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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 08/13/2024 have been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0035] refers to arrow 80, however the figure shows arrow 88; Additionally, the grammar of final sentence of the paragraph is improper/incomplete.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…a shielding structure that is disposed on an entire surface of the base structure and internal of which is filled with water.”, which does not make sense upon plain reading; However, in view of Applicant’s specification, Examiner believes the meaning is not indefinite, but that it should nevertheless be clarified, e.g., ‘…a shielding structure that is disposed on an entire surface of the base structure, wherein an internal of the shielding structure is filled with water.’, or some similar grammatically complete form;
Claim 9 recites “…an installation surface formed below…”, however, claim 9 depends on claim 8, which in turn depends on claim 1, which already recites an installation surface; Based on Examiner’s understanding of Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner believes this limitation should read ‘the installation surface, the installation surface being formed…’, as it appears to refer to the same installation surface;
Claim 11 recites “…a reactor vessel that surrounds to cover the core fuel and to shield a space having the core fuel for shielding against ionizing radiation…”, which is unclear upon plain reading; However, based on Examiner’s understanding of Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner believes the limitation is not indefinite, but nevertheless be rephrased for clarity, e.g., ‘…a reactor vessel that surrounds the core fuel and shields against ionizing radiation from a space having the core fuel…’, or some similar alternative; Additionally, the claim recites “…a thermal conductor that is provided to at least a part of the reactor vessel, and transfers heat inside the reactor vessel to external through solid thermal conduction…”, which is somewhat unclear because of the wording ‘to external through solid thermal conduction’; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, is should nevertheless be clarified, e.g., ‘…a thermal conductor that is provided to at least a part of the reactor vessel, and transfers heat inside the reactor vessel to external to the reactor vessel through solid thermal conduction…’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7, 10-11 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.
Claim 3 recites “the shielding structure stores therein a polymer compound that absorbs water.”. It is unclear whether this claim is directed toward functionality or method steps. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. It is unclear how method steps can limit an apparatus/structure itself, other than by limiting physical capabilities/functionality thereof. However, the recited limitation do not make clear whether the limitations are directed toward capabilities or method step. Accordingly, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purposes of examination, these claim limitations are interpreted as requiring only the physical elements of the instrument, any required relative positioning to achieve the claimed method steps, and any required physical capabilities of the elements necessary to achieve the method steps claimed. See specific adopted interpretations in claim mapping.
Claim 7 similarly recites “…a tank that is connected to the filling mechanism, and supplies the water into the shielding structure.”, which appears to recite a method step and is indefinite for similar reasons, and interpreted similarly. Additionally, ‘into the shielding structure’ is indefinite, because the claims previously require the filling mechanism being the element that supplies the water into the shielding structure. Accordingly, it would appear the limitation should read ‘…into the filling mechanism.’, and the claim is interpreted as such.
Claim 10 similarly recites “…and generates power using heat generated in the reactor.”, which appears to recite a method step and is indefinite for similar reasons, and interpreted similarly.
Claim 11 similarly recites “…and transfers heat inside the reactor vessel to external through solid thermal conduction…”, “…a refrigerant circuit that circulates the refrigerant passing through the heat exchanger…”, and “a turbine that is rotated by the refrigerant circulating through the refrigerant circuit; and a generator that is rotated integrally with the turbine.”, each of which appears to recite a method step and is indefinite for similar reasons, and interpreted similarly. Additionally, the claim recites “…a heat exchanger that enables the thermal conductor to exchange heat with refrigerant…”, which should read ‘…a heat exchanger that enables the thermal conductor to exchange heat with a refrigerant…’, else ‘the refrigerant’ later in the claim is indefinite, as no particular refrigerant is otherwise required. Finally, the claim requires “…a refrigerant circuit that circulates the refrigerant passing through the heat exchanger…”, however, the refrigerant is not previously required to pass through the heat exchanger, nor circulate within the heat exchanger, nor is any element required to have such a capability. As such it is not clear what is required by the claim, and it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as though the claim previously recites ‘a heat exchanger that enables the thermal conductor to exchange heat with a refrigerant in the heat exchanger’, and this limitation recites ‘the refrigerant in the heat exchanger’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the -alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tanaka (JPO Doc. No. JP H09281270 A).
Examiner notes that Tanaka is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 09/20/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a nuclear reactor shielding facility for shielding a nuclear reactor installed on an installation surface by enclosing the nuclear reactor (See Fig. 1, item 1 on installation surface 18; Title, Abstract; [0001]; [0006]-[0010]), the nuclear reactor shielding facility comprising:
a base structure that is disposed around an outer surface of the nuclear reactor except for the installation surface (See Figs. 1-3, item 17 or 2, and in particular 2b; [0012]), and encloses an entire surface of the nuclear reactor except for the installation surface (See Figs. 1-3, item 2, and in particular 2b; [0012]); and
a shielding structure that is disposed on an entire surface of the base structure and internal of which is filled with water (See Figs. 1-3, item 2, and in particular 2a; [0012]-[0017]).
For completeness:
Examiner notes that the Figures of Tanaka do not show the water containing portion of the shielding structure being disposed on an entire surface of the base surface, however, the claim at present requires only that the structure is disposed on an entire surface of the base structure, not that the internal portion that contains water must be disposed on an entire surface of the base structure. Additionally, it is Examiner’s opinion that Tanaka’s disclosure that “The reactor pressure vessel 1 is housed inside the outer shell 2a and the inner shell 2b.”, combined with the non-limiting nature of the figures, would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the limitation would be disclosed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Nevertheless, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the water containing portion (i.e., shielding portion) to cover the entire base surface, rather than just the structure itself, as it amounts to a mere extension of the exact technique and structure used by Tanaka, in a predictable fashion, in order to achieve predictable results.
Doing so would allow one to ensure adequate shielding, as disclosed as desirable by Tanaka as cited above.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear reactor shielding facility according to claim 1.
Tanaka further teaches wherein the shielding structure is disposed on an opposite surface of the base structure, the opposite surface being an opposite side of a surface facing the reactor (See Figs. 1-3, item 2a on opposite side of 2b from reactor 1).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear reactor shielding facility according to claim 1.
Tanaka further teaches wherein the shielding structure includes water filled inside a container that is made of metal ([0006]-[0007]; [0012]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear reactor shielding facility according to claim 1.
Tanaka further teaches wherein the shielding structure includes a filling mechanism capable of being opened and closed and of supplying water into the shielding structure (See Figs. 1-3, aperture 3, pipe 5 or 7 or 8, valves 19, 20, reservoir 6; [0012]-[0017], and in particular [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear reactor shielding facility according to claim 6.
Tanaka further teaches further comprising a tank that is connected to the filling mechanism, and supplies the water into the shielding structure (See Figs. 1-3, reservoir 6; [0012]-[0017], and in particular [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka further teaches a nuclear facility (See Figs. 1-4; Title; Abstract; [0001]-[0010]) comprising:
a nuclear reactor (See Figs. 1-3, item 1; [0001]-[0010]; [0012]); and
the nuclear reactor shielding facility according to claim 1 (See claim 1 for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka teaches a nuclear reactor shielding facility construction method (Title; Abstract; [0001]-[0010], and in particular [0008]) comprising:
installing a base structure around a nuclear reactor installed on an installation surface (See Figs. 1-3, item 17 or 2, and in particular 2b, on surface 18; [0012]; Inherently installed at some point to achieve the arrangement);
disposing a container on an entire surface of the base structure (See Figs. 1-3, item 2, made of items 2a, 2b, with 2b, that contains water, surrounding 2a; [0012]-[0017]; The equivalent of the container is disposed on the surface of the base structure, and thus must have at some point been disposed); and
filling water inside the container (See Figs. 2-3; [0015]-[0017]).
For completeness:
Examiner notes that the Figures of Tanaka do not show the water containing portion of the shielding structure being disposed on an entire surface of the base surface, however, the claim at present requires only disposing the container on an entire surface of the base structure, not that the internal portion that contains water must be disposed on an entire surface of the base structure. Additionally, it is Examiner’s opinion that Tanaka’s disclosure that “The reactor pressure vessel 1 is housed inside the outer shell 2a and the inner shell 2b.”, combined with the non-limiting nature of the figures, would indicate to an ordinarily skilled artisan that the limitation would be disclosed under the BRI.
Nevertheless, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the water containing portion (i.e., shielding portion) to cover the entire base surface, rather than just the structure itself, as it amounts to a mere extension of the exact technique and structure used by Tanaka, in a predictable fashion, in order to achieve predictable results.
Doing so would allow one to ensure adequate shielding, as disclosed as desirable by Tanaka as cited above.
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.
Claims 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPO Doc. No. JP H09281270 A) in view of Sakurai (JPO Doc. No. JP H10300880 A).
Examiner notes that Sakurai is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 09/20/2024.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear reactor shielding facility according to claim 1.
