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 without traverse of Group I and species IB in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 8, and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/04/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application. Claims 4, 8, and 9 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are examined herein.
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 1-3 and 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, “a neutron absorber that is allowed to enter from the shielded path” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure the neutron absorbers enter. Further, as claimed, it seems that the neutron absorbers are stored within the shielded path, and are “allowed to enter” another structure “from the opening of the shielded path.” Finally, the recitation “entering inside…” is also indefinite. It is unclear what structure the neutron absorbers are entering, since “from the opening of the shielded path” implies that the shielded path is the origination point and the neutron absorbers are “entering inside” another structure. However, the specification discloses that the neutron absorbers enter the shielded path at its opening from the feeding member 60 (see Fig. 5). Therefore, claim 1 is additionally indefinite because it lacks correspondence with the disclosure (see MPEP 2173.03). Therefore, one would be unable to ascertain the structural relationships between the neutron absorbers, the shielded path, and its opening encompassed by the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the preamble of the claims is directed at a “nuclear reactor shutdown system”, but claims 1 and 2 recite aspects of a nuclear reactor, thus making it unclear whether the claims are directed to the subcombination of the shutdown system alone or to a combination of the shutdown system with a nuclear reactor vessel and core.
Claims 5 and 6 are indefinite because they recite “inward from the opening in the shielded path…,” a limitation that is indefinite for the reasons explained above with respect to claim
The recitation “placed on a side of the shielded path with respect to the piston is” indefinite because it is unclear what relative arrangement of cylinder, neutron absorber, and piston is encompassed by the claim. As this limitation is written, it is further defining the position of the cylinder based on the position of the piston, which provides no referential value as it is contained within the cylinder. The position of the neutron absorbers is only limited to being “housed inside the cylinder”. It is unclear how these parts are arranged relative to one another.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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 –
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arafat (US 20210183530 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Arafat discloses (Figs. 3, 6 and 7) a nuclear reactor shutdown system (104; [0004]) comprising: a shielded path (120) that passes through a reactor core fuel (8) housed in a nuclear reactor vessel in a hermetically sealed manner (see Fig. 2), one end of the shielded path having an opening and another end of the shielded path being closed (see Fig. 6 the shielded path is closed at the other end by 122); a neutron absorber (124) that is allowed to enter from the opening of the shielded path (see Fig. 6); an elastic member (126) that is configured to urge the neutron absorber (124) in a direction entering inside from the opening of the shielded path by being released from a compressed state ([0038]); and a braking part (116) that is disposed so as to maintain the compressed state of the elastic member and is configured to release the elastic member from the compressed state when the braking part reaches or exceeds a threshold temperature ([0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Arafat discloses all the elements of the nuclear reactor shutdown system of claim 1. Arafat further discloses wherein the braking part (116) is formed of a material melting or degenerating at the threshold temperature or higher ([0039]).
Regarding claim 5, Arafat discloses all the elements of the nuclear reactor shutdown system of claim 1. Arafat further discloses the system further comprising a feeding member (118) that is configured to feed the neutron absorber (124) inward from the opening of a shielded path (120) along with the elastic member (126) being released from the compressed state ([0037]).
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US20210142919A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a nuclear reactor shutdown system([0001]) comprising (see Fig. 1):
a shielded path (110) that passes through a reactor core fuel (111) housed in a nuclear reactor vessel (11) in a hermetically sealed manner ([0052]), one end of the shielded path (110) having an opening (125) and another end of the shielded path (110) being closed (see the closed bottom of 110);
a neutron absorber (130) that is allowed to enter from the opening (125) of the shielded path (110 [0049]);
an elastic member (126) that is configured to urge the neutron absorber (130) in a direction entering inside from the opening (125) of the shielded path (110) by being released from a compressed state ([0069]);
and a braking part (140) that is disposed so as to maintain the compressed state of the elastic member (126) and is configured to release the elastic member (126) from the compressed state when the braking part (140) reaches or exceeds a threshold temperature ([0047] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the shutdown system of claim 1 and further discloses a system wherein the braking part (140) is formed of a material melting or degenerating at the threshold temperature or higher ([0055-8]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the shutdown system of claim 1 and further discloses a feeding member (120) that is configured to feed the neutron absorber (130) inward from the opening (125) of the shielded path (110) along with the elastic member (126) being released from the compressed state ([0045]).
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arafat (US 20210183530 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20220148745 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Arafat discloses the shutdown system of claim 1 and but does not teach the remaining limitations of the claim.
Yoshida teaches a nuclear reactor (30) and a heat conduction part (Fig. 3 item 50) that is disposed inside the nuclear reactor vessel (40) and is configured to conduct heat of the reactor core fuel (42a) through solid-state heat conduction ([0054]). One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the shutdown system of Arafat with the reactor of Yoshida because the combination would afford a system designed to actuate inherently, triggered by an adjustable design set point , regardless of coolant type, neutron energy spectrum and size and enables the nuclear reactor to be in IAEA passive safety category for the shutdown system ([0004]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arafat (US 20210183530 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Arafat discloses all the elements of the nuclear reactor shutdown system of claim 5 and further discloses wherein the feeding member (118) includes a cylinder (112) and includes a piston (shown in Fig. 7 below see callout arrow) that is configured to reciprocate inside the cylinder (112) through elastic force of the elastic member (126), and the neutron absorber (124) is housed inside the cylinder (112) placed on a side of the shielded path (120) with respect to the piston (see below) is and is fed inward from the opening of the shielded path (120) by the piston (see below) being urged toward the shielded path (120).
PNG
media_image1.png
279
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Arafat discloses the cylinder having the braking part is disposed at the same end communicating with the opening of the shielded path, but it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the braking part to be disposed at the opposite end of the cylinder from the opening to the shielded path because shifting the location of the braking part within the feeding member would not have modified the actuation motion of the piston and the movement of the neutron absorbers. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 7 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arafat (US 20210183530 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US20210142919A1).
Regarding claim 7, Arafat discloses the shutdown system of claim 6, but do not teach wherein the neutron absorber is a plurality of solid spheres. However, Arafat explicitly states that while the “neutron absorbing material 124 is in the form of a single solid cylindrical rod, however, it is to be appreciated that neutron absorbing material may be of other geometries, sizings or quantities (e.g., multiple elements) without varying from the scope of the present invention” ([0037]).
Kim is in the same nuclear reactor shutdown system art area and teaches a shutdown system wherein the neutron absorber is a plurality of solid spheres (Fig. 4 neutron absorber 130 [0059]). Kim shows that ball-shaped neutron absorbers are an equivalent structure known in the art to rod-shaped neutron absorbers ([0059]). Therefore, because Arafat suggests modification of its single neutron absorber with multiple elements of other geometry ([0037]) and because Kim teaches that these two neutron absorber shapes were art-recognized equivalents prior to the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Kim’s plurality of ball-shaped neutron absorbers for Arafat’s rod-shaped neutron absorbers. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to make this modification because a plurality of loose absorber balls are easier to dispose of than a single, long, solid absorber rod. The plurality of absorber balls can be disposed of in any manner of container or containers.
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
Prosecution Insights