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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Johnson et al. (US 2020/0105426) hereinafter known as Johnson.
With regards to claim 1, Johnson discloses a self-powered in-core detector arrangement for measuring flux in a nuclear reactor core (FIG. 1 and 7; Abstract; “ A self-powered in-core detector arrangement for measuring flux in a nuclear reactor core includes a first in-core detector and a second in-core detector.”)(Fig. 7)(Johnson; [0028]; “The power plant connector then sends the signals through wires to a power plant computer configured for determining the local power in reactor core 14 based on the signals from detectors 18…”), comprising:
an elongated receptacle ([0022]; “Detector arrangement 12 includes a plurality of detectors 18 in the form of SPNDs or SPDs arranged inside of a housing in the form of an oversheath 19 that surrounds detectors 18.”) ([0050]; sheath 234);
a first Gamma radiation detector (Fig. 7; [0048]; detector 218a)([0028]; Detector material 26 is a conducting or semiconducting material that emits electrons as a result of neutron and gamma irradiation….”) having a first body (Fig. 7; [0049]; flux detecting material 226a) disposed within the elongated receptacle (sheath 234); and
a second Gamma radiation detector 218b having a second body (Fig. 7; [0049]; flux detecting material 226) disposed within the elongated receptacle(sheath 234),
wherein the first body 218a is longitudinally displaced with respect to the second body 218b, and
wherein the first body 218a is rotated with respect to the second body 218b ([0042][0045][0046]; Figs. 6b-6c, Fig. 7; The Examiner correlates 118a-118b to 218a-218b)).
With regards to claim 5, Johnson discloses the in-core power distribution detection assembly of claim 1, wherein the elongated receptacle is a cylindrical receptacle having a longitudinal axis. ([0023][0031][0050]; oversheath 19) ([0050]; sheath 234)
With regards to claim 6, Johnson discloses the in-core power distribution detection assembly of claim 5, wherein the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical receptacle, a first longitudinal axis of the first body 218a, and a second longitudinal axis of the second body 218b are mutually parallel (see Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 7, Johnson discloses the in-core power distribution detection assembly of claim 5, wherein the longitudinal axis of the cylindrical receptacle, a first longitudinal axis of the first body 218a, and a second longitudinal axis of the second body 218b are mutually coaxial (see Fig. 6a; see the rejection of claim 1).
With regards to claim 8, Johnson discloses the in-core power distribution detection assembly of claim 5,
wherein the first Gamma radiation detector (Fig. 7; 218a) comprise a first electrical lead ([0018][0049]; lead wire 228) and a second electrical lead (background wire 230),
wherein the second Gamma radiation detector (Fig. 7; 218b) comprise a third electrical lead ([0049][0050]; lead wire 228) and a fourth electrical lead (background wire 230), and
wherein the first electrical lead and the second electrical lead are rotationally displaced with respect to the third electrical lead and the fourth electrical lead. ([0042][0049][0050]; Figs. 6b-6c, Fig. 7; see the rejection of claim 1)
With regards to claim 9, Johnson discloses the in-core power distribution detection assembly of claim 8, wherein the first electrical lead and the second electrical lead define a first plane, the third electrical lead and the fourth electrical lead define a second plane, and the first plane is rotated with respect to the second plane. (see the rejection of claim 8)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 2, Johnson do not disclose the in-core power distribution detection assembly of claim 1, wherein the first Gamma radiation detector and the second Gamma radiation detector each comprises:
a Schottky diode having an active semiconductor region and a Schottky contact over at least a portion of the active semiconductor region;
a layer of a Compton and photoelectron source material configured to react with incident gamma radiation to emit Compton and photo-electric electrons to penetrate into the active semiconductor region of the Schottky diode through the Schottky contact, the layer of the Compton and photoelectron source material being supported above the Schottky contact; and
a layer of fluid interposed between the Schottky contact and the layer of the Compton and photoelectron source material,
wherein a distance between the Schottky contact and the layer of the Compton and photoelectron source material is adjustable by an adjustable telescoping sleeve in contact with the Compton and photoelectron source material surrounding the layer of fluid, and
wherein the active semiconductor region is fabricated to have a specified thickness, thereby determining a maximum detection energy.
Claims 3-4 are objected due to being dependent on objected base claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holmes et al. (US 2020/0119207)
Sur et al. (US 2019/0187303)
Heibel et al. (US 2013/0083879)
Seidel et al. (US 2012/0177166)
Tsang et al. (US 8,094,771)
Iacovino et al. (US 6,252,923)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884