Tanaka does not teach wherein the shielding structure stores therein a polymer compound that absorbs water (Interpreted as requiring a shielding structure capable of storing a polymer compound that absorbs water).
Sakurai teaches wherein the shielding structure stores therein a polymer compound that absorbs water ([0003]-[0013]; The disclosed resin that absorbs water is interpreted as a polymer compound).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include wherein the shielding structure stores therein a polymer compound that absorbs water, as taught by Sakurai.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a prior art technique to controllably add water to the shielding device such that the water is spread within the cavities to provide particle shielding as disclosed in [0005], [0007]-[0013], and would allow one to obtain the benefits described therein regarding the control of the water within the shield, which would have predictable results if conceptually applied to Tanaka.
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear reactor shielding facility construction method according to claim 12.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein the container is filled with water-absorbing polymer compound, as well as water.
Sakurai teaches wherein the container is filled with water-absorbing polymer compound, as well as water ([0003]-[0013]; The disclosed resin that absorbs water is interpreted as a polymer compound).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include wherein the container is filled with water-absorbing polymer compound, as well as water, as taught by Sakurai.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a prior art technique to controllably add water to the shielding device such that the water is spread within the cavities to provide particle shielding as disclosed in [0005], [0007]-[0013], and would allow one to obtain the benefits described therein regarding the control of the water within the shield, which would have predictable results if conceptually applied to Tanaka.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear reactor shielding facility construction method according to claim 12.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein a water-absorbing polymer compound is filled in the container before the water is supplied.
Sakurai further teaches wherein a water-absorbing polymer compound is filled in the container before the water is supplied ([0009]-[0013], and in particular [0009] which discloses the resin being disposed prior to the water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include wherein a water-absorbing polymer compound is filled in the container before the water is supplied, as taught by Sakurai.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a prior art technique to controllably add water to the shielding device such that the water is spread within the cavities to provide particle shielding as disclosed in [0005], [0007]-[0013], and would allow one to obtain the benefits described therein regarding the control of the water within the shield, which would have predictable results if conceptually applied to Tanaka.
For completeness:
Examiner notes that Ishii (JPO Doc. No. JP 2015125143 A) teaches wherein a water-absorbing polymer compound is filled in the container before the water is supplied ([0077]-[0078]; [0104]-[0106]; See water holding space 5 having water holding/retention material/base 6).
Examiner notes that Ishii is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 09/20/2024.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPO Doc. No. JP H09281270 A), or in the alternative, Tanaka in view of Sakurai (JPO Doc. No. JP H10300880 A).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear reactor shielding facility according to claim 1.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein the shielding structure is divided into a plurality of sections.
However, Tanaka discloses the claimed invention except the plural partitioning of the shielding structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include wherein the shielding structure is divided into a plurality of sections, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
For completeness:
In the alternative, Sakurai teaches wherein the shielding structure is divided into a plurality of sections (See Figs. 1, 3-5, showing plural sections 20A-C; [0007]-[0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include wherein the shielding structure is divided into a plurality of sections, as taught by Sakurai.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a prior art technique to controllably add water to the shielding device such that the water is spread within the cavities to provide particle shielding as disclosed in [0005], [0007]-[0013], and would allow one to obtain the benefits described therein regarding the control of the water within the shield, which would have predictable results if conceptually applied to Tanaka.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPO Doc. No. JP H09281270 A) in view of Reyes (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090129531 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches the nuclear facility according to claim 8.
Tanaka further teaches wherein
the nuclear reactor is disposed on an installation surface (See Figs. 1-3, item 18)
the nuclear reactor shielding facility is disposed on an upper surface of the reactor in the vertical direction (See Figs. 1-3, showing items 2 on an upper surface of the reactor in the vertical direction).
Tanaka does not explicitly teach the nuclear reactor is disposed on an installation surface formed below a ground level in a vertical direction (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, it is Examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the general technique of disposing a reactor partially underground, as is common in the art.
Nevertheless, Reyes teaches the nuclear reactor is disposed on an installation surface formed below a ground level in a vertical direction (See Figs. 1-3; [0006]; [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include the nuclear reactor is disposed on an installation surface formed below a ground level in a vertical direction, as taught by Reyes.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to, in the manner taught by Reyes, to dispose the reactor under ground level, which would have predictable results in the context of Tanaka, of requiring less material to enclose the reactor, thus decreasing costs.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPO Doc. No. JP H09281270 A), as evidenced by Wikipedia Contributors (Wikipedia contributors. "Boiling water reactor." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 8 Feb. 2022. Web. 26 Jun. 2026.).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tanaka, or in the alternative, Tanaka, as modified, teaches facility according to claim 8.
