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 .
Claim Status
1. Claims 1-9 are pending and examined herein.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "160" and "170" have both been used to designate reduction coil 150. 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. 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 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 1-9 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 1, the preamble is directed to “a noise reduction apparatus” for “a control rod position indicator for measuring a position of a control rod.” However, the body of the claim recites “a control rod driving shaft connected to the control rod” and “a drive unit,” both of which are components of a control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) as well as “a solenoid,” which is a component of a control rod position indicator. It appears that the “reduction coil” is the “noise reduction apparatus” of the preamble. Thus, the body of the claim is inconsistent with the preamble. The body of the claim is directed to a control rod drive mechanism comprising a noise reduction apparatus, while the preamble is directed to the subcombination noise reduction apparatus alone. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained.
5. Further regarding claim 1 and additionally regarding claims 5 and 8, the recited terms “reduction coil,” “magnetic shielding coil,” and “permeability control coil” are indefinite because there is no clear structure associated with the coils. At a minimum, Further, the specification does not define the structure associated with the claimed coils. In claim 1, the reduction coil is defined functionally, but there is no indication of what structure the reduction coil must possess to result in the recited function? Would any coil provide this function? Does the coil need to be made of a particular material or need to have a specific shape to achieve this function? Does it need to be positioned in a particular relative arrangement to achieve this function? Does it need specific structure and positioning to achieve the function? Thus, one cannot ascertain whether a given coil falls within the scope of the claim limitations or is excluded therefrom. Regarding claims 5 and 8, it is unclear whether the claimed apparatus must comprise both a reduction coil and a magnetic shielding coil or a permeability control coil or whether claims 5 and 8 further limit the reduction coil already introduced. It is further unclear what would structurally differentiate a magnetic shielding coil from a reduction coil or a permeability control coil from a reduction coil. How can one ascertain whether a given coil meets the recited limitations?
6. Regarding claim 2, the recitation “wherein one solenoid extending in a longitudinal direction is provided” is unclear. Claim 1 already introduces a solenoid. Does claim 2 introduce a second solenoid? Does it further limit the structure of the solenoid already introduced?
7. Regarding claims 6, 7, and 8, the recitations “wherein no current is applied…” “wherein a current having…is applied…” and “a direct current (DC) current is applied…” are indefinite because it is unclear what structure falls within the scope of the limitations. The recitations appear to be directed to a process of using the claimed apparatus rather than to a particular structural feature.
8. Any claim not explicitly mentioned above is rejected because it depends on a rejected claim.
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.
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 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.
9. Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorel et al., US 3,050,943 in view of Hong, KR-101659822-B1.
10. Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Thorel discloses a control rod drive mechanism (see Figs. 1 and 3) comprising a control rod driving shaft (22) connected to a control rod (Fig. 3see column 1, lines 10-24) and configured to move in an up-and-down direction (column 2, lines 27-32); a drive unit including a driving coil (28, 30) surrounding an outside of the control rod driving shaft and configured to move the control rod driving shaft (column 5 lines 60-67; column 6, line 59 through column 7, line 60) ; a solenoid (72) spaced apart from the drive unit and surrounding the outside of the control rod driving shaft, wherein inductance of the solenoid changes due to a movement of the control rod driving shaft (column 5, lines 25-37).
Thorel does not disclose a reduction coil. Hong teaches a noise reduction apparatus for a control rod position indicating mechanism (see Fig. 3) comprising a solenoid (S0) wherein inductance of the solenoid changes due to a movement of the control rod driving shaft ([0046]) and a reduction coil (S1) configured to reduce noise transmitted from the driving coil to the solenoid (based on its position below the solenoid S1, it appears to be capable of this function).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reduction coil taught by Hong to the apparatus of Thorel for the predictable purpose of correcting for temperature influence on the solenoid ([0052]).
12. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hong with Thorel makes claim 1 obvious. Thorel discloses a plurality of position indicating coils 72. Hong teaches one solenoid (s0) extending in a longitudinal direction and the one solenoid continuously measures a position of the control rod driving shaft through changes in the inductance of the one solenoid ([0040]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the continuous solenoid taught by Hong to the control rod drive mechanism of Thorel because Hong teaches that such a solenoid is more reliable ([0043]).
13. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hong with Thorel makes claim 1 obvious. Thorel further discloses wherein the control rod driving shaft comprises a magnetic material and the inductance of the solenoid changes in response to the movement of the control rod driving shaft (column 5, lines 25-34).
14. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hong with Thorel makes claim 1 obvious. Hong further teaches wherein the reduction coil is provided between the solenoid and the driving coil (see Fig. 3 of Hong as compared to Fig. 3 of Thorel). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine Hong with Thorel for the reason stated above.
15. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hong with Thorel makes claim 1 obvious. Thorel further discloses wherein the drive unit includes a driving motor (80) comprising an electromagnet, and the driving coil surrounds the driving motor (see Fig. 1 and column 6, lines 60-66).
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.
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 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