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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected Species A1 (FIGS. 2A-B) and B1 (the extraction system is included on a main loop) without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species B2), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 04/30/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 14-18 and 21-32 are pending in the application with claims 22-24 withdrawn. Claims 14-18, 21, and 25-32 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 “capture system pipe” in claim 26 (the figures only appear to show the “piping” (201) of the “molten salt loop” and another “pipe” (210) connected to the “piping” (201) as previously recited in parent claim 14, but do not show an additional “capture system pipe”), the “metallic structure is positioned within the pipe” in claim 28 (the figures show the “metallic structure” (204) is positioned within the “piping” (201) of the “molten salt loop”, but do not show the “metallic structure” (204) is positioned within the “pipe” (e.g., 210) which is “connected to the piping of the molten salt loop” as previously recited in parent claim 14), and the “fission product extraction system comprises a plurality of fission product capture systems” in claim 31 (the figures show only one “fission product capture system” (202)) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 15-18, 21, and 25-32 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 32 recite “the surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the fission product extraction system is operable to capture the fission products by a chemical redox reaction between the reducing agent and the fission products”. Parent claim 14 previously recites “wherein the fission product extraction system is operable to capture the fission products by redox reaction between the reducing agent and the fission products”. It is unclear the relationship between the “chemical redox reaction” and the “redox reaction” previously recited in claim 14. This further renders unclear if the “redox reaction” in claims 15 and 18 are intending to refer to the “redox reaction” previously recited in claim 14, the “chemical redox reaction” previously recited in claim 32, or something else.
Claim 17 recites “the reducing agent comprises at least one of beryllium, lithium, and zirconium”. It is unclear the relationship between these materials and the “solid material” previously recited in claim 32. It is similarly unclear the relationship between the “cationic molybdenum and neutral beryllium” recited in claim 18 and the “solid material” previously recited in claim 32.
Claim 25 is indefinite because it is unclear through what feature(s) the “capture system valve ... enable[s] passage of the metallic structure and the removable rod”.
Claim 26 recites “the pipe”. It is unclear which of the previously recited “pipe[s]” this phrase is intending to refer to in the claim.
The term “about” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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.
Claim 28 recites “the irradiated fueled molten salt contacts an uncoated portion of the metallic structure before contacting a coated portion of the metallic structure”. It is unclear the relationship between the “uncoated portion” and the “coated portion” and the “metallic structure partially coated in a reducing agent” previously recited in claim 14.
Claim 29 recites “the metallic structure is electrically isolated from other structures of the system”. It is unclear which of the previously recited “system[s]” (“molten salt reactor system”, “fuel salt system”, “fission product extraction system”) the “system” is intending to refer to in the claim. This further renders unclear what feature(s) the “other structures” is referring to in the claim.
Claim 31 recites “wherein the fission product extraction system comprises a plurality of fission product capture systems connected to the pipe”. It is unclear the scope of the structure encompassed by the “plurality of fission product capture systems” and the relationship between the “plurality of fission product capture systems” and the “fission product extraction system” and corresponding structures as previously recited in claim 14. For example, parent claim 14 previously recites “wherein the fission product extraction system is operable to capture the fission products ... such that the fission products plate onto the metallic structure”. Thus, the “fission product extraction system” would appear to “capture” fission products (i.e., the “fission product extraction system” would appear to also be a “fission product capture system[]”). This appears to be consistent with the specification which discloses “a fission product capture system 202 includes a metallic structure 204, an attachment rod 206, and a salt barrier 208” ([0062]). It is therefore unclear if the claim is intending to require a plurality of the previously recited “fission product extraction system[s]” and the corresponding structures (e.g., “pipe”, “metallic structure”) or something else. This is further unclear in view of the above drawing objections.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Fission Product Behavior in the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment” (“Compere”) in view of US Publication No. 2019/0371482 (“Benson”) and “Electrochemical behavior of La(III) on the zinc-coated W electrode in LiCl-KCl eutectic” (“Liu”).
Regarding claim 14, Compere (previously cited) (see FIGS. 2.1 (p. 3), 2.3 (p. 5)) discloses a molten salt reactor system (“Molten Salt Reactor Experiment”, “MSRE”) comprising:
a fuel salt system comprising a molten salt loop (“fuel circuit”, “main loop”), wherein the molten salt loop comprises piping (“piping”), an access vessel (“reactor vessel”), a reactor core (“MSRE core”), a pump (“centrifugal pump”, “fuel pump”), and at least one heat exchanger (“primary heat exchanger”) (p. 3: “The fuel circuit of the MSRE ... consisted essentially of a reactor vessel, a circulating pump, and the shell side of the primary heat exchanger, connected by appropriate piping”), wherein the fuel salt system is configured to circulate an irradiated fueled molten salt (“circulating fuel”, “fuel salt”) comprising fission products (“fission products”, “noble metals”) through the molten salt loop (p. 16: “Molten-salt reactors generate the full array of fission products in the circulating fuel”).
Compere does not appear to disclose a fission product extraction system. However, Compere discloses that the presence and accumulation of fission products in the molten salt has various consequences including providing fixed sources of decay heat and radiation, which makes maintenance more hazardous, and increasing the neutron poison effect (p. 2: “There are a number of consequences of fission product deposition. They provide fixed sources of decay heat and radiation. The afterheat effect will require careful consideration in design, and the associated radiation will make maintenance of related equipment more hazardous or difficult. Localization ... in the core could increase the neutron poison effect. There are indications that some fission products ... deposited on metals are associated with deleterious grain-boundary effects”). Benson (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-4) is similarly directed towards a molten salt reactor system (102) in which an irradiated fueled molten salt comprising fission products is circulated through a molten salt loop ([0028], [0049]). Benson teaches a fission product extraction system (120, 200) fluidly coupled to piping of the molten salt loop ([0049], [0051]), the fission product extraction system comprising a pipe (205) connected to the piping of the molten salt loop ([0051]); and a metallic structure (230) extending from the pipe into the piping of the molten salt loop such that the metallic structure makes contact with the irradiated fueled molten salt ([0053]-[0054]); wherein the metallic structure is connected to a removable rod (235) of the fission product extraction system ([0053], [0059]); and wherein the fission product extraction system is operable to capture the fission products by redox reaction such that the fission products plate onto the metallic structure ([0054]). While Benson does not appear to explicitly teach a reducing agent, Benson teaches the fission products are plated on the metallic structure by an electrochemical reaction ([0054]). An electrochemical reaction involves a transfer of electrons, i.e., a redox reaction, which requires a reducing agent1. Benson further teaches molten salt reactor systems produce useful fission products and the fission product extraction system allows for the extraction and purification of fission products from the molten salt ([0001], [0048], [0055], [0065]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include Benson’s fission product extraction system in Compere’s system for the predictable purpose of removing and purifying fission products from the molten salt, as taught by Benson.
Benson does not appear to teach the metallic structure is partially coated in the reducing agent. However, Benson teaches the material comprising the metallic structure may be selected based on the desired reaction ([0055]). Liu (previously cited) is similarly directed towards a fission product extraction system operable to capture fission products (“fission products”, “FPs”, “La(III)”) in a molten salt by redox reaction with a metallic structure (“inert W electrode”) (Abstract, p. 206: “actinides along with active fission products (FPs) are anodically dissolved into the LiCl-KCl eutectic.... FPs gradually accumulated in the electrolyte.... To maintain efficient separation of [actinides] over FPs, the melt must be regularly purified or regenerated”, p. 214: “La(III) cations in the LaCl3-LiCl-KCl-ZnCl2 melts could be reduced on the Zn-coated W electrode by forming different La-Zn intermetallic compounds”). Liu teaches the metallic structure may be at least partially coated in a reducing agent (e.g., Zn) which participates in the redox reaction (Abstract). Liu further teaches the coated metallic structure allows for the extraction of lanthanum, which is a fission product (Abstract, p. 206: “Lanthanum, which exists in the form of La (III) cations in melt, is a typical rare-earth element and one of the most important FPs to be regenerated”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to employ Liu’s coated metallic structure in the modified Compere’s system for the predictable purpose of extracting lanthanum, as suggested by Liu.
Claims 14, 16, 28, and 31-32, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere in view of Benson and US Publication No. 2017/0294241 (“Dodson”).
Regarding claim 14, Compere (see FIGS. 2.1 (p. 3), 2.3 (p. 5)) discloses a molten salt reactor system (“Molten Salt Reactor Experiment”, “MSRE”) comprising:
a fuel salt system comprising a molten salt loop (“fuel circuit”, “main loop”), , wherein the molten salt loop comprises piping (“piping”), an access vessel (“reactor vessel”), a reactor core (“MSRE core”), a pump (“centrifugal pump”, “fuel pump”), and at least one heat exchanger (“primary heat exchanger”) (p. 3: “The fuel circuit of the MSRE ... consisted essentially of a reactor vessel, a circulating pump, and the shell side of the primary heat exchanger, connected by appropriate piping”), wherein the fuel salt system is configured to circulate an irradiated fueled molten salt (“circulating fuel”, “fuel salt”) comprising fission products through the molten salt loop (p. 16: “Molten-salt reactors generate the full array of fission products in the circulating fuel”).
Compere does not appear to disclose a fission product extraction system. However, Compere discloses that the presence and accumulation of fission products in the molten salt has various consequences including providing fixed sources of decay heat and radiation which may make maintenance more hazardous or difficult and increasing the neutron poison effect (p. 2: “There are a number of consequences of fission product deposition. They provide fixed sources of decay heat and radiation. The afterheat effect will require careful consideration in design, and the associated radiation will make maintenance of related equipment more hazardous or difficult. Localization ... in the core could increase the neutron poison effect. There are indications that some fission products ... deposited on metals are associated with deleterious grain-boundary effects”). Benson (see FIGS. 1-4) is similarly directed towards a molten salt reactor system (102) in which an irradiated fueled molten salt comprising fission products is circulated through a molten salt loop ([0028], [0049]). Benson teaches a fission product extraction system (120, 200) fluidly coupled to piping of the molten salt loop ([0049], [0051]), the fission product extraction system comprising a pipe (205) connected to the piping of the molten salt loop ([0051]); and a metallic structure (230) extending from the pipe into the piping of the molten salt loop such that the metallic structure makes contact with the irradiated fueled molten salt ([0053]-[0054]); wherein the metallic structure is connected to a removable rod (235) of the fission product extraction system ([0053], [0059]); and wherein the fission product extraction system is operable to capture the fission products by redox reaction such that the fission products plate onto the metallic structure ([0054]). While Benson does not appear to explicitly teach a reducing agent, Benson teaches the fission products are plated on the metallic structure by an electrochemical reaction ([0054]). An electrochemical reaction involves a transfer of electrons, i.e., a redox reaction, which requires a reducing agent2. Benson further teaches molten salt reactor systems produce useful fission products and the fission product extraction system allows for the extraction and purification of fission products from the molten salt ([0001], [0048], [0055], [0065]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include Benson’s fission product extraction system in Compere’s system for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Compere in order to remove fission products from the molten salt, as suggested by Benson, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Benson does not appear to teach the metallic structure is partially coated in the reducing agent. However, it was known in the art to provide a reducing agent as a partial coating on a metallic structure. For example, Dodson (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-3) is similarly directed towards a product extraction system (50) comprising a metallic structure (510) which participates in a redox reaction ([0037]-[0039]). Dodson teaches the metallic structure is partially coated in a reducing agent (512) which participates in a redox reaction with a molten salt ([0037]-[0039]). Dodson teaches providing the reducing agent as a coating allows for the consumption of the coating rather than the metallic structure itself ([0037]-[0040]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to provide the reducing agent as a coating on the metallic structure, as taught by Dodson, in the modified Compere’s system for the predictable advantage of maintaining the metallic structure.
Regarding claim 32, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 14. Dodson teaches the reducing agent comprises a solid material disposed on a surface of the metallic structure (FIG. 3, [0037]-[0039]). Benson teaches the fission product extraction system is operable to capture the fission products by a chemical redox reaction between the reducing agent and the fission products without application of electrical potential to the metallic structure ([0054]; note that Benson teaches that “an electrical potential may not be required” and the electric potential may be 0 volts, i.e., no electric potential applied). Thus, Compere, modified to include Benson’s fission product extraction system and Dodson’s coating configuration, would have resulted in the features of claim 32.
Regarding claim 16, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32. Dodson teaches the fission products are one or more of molybdenum-99, actinium-225, iodine-131, xenon-133, hydrogen-3, nitrogen-13, carbon-14, oxygen-15, fluorine-18, gallium-67, gallium-68, selenium-75, krypton-81m, strontium-89, yttrium-90, technetium-99m, indium-111, iodine-123, iodine-125, samarium-153, erbium-169, and radium-2233 ([0049]; see also Compere, Table 5.1; see also instant specification [0040]). Thus, Compere, modified to include Benson’s fission product extraction system and Dodson’s coating configuration, would have resulted in the features of claim 16.
Regarding claim 28, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32. Benson teaches the metallic structure is positioned within the pipe (FIG. 2). Dodson teaches the metallic structure has an uncoated portion and a coated portion, wherein the molten salt contacts the uncoated portion of the metallic structure before contacting the coated portion of the metallic structure (FIG. 3, [0036]-[0040]). Thus, Compere, modified to include Benson’s fission product extraction system and Dodson’s coating configuration, would have resulted in the features of claim 28.
Regarding claim 31, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32. Benson teaches the fission product extraction system comprises a plurality of fission product capture systems (250, 255) connected to the pipe (FIG. 3, [0057]-[0058]). Thus, Compere, modified to include Benson’s fission product extraction system and Dodson’s coating configuration, would have resulted in the features of claim 31.
Claims 15 and 17-18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere in view of Benson and Dodson further in view of US Publication No. 2020/0122109 (“Kruizenga”).
Regarding claim 15, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32. As discussed above, Benson teaches a redox reaction with the fission products ([0054]), but appears to be silent as to whether the reducing agent is released into the irradiated fueled molten salt upon the redox reaction. However, Benson teaches the material comprising the metallic structure may be selected based on the desired reactants that react with the metallic structure ([0055]). Kruizenga (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a molten salt product extraction system comprising a metallic structure (121) comprising a reducing agent (e.g., beryllium) in contact with a molten salt ([0026], [0030]), wherein the product extraction system is operable to capture products in the molten salt by a chemical redox reaction between the reducing agent and the products without application of electrical potential to the metallic structure such that the products plate onto the metallic structure ([0030]). Kruizenga teaches the reducing agent is released into the molten salt upon redox reaction with the products ([0030]). Kruizenga further teaches using beryllium as a reducing agent allows for the removal of corrosive impurities from the molten salt ([0026], [0028]-[0030]). Additionally, Compere discloses adding beryllium to the molten salt provides the advantages of controlling the oxidation state and chromium content of the fuel (p. 10: “an analysis for the oxidation of the fuel resulted in a U3+/U4+ value of 0.1%. Because values nearer 1% were desired, additions of metallic beryllium as rod (or powder) were made”, p. 13: “Beryllium was added to halt a rise in the chromium content of the fuel”, p. 136: “Additions of a reducing agent (beryllium metal), which inhibited the Cr2+ buildup”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use a beryllium reducing agent (which would release into the molten salt upon redox reaction), as taught by Kruizenga, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Compere in order to remove corrosive impurities, as suggested by Kruizenga, and to control the oxidation state and chromium content of the fuel, as suggested by Compere, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 17, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32. Benson does not appear to teach the reducing agent comprises at least one of beryllium, lithium, and zirconium. However, Benson teaches the material comprising the metallic structure may be selected based on the desired reactants that react with the metallic structure ([0055]). Kruizenga (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a molten salt product extraction system comprising a reducing agent (121) in contact with a molten salt ([0026], [0030]), wherein the product extraction system is operable to capture products in the molten salt by a chemical redox reaction between the reducing agent and the products without application of electrical potential to the metallic structure ([0030]). Kruizenga teaches the reducing agent at least one of beryllium, lithium, and zirconium ([0006], [0030], [0032]). Kruizenga further teaches using beryllium as a reducing agent allows for the removal of corrosive impurities from the molten salt ([0026], [0028]-[0030]). Additionally, Compere discloses adding beryllium to the molten salt provides the advantages of controlling the oxidation state and chromium content of the fuel (p. 10: “an analysis for the oxidation of the fuel resulted in a U3+/U4+ value of 0.1%. Because values nearer 1% were desired, additions of metallic beryllium as rod (or powder) were made”, p. 13: “Beryllium was added to halt a rise in the chromium content of the fuel”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use a beryllium reducing agent, as taught by Kruizenga, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Compere in order to remove corrosive impurities, as suggested by Kruizenga, and to control the oxidation state and chromium content of the fuel, as suggested by Compere, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 18, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 14. Compere discloses the fission products include molybdenum (Table 5.1). As best understood by Examiner, a molten salt having molybdenum fission products (such as Compere’s molten salt) would include cationic molybdenum4 (see also [0051] of the instant specification). The modified Compere does not appear to teach the redox reaction involves neutral beryllium. However, Benson teaches the material comprising the metallic structure may be selected based on the desired reactants that react with the metallic structure ([0055]). Kruizenga (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a molten salt product extraction system comprising a reducing agent (121) in contact with a molten salt ([0026], [0030]), wherein the product extraction system is operable to capture products in the molten salt by a chemical redox reaction between the reducing agent and the products without application of electrical potential to the metallic structure ([0030]). Kruizenga teaches the reducing agent comprises neutral beryllium which participates in the redox reaction ([0006], [0030], [0032]). Kruizenga further teaches using beryllium as a reducing agent allows for the removal of corrosive impurities from the molten salt ([0026], [0028]-[0030]). Additionally, Compere discloses adding beryllium to the molten salt provides the advantages of controlling the oxidation state and chromium content of the fuel (p. 10: “an analysis for the oxidation of the fuel resulted in a U3+/U4+ value of 0.1%. Because values nearer 1% were desired, additions of metallic beryllium as rod (or powder) were made”, p. 13: “Beryllium was added to halt a rise in the chromium content of the fuel”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use a neutral beryllium reducing agent (which participates in the redox reaction with the fission products), as taught by Kruizenga, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Compere in order to remove corrosive impurities, as suggested by Kruizenga, and to control the oxidation state and chromium content of the fuel, as suggested by Compere, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Claim 21, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere in view of Benson and Dodson further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 21, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32, but does not appear to teach the metallic structure comprises tungsten, platinum, molybdenum, or palladium. However, as discussed above, Dodson teaches providing the reducing agent as a coating allows for the consumption of the coating rather than the metallic structure itself ([0037]-[0040]). Liu is similarly directed towards a fission product extraction system operable to capture fission products (“fission products”, “FPs”, “La(III)”) in a molten salt by redox reaction with a metallic structure (“inert W electrode”) at least partially coated in a reducing agent (e.g., Zn) which participates in the redox reaction (Abstract, p. 206: “actinides along with active fission products (FPs) are anodically dissolved into the LiCl-KCl eutectic.... FPs gradually accumulated in the electrolyte.... To maintain efficient separation of [actinides] over FPs, the melt must be regularly purified or regenerated”, p. 214: “La(III) cations in the LaCl3-LiCl-KCl-ZnCl2 melts could be reduced on the Zn-coated W electrode by forming different La-Zn intermetallic compounds”). Liu teaches the metallic structure comprises tungsten (W) (Abstract). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the modified Compere’s metallic structure comprise tungsten because Liu teaches tungsten (W) is a suitable material for an inert metallic structure (Abstract). Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to have the metallic structure comprise tungsten, platinum, molybdenum, or palladium since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see also Benson, [0055]). See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 25-26, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere in view of Benson and Dodson further in view of US Patent No. 5,702,228 (“Tamai”).
Regarding claims 25-26, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32. Benson teaches the metallic structure and the removable rod pass through a capture system pipe into the pipe (FIGS. 2-3) and the removable rod is part of a robotic mechanism for moving the metallic structure ([0024]), but does not appear to teach a capture system valve as recited in claim 25. Tamai (newly cited) (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a robotic mechanism (51) for moving a structure from a first chamber (50) to a second chamber (40, 60, 70) (5:34-45). Tamai teaches the first chamber is provided with a valve (82, 83, 84) configured to enable passage of the robotic arm when in an open position (5:1-7, 6:36-49, 12:53-56). Tamai further teaches the valve allows for the isolation and separation of the different chambers (5:1-9, 6:25-59, 8:12-15). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to provide a valve on the modified Compere’s capture system pipe for the predictable purpose of selectively isolating the various pipes, as taught by Tamai.
Claim 27, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere in view of Benson and Dodson further in view of US Patent No. 3,640,845 (“Ripley”).
Regarding claim 27, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32, but does not appear to teach a salt barrier as recited in claim 27. Ripley (newly cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) is similarly directed towards a movable rod (10) which moves within a pipe (11) for use in a nuclear reactor system comprising a molten salt (Abstract). Ripley teaches a salt barrier (22, 24) is connected to the removable rod, wherein the salt barrier is a nonpermeable disk having a diameter about a size of a diameter of the pipe (2:74-3:17, 3:53-57). Ripley further teaches the salt barrier provides the advantages of preventing fluid leakage (3:10-17). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a salt barrier as taught by Ripley in the modified Compere’s system for the predictable purpose of preventing leakage of molten salt (see Ripley, 3:10-17).
Claims 29-30, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compere in view of Benson and Dodson further in view of US Publication No. 2016/0189806 (“Cheatham”).
Regarding claims 29-30, Compere in view of Benson and Dodson teaches the system of claim 32, but appears to be silent as to the material of the removable rod. However, it was known in the art to form structures exposed to molten salts of a ceramic material. For example, Cheatham (newly cited) is similarly directed towards a molten salt reactor system and teaches ceramics as suitable materials for use in molten salt nuclear reactors (Abstract, [0044]; the instant specification discloses ceramics as a suitable non-conducting material at [0065]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to have the modified Compere’s removable rod, which is exposed to molten salt, formed of a non-conducting, ceramic material because Cheatham teaches ceramics as suitable materials for use in molten salt nuclear reactors. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to have the removable rod formed of a ceramic since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, but have created new issues as discussed above.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Compere discloses a generic molten salt reactor system; Benson establishes that including a fission product extraction system including a pipe and a metallic structure connected to a removable rod provides the advantages of removing and purifying fission products from molten salt ([0001], [0048], [0051], [0053]-[0055], [0059], [0065]); Liu further establishes that a coated metallic structure may be used for the predictable purpose of extracting lanthanum (Abstract, pp. 206, 214). Accordingly, the combination of Compere with Benson’s fission product extraction system and Liu’s coated metallic structure results in the features as recited in claim 14.
Applicant further argues “Benson explicitly and repeatedly teaches that its system operates via an electrochemical reaction that requires application of an electrical potential to the electrode” (Remarks, pp. 9-10). However, as noted in the prior Office action and further above, Benson explicitly teaches (emphasis added): “In some embodiments, an electrical potential may not be required” and “In some embodiments, the electric potential between the electrodes may vary from as low as 0 volts to as high as 6 volts” ([0054]). Thus, Benson teaches the redox reaction may be realized without application of an electrical potential.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_Principles_of_Modern_Chemistry_(Oxtoby_et_al.)/Unit_4%3A_Equilibrium_in_Chemical_Reactions/17%3A_Electrochemistry/17.1%3A_Electrochemical_Cells#:~:text=In%20any%20electrochemical%20process%2C%20electrons,1%20.
2 https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_Principles_of_Modern_Chemistry_(Oxtoby_et_al.)/Unit_4%3A_Equilibrium_in_Chemical_Reactions/17%3A_Electrochemistry/17.1%3A_Electrochemical_Cells#:~:text=In%20any%20electrochemical%20process%2C%20electrons,1%20.
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_products_(by_element)
4 Clark, Austin David, et al. "Complexation of Mo in FLiNaK molten salt: insight from ab initio molecular dynamics." The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 125.1 (2020): 211-218.
Prosecution Insights