Tanaka further teaches further comprising a generator unit that is disposed inside a space surrounded by the installation surface and the base structure, and generates power using heat generated in the reactor (The final limitation interpreted as requiring the capability to generate power using heat generated in the reactor; See Fig. 4; [0002]-[0004]; Examiner notes that while not explicitly disclosed, a boiling water reactor (BWR) typically operates by creating steam, i.e., using the heat, to drive a turbine to drive a generator to create power, as would be known by an ordinarily skilled artisan, and as evidenced by the prior art titled ‘Boiling Water Reactor’ (Wikipedia Contributors) cited below; Examiner additionally notes that the reactor elements are disclosed as being enclosed by item 2 in the improved embodiment of Tanaka over a conventional BWR).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JPO Doc. No. JP H09281270 A), as evidenced by Wikipedia Contributors (Wikipedia contributors. "Boiling water reactor." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 8 Feb. 2022. Web. 26 Jun. 2026.), in view of Kim (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20200126680 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Tanaka, as evidenced by Wikipedia Contributors, teaches the nuclear facility according to claim 10.
Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein the nuclear reactor includes a core fuel that is solid; and a reactor vessel that surrounds to cover the core fuel and to shield a space having the core fuel for shielding against ionizing radiation, and the generator unit includes a thermal conductor that is provided to at least a part of the reactor vessel, and transfers heat inside the reactor vessel to external through solid thermal conduction; a heat exchanger that enables the thermal conductor to exchange heat with refrigerant; a refrigerant circuit that circulates the refrigerant passing through the heat exchanger; a turbine that is rotated by the refrigerant circulating through the refrigerant circuit; and a generator that is rotated integrally with the turbine (Interpreted as requiring a thermal conductor capable of transferring the heat as required, and interpreted as requiring a refrigerant circuit capable of circulating the refrigerant in the heat exchanger, and interpreted as requiring a turbine that is capable of being rotated by refrigerant circulated by the refrigerant circuit, and as requiring a generator that is configured to rotate integrally with the turbine).
However, these elements pertain to typical BWR elements, and Tanaka discloses the use of BWRs, and thus it is Examiner’s opinion that an ordinarily skilled artisan would view the elements as reasonably disclosed.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches wherein
the nuclear reactor includes
a core fuel that is solid (See Figs. 1-5, item 114; [0085]-[0090]); and
a reactor vessel that surrounds to cover the core fuel and to shield a space having the core fuel for shielding against ionizing radiation (See Figs. 1-5, item 110 around 114; [0085]-[0090]), and
the generator unit includes
a thermal conductor that is provided to at least a part of the reactor vessel, and transfers heat inside the reactor vessel to external through solid thermal conduction (See Figs. 5-7; [0227]-[0255], disclosing solid thermal conduction, the heat being transferred outside the system);
a heat exchanger that enables the thermal conductor to exchange heat with refrigerant (See Figs. 5-7; [0227]-[0255], disclosing solid thermal conduction, the heat being transferred outside the system; See also water circulation in [0085]-[0090] in regards to the basic example in Fig. 1; See also [0151]-[0155]);
a refrigerant circuit that circulates the refrigerant passing through the heat exchanger (See Figs. 1-5, circuits holding the water, including items 111, 120, 20); [0085]-[0090]; [0151]-[0155]);
a turbine that is rotated by the refrigerant circulating through the refrigerant circuit (See Figs. 1-5, item 15; [0085]-[0090]; [0151]-[0159]); and
a generator that is rotated integrally with the turbine ([0085]-[0090]; [0151]-[0159]; and in particular, [0161]; [0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tanaka to include wherein the nuclear reactor includes a core fuel that is solid; and a reactor vessel that surrounds to cover the core fuel and to shield a space having the core fuel for shielding against ionizing radiation, and the generator unit includes a thermal conductor that is provided to at least a part of the reactor vessel, and transfers heat inside the reactor vessel to external through solid thermal conduction; a heat exchanger that enables the thermal conductor to exchange heat with refrigerant; a refrigerant circuit that circulates the refrigerant passing through the heat exchanger; a turbine that is rotated by the refrigerant circulating through the refrigerant circuit; and a generator that is rotated integrally with the turbine (As interpreted above), as taught by Kim.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Kim teaches the necessary elements of such a BWR (specifically PWR) system, and Tanaka teaches the use of an improved/advanced BWR, and the combination of such elements would have predictable results, as the shielding techniques of Tanaka would operate predictably with such a particular reactor system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights