclose the remaining limitations of the claim. Hunsbedt does. Hunsbedt is the same reactor containment cooling system and teaches a system (fig. 1) with a guard vessel (2) configured to surround the bottom of the nuclear reactor, wherein the guard vessel provides a thermal insulation directly to an outer surface of a pressure vessel of the nuclear reactor (col. 1 lines 28-38 and col. 2 lines 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have included a guard vessel for thermal insulation, taught by Hunsbedt, in Miller’s flooding assembly because Hunsbedt teaches that the guard vessel prevents excessive heating of the [concrete silo] (col. 2 lines 1-2) thereby preventing damage due thermal expansion.
While Hunsbedt doesn’t explicitly state that the guard vessel prevents temperature change in the pressure vessel above 0.67 °C per second when the pressure vessel is at approximately 190 °C, the disclosed structure of Hunsbedt’s guard vessel, meeting the structural requirements of Applicant’s flooding system, would be capable of performing this desired result (col. 2 lines 11-14).
Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to optimize the “thermal radiation” transfer from the reactor vessel through the insulation to the guard vessel by selecting the design parameters of the guard vessel, such as the size of the gap and the identity of the insulation. MPEP 2144(II)(A). Hunsbedt teaches that one would select the amount of heat removal from the reactor vessel based on the “design limit” of the reactor system (see col. 5 lines 32-35), providing motivation for one to optimize such heat transfer properties in the combination of Hunsbedt with Miller.
Regarding claim 15, Miller and Hunsbedt teach all the elements of the parent claim and Hunsbedt further teaches a system wherein the insulation includes an inert gas between the pressure vessel and the guard vessel (col. 1 lines 28-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have included a guard vessel for thermal insulation, taught by Hunsbedt, in Miller’s flooding assembly for the reason stated above.
Claims 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 5080857 A) and Hunsbedt et al. (US5406602A) in further view of Bass et al. (US 20220208402 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Miller and Hunsbedt teach all the elements of the parent claim. Miller, as modified by Hunsbedt, further discloses a system wherein the liquid coolant is liquid water (col. 3 lines 3-7 and 120), the system further comprising:
a containment structure (see outer walls of 108 and bottom 122 that work together to form a containment around 102, 116, and 104) housing the reactor(104) and guard vessel (Hunsbedt Fig. 1, ref. 2) and is configured to fill with the coolant from the coolant source up to at least the bottom of the nuclear reactor (116 and col. 1 lines 62 - 66).
Miller is silent regarding the containment structure’s location relative to the ground level. However, Bass is in the nuclear reactor containment art area and teaches a system wherein the containment structure extends underground (see Fig. 1 label “Ground Level” and 102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used the technique of underground containment construction, as taught by Bass, to further modify Miller’s containment and flooding system to be subterranean for the predictable purpose of providing radiological shielding to the reactor containment ([0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Miller, Hunsbedt, and Bass teach all the elements of the parent claim, and Miller further discloses the system wherein the coolant source is an annulus lining a perimeter of the containment structure (108).
Regarding claim 13, Miller, Hunsbedt, and Bass teach all the elements of the parent claim, and Bass further teaches a system (Fig. 1) wherein the containment structure includes a reactor vessel auxiliary cooling system (RVACS) ([0004]) having a coolant downcomer (128) opening at a coolant source inlet (Inlet) and a coolant riser (138) exhausting outside the containment structure (Outlet), wherein the coolant downcomer and coolant riser are in fluid communication (see the u-bend at 6 in Fig. 1) at a bottom of the divided flow channel (129l).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included Bass’s RVAC system in Miller’s modified flooding system for the predictable purpose of managing heat rejection by the nuclear reactor by facilitating circulation of a coolant fluid, such as ambient air ([0003]).
Miller, Hunsbedt, and Bass do not explicitly teach wherein the coolant source is configured to flood the containment structure to a level below where the coolant downcomer and coolant riser are in fluid communication, but Miller teaches that the flooder tubes are pointed such that the coolant would collect from the bottom of the dry well and rise upward. In Bass Fig. 1, the divided flow channel is above the bottom of the reactor vessel, so the combination results in the claimed relative arrangement.
Regarding claim 14, Miller, Hunsbedt, and Bass teach all the elements of the parent claim, Bass further teaches a system wherein a RVACS (Figure 1) includes at least one of a powered fan ([0125]) and comprises a rock pile (210A [0077]) surrounding inlets and exhausts ([0072], 132, and 122) of a channel (124 and 134), and wherein the coolant is configured to flow out of a channel ([0006]) and rock pile after sinking heat from the reactor ([0066])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have included the air cooling system, taught by Bass, in Miller’s flooding assembly for the reason stated above.
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
