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 .
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 11/25/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 6-12 are pending in the application and examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “an inner tube and an outer tube that covers the inner tube in a circumferential direction at intervals in a radius direction” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. The figures (e.g., FIG. 3C) appear to show the outer tube completely surrounds the inner tube, rather than “at intervals” as recited in the claim. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “a number of nuclear reactors” should be amended to recite “a number of the plurality of nuclear reactors”
Claim 1, fifth to last line: “the plurality of nuclear reactor passes” should be amended to recite “the plurality of nuclear reactors passes”
Claim 7: “at least one of the plurality of nuclear reactors are” should be amended to recite “at least one of the plurality of nuclear reactors is”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-2 and 6-12 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the plurality of nuclear reactors are connected to one steam generator”. It is unclear if the “steam generator” is referring to the previously recited “steam generator that generates steam” or another steam generator. This further renders unclear if the claim is intending to require that each of the nuclear reactors is connected to a steam generator (the system therefore including multiple steam generators), each of the nuclear reactors is connected to a same steam generator (e.g., the system comprises a shared/common steam generator to which each of the nuclear reactors is connected), or another interpretation. Claim 12, which recites “wherein the plurality of nuclear reactors are connected to only one steam generator”, is similarly indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of nuclear reactors and the steam generator are connected by a double pipe”. It is unclear which connection the claim is intending to refer to. For example, it is unclear if the claim is reciting that each of the connection between the plurality of nuclear reactors and steam generator and the connection between the steam generator and the steam turbine, or something else. Alternatively, if the claim is intending to recite that each of the nuclear reactors is connected to “one steam generator” (see discussion above), perhaps the claim is intending to recite “each of the plurality of nuclear reactors is connected to the steam generator by a double pipe”. It is further unclear the structure encompassed by the phrase “double pipe”. It is unclear if the phrase “double pipe” is intending to refer to a double-walled pipe, multiple pipes (e.g., two pipes), or something else.
Claim 1 recites “each pair of nuclear reactors included in the plurality of nuclear reactors is connected to the steam generator via a single joint which is a single double walled pipe connected with a branch pipe being made of double walled pipes connected to each of the nuclear reactors joins together to the single double walled pipe”. This phrase is unclear and appears to be incomplete. It is unclear where one feature ends and another begins. For example, it is unclear which feature is “connected with a branch pipe”, which feature is “made of double walled pipes”, which feature is “connected to each of the nuclear reactors”, and which feature “joins together to the single double walled pipe”. It is further unclear what arrangement is meant by the phrase “joins together to the single double walled pipe”. Do the features join together at the single double walled pipe? Do the features join to the single double walled pipe?
Claim 1 recites “the single double walled pipe and the double walled pipe of the branch pipe are composed of an inner tube and an outer tube that covers the inner tube in a circumferential direction at intervals in a radius direction”. It is unclear a circumferential direction of what feature the phrase “in a circumferential direction” is intending to refer to in the claim. For example, does the outer tube cover an entire outer circumference of the inner tube? Additionally, it is unclear what feature the “intervals” are intervals of in the claim. The term “interval” typically refers to a space between objects or points1. Is the claim intending to recite the outer tube covers only certain portions of the inner tube? This is further unclear in view of the above drawing objection as the figures appear to show the outer tube completely surrounding an outer circumference of the inner tube.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the various recited pipes. The claim recites (A) “each of the plurality of nuclear reactors and the steam generator are connected by a double pipe”, (B) “each pair of nuclear reactors included in the plurality of nuclear reactors is connected to the steam generator via a single joint which is a single double walled pipe connected with a branch pipe being made of double walled pipes connected to each of the nuclear reactors joins together to the single double walled pipe”, (C) “the single double walled pipe and the double walled pipe of the branch pipe are composed of an inner tube and an outer tube that covers the inner tube in a circumferential direction at intervals in a radius direction”, (D) “the inner tube of the branch pipe and the inner tube of the single double walled pipe”, and (E) “the outer tube of the single double walled pipe and the outer tube of the branch pipe”. It is unclear if either or both of the “single double walled pipe” and the “double walled pipe” are referring to the previously recited “double pipe”. It is further unclear if each of the “single double walled pipe” and the “double walled pipe” are composed of an “inner tube” and an “outer tube”. Additionally, the claim in phrase (B) above recites plural “double walled pipes”. It is therefore unclear if the singular “double walled pipe” in phrase (C) above is referring to one of the previously recited “double walled pipes” or another pipe. The above issues further render unclear the relationship between the various recited pipes (e.g., “double pipe”, “single joint”, “single double walled pipe”, “branch pipe”, “double walled pipes”, “double walled pipe”), the nuclear reactors, and the steam generator.
Claim 1 recites “a first temperature gas passing from the nuclear reactor to the steam generator” and “a second temperature gas ... returning from the steam generator to each pair of nuclear reactors included in the plurality of nuclear reactor”. It is unclear if the “nuclear reactor” is referring to one of the previously recited plurality of nuclear reactors, each of the previously recited plurality of nuclear reactors, or another reactor. Additionally, it is unclear if “each pair of nuclear reactors” is intending to refer to the same “pair[s]” previously recited in the claim. It is further unclear the relationship between the “first temperature gas”, “second temperature gas”, and the previously recited “coolant” and “steam”.
Claim 2 recites “the single walled pipes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim. While parent claim 1 previously recites a singular “single double walled pipe” and plural “double walled pipes”, there is no prior recitation of “single walled pipes” in the claims.
Claim 2 recites “an end of the double walled pipes of the branch pipe is connected to the each pair of the nuclear reactor included in the plurality of nuclear reactors”. It is unclear if the claim is intending to recite that an end of each of the double walled pipes is connected to “the each pair” or if, for example, the pipes are configured in a manner such that the pipes all share a same end. It is further unclear what is meant by the phrase “the each pair of the nuclear reactor included in the plurality of nuclear reactors”.
Claim 8 recites “the support structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim. It is unclear if the claim is referring to the “structure” previously recited in parent claim 1, the “second support structure” previously recited in parent claim 7, or another structure.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2 and 11-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Current status and technical description of Chinese 2 x 250 MWth HTR-PM demonstration plant” (“Zhang”) in view of KR Publication No. 10-2011-0090276 (“Suh”).
Citations to Suh refer to the machine translation provided with the PTO-892 dated 06/05/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) discloses a nuclear reactor system (“HTR-PM plant”) comprising:
a plurality of nuclear reactors (“pebble-bed modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactors”, “two-module reactors”) that use coated fuel particles (“coated particles”), a moderator (“graphite”, “moderator”), and a coolant (“helium”, “coolant”) (p. 1212: “HTGRs use helium as coolant and graphite as moderator as well as structural material. Its fuel elements contain thousands of very small ‘coated particles’ which are embedded in a graphite matrix”);
steam generators (“steam generator”) that generate steam from thermal energy extracted from the nuclear reactors (p. 1215: “The blower transfers the reactor heat to the steam generator, where high-pressure super-heated steam is produced which drives the steam turbine”); and
a steam turbine (“steam turbine”) that is connected to the steam generators and converts an energy of the steam into rotational energy (p. 1215: “The blower transfers the reactor heat to the steam generator, where high-pressure super-heated steam is produced which drives the steam turbine”),
wherein each of the plurality of nuclear reactors is connected to one of the steam generators (p. 1215: “Two reactor modules are coupled with two steam generators”; note 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues);
each of the plurality of nuclear reactors is connected to the respective one of the steam generators by a double walled pipe,
a number of nuclear reactors is an even number (e.g., “two-module reactors”), and
each of the double walled pipes is composed of an inner tube and an outer tube that covers the inner tube, and a first temperature gas (note red arrows in FIG. 1) passing from each of the plurality of nuclear reactors to the respective one of the steam generators passes through the respective inner tube, and a second temperature gas (note green arrows in FIG. 1), that has a temperature lower than the first temperature gas, returning from each of the steam generators to the respective nuclear reactor passes through the respective outer tube, and
the nuclear reactors are supported from below by a structure (“concrete cavity”) that allows for horizontal thermal expansion2 (p. 1216: “All three primary loop pressure vessels ... are located in a concrete cavity”; concrete has a positive coefficient of thermal expansion and would therefore allow for at least some horizontal thermal expansion).
Zhang appears to disclose the plurality of nuclear reactors are each connected to separate steam generators (p. 1215: “Two reactor modules are coupled with two steam generators”). In the event the claims are intending to recite the plurality of nuclear reactors are connected to a same shared steam generator, Suh is applied. Suh (previously cited) (see FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a nuclear reactor system (“multi-reactor system”) comprising a plurality of nuclear reactors (100, 110) and a steam generator (400). Suh teaches the plurality of nuclear reactors are connected to a shared steam generator (400) via a single joint (200) connected to the reactors via pipes ([0001], [0019], [0024], [0026]). Suh further teaches this arrangement reduces the unit capacity of the reactor, thereby decreasing the accident potential and costs ([0005]-[0007]), and reduces thermal hydraulic effects due to variations in individual reactor operations, thereby improving efficiency ([0001], [0007], [0031]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to provide a shared steam generator, as taught by Suh, for the safety and performance benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Zhang in order to enhance safety, reduce costs, and improve thermal efficiency, as suggested by Suh, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Suh teaches the nuclear reactor system according to claim 1. Zhang discloses the double walled pipes extend horizontally radially from the steam generator, and an end of each of the double walled pipes is connected to the respective nuclear reactor (FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Suh teaches the nuclear reactor system according to claim 1. Zhang discloses the plurality of nuclear reactors are gas-cooled reactors (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Suh teaches the nuclear reactor system according to claim 1. Suh teaches “a plurality of installed reactors sharing at least one steam supply system” (emphasis added) ([0001]) and “primary cooling water discharged from each of the plurality of nuclear reactors is mixed through the central distributer and supplied to the steam generator” (emphasis added) ([0001]). Thus, Suh’s teaching encompasses a plurality of nuclear reactors connected to only a single shared steam generator. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a number of shared steam generators based on the desired design and capacity of the reactor system (see Suh, [0026]).
Claims 6-8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Suh further in view of JP Publication No. 2019-15397 (“Ikeda”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Suh teaches the nuclear reactor system according to claim 1, but does not appear to teach the structure that allows for horizontal thermal expansion is a free ball bearing. Ikeda (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1-2) teaches supporting structures, such as nuclear reactors, from below by means of a free ball bearing (10) disposed below the nuclear reactor to support the nuclear reactor ([0001]-[0002], [0012], [0016], [0022]). Ikeda further teaches the free ball bearing provides the advantages of preventing damage to the structures by suppressing vibrations, e.g., from earthquakes ([0001]-[0002], [0022]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a free ball bearing support, as taught by Ikeda, in the modified Zhang’s nuclear reactor system for the safety benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Zhang in order to enhance seismic safety, as suggested by Ikeda, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claims 7-8, Zhang in view of Suh teaches the nuclear reactor system according to claim 1, but appears to be silent as to a second support structure for suppressing vibrations caused by earthquakes. Ikeda (see FIGS. 1-2, 6) teaches supporting structures, such as nuclear reactors, by means of a damper (50) that suppresses vibrations caused by earthquakes ([0001]-[0002], [0014], [0016], [0022]). Ikeda further teaches the damper provides the advantages of preventing damage to the structure by suppressing vibrations, e.g., from earthquakes ([0001]-[0002], [0022]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a damper, as taught by Ikeda, in the modified Zhang’s nuclear reactor system for the safety benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Zhang in order to enhance seismic safety, as suggested by Ikeda, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Claim 9, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Suh further in view of US Publication No. 2022/0270770 (“Ganesan”).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Suh teaches the nuclear reactor system according to claim 1. Zhang appears to be silent as to the relative elevation of the steam turbine relative to the nuclear reactor and the steam generator. Ganesan (previously cited) (see FIG. 7) is similarly directed towards a nuclear reactor system comprising a nuclear reactor (10, 82), a steam generator (112), and a steam turbine (120) ([0062]-[0064]. Ganesan teaches the nuclear reactor and the steam generator may be located below the steam turbine ([0064]). A POSA would have found it obvious to apply the arrangement taught by Ganesan to the modified Zhang’s nuclear reactor system and arrange the steam turbine above the nuclear reactor and the steam generator, as taught by Ganesan, as a matter of design choice. This modification would not change the operation of the system and would provide the predictable advantage of reducing the size of the containment. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art and positioning the steam turbine above the nuclear reactor and the steam generator would not modify the operation of the system. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 10, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Suh further in view of US Patent No. 4,610,841 (“Yamada”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Suh teaches the nuclear reactor system according to claim 1, but appears to be silent as to a coolant purification facility. Yamada (previously cited) (see FIGS. 2-3, 7) is similarly directed towards a helium-gas cooled nuclear reactor system (1:7-10). Yamada teaches the system comprises a coolant purification facility (23) that purifies the coolant and cools it (e.g., by removal from the core); a suction pipe (e.g., left portion of element 43 in FIG. 7) that connects the reactor to a suction port of the coolant purification facility; and a discharge pipe (e.g., right portion of element 43 in FIG. 7) that connects the reactor to a discharge port of the coolant purification facility, wherein, if the reactor cannot be cooled to a predetermined standard, the coolant is cooled through the coolant purification facility, and the cooled coolant is supplied again to the reactor (Abstract, 2:60-64, 3:10-16, 4:19-25). Yamada further teaches the coolant purification facility provides the advantages of removing oxidizing components which may otherwise corrode the reactor structures (Abstract, 1:55-66). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a coolant purification facility, as taught by Yamada, in the modified Zhang’s system for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Zhang in order to prevent corrosion, as suggested by Yamada, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior drawing objections as discussed above.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the prior claim objection, but have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant argues “Suh shows that fluid from reactors 100, 110 is mixed and distributed in distributor 200 and supplied to two shared steam generators 400, 410.... Therefore, Suh does not disclose a plurality of steam generators connected to one steam generator” (emphasis in original) (Remarks, p. 7). However, as noted above, the limitation “wherein the plurality of nuclear reactors are connected to one steam generator” is unclear. Further, while claim 1 recites “one steam generator”, the claim does not appear to exclude additional steam generators. Additionally, Suh teaches the number of shared steam generators may be one shared steam generator ([0001], [0026]) and further teaches the number of shared steam generators may vary based on the design and capacity of the reactor system ([0026]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. See MPEP 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
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 Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM-5:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interval
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion