DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 1-18 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first ring fuel pins and the second ring fuel pins have a fuel composition comprising uranium and thorium”. That is, uranium and thorium are required. If uranium is required, then thorium is inherently less than 100 wt %. It follows that the phrase “the thorium wt % . . . is less than 100 wt %” is unclear. It is also unclear how said phrase further limits the structure of the fuel bundle.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bezdedeanu-Neacşa ("Reducing Void Effect in Thorium-Based Advanced Candu Reactors by Using Burnable Absorbers", NUCLEAR 2018).
Claims 1-5, 12, and 18
Bezdedeanu-Neacşa (hereafter “Bezdedeanu”) was cited via IDS. Bezdedeanu teaches first ring fuel pins and the second ring fuel pins having a fuel composition comprising uranium and thorium. The thorium wt % differs in the rings. The uranium wt % differs in the rings. The 235U enrichment in the fuel pins in each ring is less than or equal to 20%. For example, the enrichment can be at least 6%. Particularly note Bezdedeanu at pages 26-27.
Claims 8-9
Bezdedeanu teaches the first ring fuel pins comprise burnable poison (e.g., page 35).
Claim 10
Bezdedeanu teaches the central fuel pin has a fuel composition comprising uranium and thorium (e.g., page 30).
Claim 11
Bezdedeanu teaches the central fuel pin and each of the first ring fuel pins comprise burnable poison (e.g., page 35).
Claims 14-15
Bezdedeanu teaches the thorium wt % in each first ring fuel pin is 50 - 70 wt %. The thorium wt % in each second ring fuel pin is 60 - 90 wt %. The thorium wt % in each third ring fuel pin is 75 - 99 wt %. Particularly note Bezdedeanu at page 27, which shows using 60% for first ring, 60% for second ring, and 80% for third ring.
Claim 16
Bezdedeanu teaches enrichments of at least 6% and/or of at least 8%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezdedeanu-Neacşa as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chaplin ("Genealogy of CANDU reactors", The Essential CANDU-A textbook on the CANDU Nuclear Power Plant Technology, Chapter 2 (2016) pages 1-40).
Chaplin shows that it is well known in the art to employ a fuel pellet diameter of at least 1.1 cm (e.g., page 22). One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a fuel pellet can be implemented with various diameters, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain diameters in light of the specific nuclear reactor design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed Bezdedeanu with a fuel pellet having a diameter of at least 1.1 cm, as suggested by Chaplin, to meet a particular reactor design. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezdedeanu-Neacşa as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim (KR20110134271A).
Kim shows (Figure 7) that it is well known in the art to have a fuel pellet (51) comprising uranium and thorium, where the pellet has a through-hole. The hollow pellet (51) has an outer side (52) and an inner side (53). It is well known in the art that a hollow center can be used to enhance control of peak operating temperatures and/or providing space for released gases. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed Bezdedeanu with a fuel pellet having a hollow interior, as suggested by Kim, for the advantages thereof. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent 12,080,436. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited invention includes characteristics which are substantially met in the claims of the Patent. The pending claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the Patent.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not correspond to the recited elected invention. The current Abstract is not directed to that which the current claims pertain (e.g., A fresh fuel bundle comprising a first ring of fuel pins and a second ring of fuel pins. Each ring fuel pin has a fuel composition comprising uranium and thorium. The first ring fuel pins differ from the second ring fuel pins in each of thorium wt% and uranium wt%). An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Additional Comment
Claims 13 and 17, as best understood, have not been rejected based on prior art. Nevertheless, it should be understood that clarification of the application (via claim amendment) may necessitate a future prior art rejection thereof.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Application Status Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
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 Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights