DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/849,145, filed on 09/20/2024, which is a 371 of PCT/US2023/016759, filed on 03/29/2023, and which claims priority to United States provisional application number 63/325,915, filed on 03/31/2022. The applicant chose the Korean Intellectual Property Office as the International Searching Authority.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 10/08/2025.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election of Group I, Species A2, B2, C3 (claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 19-22, and 24) in the reply received on 10/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Claims 4, 9, 11-18, and 23 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 19-22, and 24 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Interpretation
Means-plus-function
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 19’s limitation reciting “means for generating electricity from heat received from the nuclear reactor” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “for generating electricity from heat received from the nuclear reactor” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim 19 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: one or more thermal photovoltaic panels.
If the Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, the Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If the Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 19-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOTHA (US 2022/0051825 A1) in view of VENNERI (US 2020/0027587 A1).
Regarding claim 1, BOTHA teaches a nuclear power system, comprising:
a nuclear reactor comprising a core comprising a vessel housing a nuclear fuel that produces radiation (para. 21: “the heat source 102 can be a nuclear reactor system” and “reactor core 104 can include one or more fuel assemblies 105 including fissile and/or other suitable materials”), a high temperature moderator material (“moderator” para. 23) disposed circumferentially about the core, and
a neutron screen disposed circumferentially about the moderator material (“the nuclear reactor 102 can include a reflector 109 positioned around the reactor core 104 that directs neutrons back into the reactor core 104 to further the nuclear reaction taking place therein”, para. 21; applicant’s specification describes that the neutron screen can be a reflector);
one or more thermal photovoltaic panels (TPV cells 120, para. 20) circumferentially arranged around the neutron screen, the one or more thermal photovoltaic panels configured to absorb thermal radiation received from the high temperature moderator material via the neutron screen and to generate electricity therefrom; and
one or more cooling units in thermal communication with the one or more thermal photovoltaic panels, the one or more cooling units being operable to cool the thermal photovoltaic panels (heat pipes 130 thermally coupled to the TPV cells 120 and configured to remove waste heat from the TPV cells 120 to thereby maintain the TPV cells 120 at or below a maximum operating temperature, para. 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
895
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BOTHA explains that it is desirable to minimize the size and weight of power plants for use in portable applications (para. 3). Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify the nuclear power system to make it of minimal size and weight, i.e., portable, for use in portable applications.
BOTHA does not disclose expressly that the high temperature moderator material is in the shape of a “sleeve” disposed circumferentially around the nuclear reactor core.
VENNERI teaches a nuclear reactor fuel comprised of a core and a sleeve (please see the spherical particle illustrated in Fig. 2A, showing a core of TRISO embedded inside a graphite matrix sleeve/shell, and para. 74), reporting the improved ability to retain fission products at elevated temperatures with strong structural integrity.
PNG
media_image2.png
574
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify BOTHA and replace the nuclear reactor fuel with another, such as TRISO core/graphite sleeve composite fuel pellets taught by VENNERI to obtain the improved ability to retain fission products at elevated temperatures with strong structural integrity reported by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the nuclear fuel comprises Triso (VENNERI teaches TRISO).
Regarding claim 3, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the high temperature moderator material comprises graphite (VENNERI teaches graphite).
Regarding claim 5, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more cooling units is an active cooing unit (BOTHA contemplates that the heat removal systems can be either passive or active, para. 45, and thus skilled artisans would find it obvious to try either from among these two finite options).
Regarding claim 6, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more cooling units comprises a water jacket through which water is circulated by a pump (BOTHA, para. 45 describes active pumping of water through a circulation system, interpreted as a “water jacket”).
Regarding claim 7, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more thermal photovoltaic panels is a plurality of thermal photovoltaic panels arranged circumferentially about the neutron screen (BOTHA, Fig. 2 illustrates the TPVs arranged circumferentially around the reactor; the reactor includes the screen).
PNG
media_image3.png
564
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 7, wherein the plurality of thermal photovoltaic panels are spaced apart from the neutron screen (BOTHA, Fig. 2 illustrates that there is space between the reactor 102 and the TPVs).
Regarding claim 10, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 1, further comprising one or more heat pipes disposed in the core and configured to transfer heat toward an outer circumference of the core (BOTHA, first heat pipes 110).
Regarding claim 19, BOTHA teaches a nuclear power system, comprising:
a nuclear reactor comprising
a core comprising a vessel housing a nuclear fuel that produces radiation (para. 21: “the heat source 102 can be a nuclear reactor system” and “reactor core 104 can include one or more fuel assemblies 105 including fissile and/or other suitable materials”),
a high temperature moderator material (“moderator” para. 23) disposed circumferentially about the core, and
a neutron screen disposed circumferentially about the moderator material (“the nuclear reactor 102 can include a reflector 109 positioned around the reactor core 104 that directs neutrons back into the reactor core 104 to further the nuclear reaction taking place therein”, para. 21; applicant’s specification describes that the neutron screen can be a reflector);
means for generating electricity from heat received from the nuclear reactor (TPV cells 120, para. 20); and
one or more cooling units in thermal communication with said means and operable to cool said means (heat pipes 130 thermally coupled to the TPV cells 120 and configured to remove waste heat from the TPV cells 120 to thereby maintain the TPV cells 120 at or below a maximum operating temperature, para. 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
895
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
BOTHA explains that it is desirable to minimize the size and weight of power plants for use in portable applications (para. 3). Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify the nuclear power system to make it of minimal size and weight, i.e., portable, for use in portable applications.
BOTHA does not disclose expressly that the high temperature moderator material is in the shape of a “sleeve” disposed circumferentially around the nuclear reactor core.
VENNERI teaches a nuclear reactor fuel comprised of a core and a sleeve (please see the spherical particle illustrated in Fig. 2A, showing a core of TRISO embedded inside a graphite matrix sleeve/shell, and para. 74), reporting the improved ability to retain fission products at elevated temperatures with strong structural integrity.
PNG
media_image2.png
574
517
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify BOTHA and replace the nuclear reactor fuel with another, such as TRISO core/graphite sleeve composite fuel pellets taught by VENNERI to obtain the improved ability to retain fission products at elevated temperatures with strong structural integrity reported by the prior art.
Regarding claim 20, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 19, wherein the nuclear fuel comprises Triso (VENNERI teaches TRISO).
Regarding claim 21, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 19, wherein the high temperature moderator material comprises graphite (VENNERI teaches graphite).
Regarding claim 22, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 19, wherein the one or more cooling units is chosen from a group consisting of a passive cooling unit, an active cooling unit and a water jacket through which water is recirculated by a pump (BOTHA contemplates that the heat removal systems can be either passive or active, para. 45, and thus skilled artisans would find it obvious to try either from among these two finite options).
Regarding claim 24, modified BOTHA teaches the system of Claim 19, further comprising one or more heat pipes disposed in the core and configured to transfer heat toward an outer circumference of the core (BOTHA, first heat pipes 110).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner