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 and Claim Status
1. Applicant’s election of Invention I, claims 24-38 and 46 in the reply filed on 07/07/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
2. Accordingly, claims 24-46 are pending with claims 39-45 withdrawn. Claims 24-38 and 46 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.
3. Claims 24-38 and 46 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.
4. Regarding claim 24, the phrase “characterized by a frame” is indefinite because it is not clear which of the previously recited elements is characterized by the frame. Further, the functional language associated with the frame seems to indicate that it is a separate structure to which the drive assembly and the fuel unit are both attached. Finally, the “so that” recitations are unclear because they merely recite a description of an effect achieved by the invention, rather than the specific structure or structural relationships that provide the desired result. The recitation “configured to be loaded into and unloaded out of the nuclear reactor as one unit is unclear because the claim as a whole is directed only to the subcombination fuel and control system, not to a nuclear reactor as a whole, and because the term nuclear reactor encompasses a broad range of system elements, and it is unclear to which of such common elements the loading and unloading refers. Finally, the recitation “provides a space for reactivity control movement” is unclear in view of the previous recitation of “for reactivity control.”
Suggested language:
A fuel and control system for a nuclear reactor comprising a pressure vessel, comprising:
a control rod assembly;
a drive assembly attached to the control rod assembly for reactivity control;
a fuel unit; and
a frame surrounding the drive assembly and providing a space inside which the control rod assembly for the reactivity control, wherein the frame is configured to integrate the drive assembly and the fuel unit into a single unit that is configured to be loaded into and unloaded out of the pressure vessel as the single unit.
5. Regarding claim 25, the recited functional limitations are unclear because they fail to adequately delineate the structural relationships between the frame and the drive assembly and the fuel unit. At a minimum, the recitation “lower section” is unclear because it is not indicated whether the first frame attachment counterpart is in an upper section.
Suggested language:
Wherein the frame comprises an upper surface comprising a first frame attachment counterpart attached to the drive assembly and a lower surface attached to the fuel unit.
6. Regarding claim 26, the recitation “the frame height is configured to allow the control rod assembly to travel a travel distance” is unclear in view of the recitation in claim 24 of reactivity control movement. It is unclear if the travel distance is the for the reactivity control movement previously recited or whether it is additional different travel of the control rod assembly.
Suggested language:
…, and the frame height is equal to a travel distance of the control rod assembly during the reactivity control.
7. Regarding claims 27 and 28, the recitations are indefinite because they are purely functional and fail to adequately define particular additional structural limitations of the fuel and control unit that are not present in the fuel assembly of claim 24. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
8. Regarding claim 29, the recitation “further comprising a contact point” is indefinite because it fails to define which previously recited element comprises the contact point. Further, it is unclear what structure the “configured to” recitation imparts to the contact point.
Suggested language (would require cancellation of claim 30):
wherein the frame comprises a contact point for attachment to a reloading machine.
9. Regarding claim 32, the recitation “the drive motor electrical connector is configured to provide porter to a drive motor” is unclear in view of the recitation “drive assembly” of claim 24. Does claim 32 require that a drive motor be present? If so, is it part of the drive assembly or a separate structure?
The examiner suggests:
wherein the drive assembly comprises a drive motor, the frame comprises a drive motor electrical connector and an instrumentation electrical connector, the drive motor electrical connector is configured to provide power to the drive motor, and the instrumentation electrical connector is configured to provide electrical connections to the instrumentation and allow signals to be transmitted from the instrumentation.
10. Regarding claim 33, the recitation “at a first instrumentation guide end” does not indicate at what end of what structure the electrical connector is disposed. Accordingly, the structure denoted by the limitation is unclear.
11. Claim 34 is indefinite because the preamble of the claim is directed to a fuel and control system for a nuclear reactor; i.e., a subcombination. Whereas claim 34 is directed to a combination of the fuel and control system with additional elements, i.e., a combination. Further, the recitation “fuel and control systems” is unclear because claim 24 on which claim 34 depends is directed to a single fuel and control system. Finally, a reactor core, by definition, comprises reactor fuel. How does the reactor recited in claim 34 comprise both a reactor core and one or more other said fuel and control systems”? Accordingly, the scope is unclear.
The examiner suggests:
A nuclear reactor, comprising:
a pressure vessel,
a reactor core region disposed within the pressure vessel, and
a plurality of fuel and control systems according to claim 24 contained in the pressure vessel with the respective fuel units of each fuel and control system disposed in the reactor core region.
12. Regarding claim 35, the recitation is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: between the connector grid plate and the fuel and control systems.
13. Regarding claim 36, the recitation “the fuel and control system” is unclear because claims 1 and 24 on which claim 36 depend introduce a fuel and control system and one or more other fuel and control systems. To which one particular fuel and control system does claim 36 refer? Additionally, there is no antecedent basis for the recitation “the drive motor.” Further the recitations “the connected state” lacks antecedent basis and both this recitation and “a disconnected state” fail to indicate what connection is required to be made in the connected state and absent in the disconnected state.
14. Regarding claim 38, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitations “the drive motor electrical connectors and instrumentation electrical connectors.” These terms were not previously introduced.
15. Regarding claim 46, it is unclear what structural limitation is required to be present in the reactor of claim 33 to result in the recited functional limitation. How would one distinguish a reactor “subject to boron-free operation” from another reactor not subject to such operation?
Claim Interpretation
16. The claims recite limitations that are either method steps of using the claimed apparatus or statements of results desired or achieved by the claimed structure. These limitations, like statements of intended use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the prior art reference(s) as long as the structure of the cited reference is capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2111-2115). As stated in MPEP 2114(II): “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
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.
For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
(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.
17. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walton et al., US 2013/0044850.
18. Regarding claim 24, Walton discloses a fuel and control system for a nuclear reactor ([0012]), comprising: a control rod assembly (72, [0032]), a drive assembly (74), which is attached to the control rod assembly for reactivity control (see Figs. 6 and 7 and [0033]), and a fuel unit (10), characterized by a frame (38), which attaches the drive assembly to the fuel unit and provides a space for reactivity control movement of the control rod assembly so that the frame, the fuel unit, the drive assembly and the control rod assembly are integrated as one unit, and so that the fuel and control system is configured to be loaded into and unloaded out of the nuclear reactor as one unit ([0035]).
19. Claim 24 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aleshin et al., US 2022/0238241.
20. Regarding claim 24, Aleshin discloses a fuel and control system for a nuclear reactor (Figs. 2 and 4, [0002]), comprising: a control rod assembly (104), a drive assembly, which is attached to the control rod assembly for reactivity control (implicitly disclosed at [0025]: there must be a drive assembly that is responsible toe “insertion” of the reactivity control rods into the reactivity control cells), and a fuel unit (102, [0029]), characterized by a frame (“mechanical support system” [0026] comprising 125 and 127), which attaches the drive assembly to the fuel unit and provides a space for reactivity control movement of the control rod assembly so that the frame, the fuel unit, the drive assembly and the control rod assembly are integrated as one unit, and so that the fuel and control system is configured to be loaded into and unloaded out of the nuclear reactor as one unit (see Fig. 2 and [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
21. It appears that at least claims 25 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Additional dependent claims may also contain limitations that differentiate from the applied prior art.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights