DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 4/23/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: i) certain claims are generic to both species; and ii) the Office failed to explain why Species A and B differ. Upon further review, the examiner agrees with i) in that the claims in question (claims 25-27, 32-36, and 40-44) are generic to both species because the claims recite a “waste stream” without specifying the type. With respect to argument ii), this is not found persuasive because applicant admits to distinct streams of produced water and off-gas as different types of waste streams. Claims 28, 29, and 37 clearly claim functional units and gas processing systems that are mutually exclusive from the produced water treatment units and system.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 28, 29, and 37 are hereby withdrawn from consideration as directed towards a non-elected species.
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 25-27, 30-36, and 38-44 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.
Claim 25, line 7 recites the limitation "said one or more functional modules" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “higher use” in claim 25, line 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, “higher use” has little to no patentable weight as it is unclear as to what types of uses are covered. Any use therefore may be considered a higher use for purposes of examination.
Claim 34, line 6 recites the limitation "said one or more functional modules" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “higher use” in claim 34, line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, “higher use” has little to no patentable weight as it is unclear as to what types of uses are covered. Any use therefore may be considered a higher use for purposes of examination.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 25-27, 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSANG ET AL (US 2024/0409483) alone.
With respect to claim 25, TSANG ET AL discloses a deployable plant 108 (Fig. 1) configured for remote deployment and redeployment to multiple locations, the deployable plant comprising a deployable nuclear reactor system 700, 750 configured to produce a heat output using fission reactions therein; and one or more functional units (Figs. 1-2) coupled to the deployable nuclear reactor system, and deployable therewith, and configured to use the heat output therefrom to support, at least partially within or on said one or more functional modules, (i) treatment of a waste stream 114 and (ii) repurposing of said waste stream into a higher use (Fig. 1, after 114). See additionally Figs. 7 and 9.
However, TSANG ET AL fails to explicitly teach (ii) repurposing of said waste stream into a higher use as specifically claimed. As best understood by the examiner, it would be considered an obvious teaching from [0038] “the IES 100 may produce waste products 114 including low concentration salt water (e.g., 3.5% Sodium Chloride (NaCl)) and contaminants separated from the Carbon Dioxide (CO.sub.2) from the emission source 106, such as particulates, sulfur oxides, and other gases. In embodiments, the waste products 114 may be recycled within the IES 100. In some cases, all, or a portion of any one of the waste products 114 may be stored, sold to consumers, further treated for safe disposal, and/or safely released into the environment.” As mentioned in par. 3 above, any use may be considered a “higher” use as claimed.
With respect to claim 26, TSANG ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the waste stream is from a subsurface hydrocarbon well ([0016 -0017] petroleum and oil refining).
With respect to claim 27, TSANG ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the subsurface hydrocarbon well is one subsurface hydrocarbon well of a cluster of subsurface hydrocarbon wells, and the waste stream is from, collectively, the cluster of subsurface hydrocarbon wells ([0016 -0017], [0038] multiple industrial processes and resource production plants 108).
With respect to claim 30, TSANG ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the waste stream comprises a produced water stream from the subsurface hydrocarbon well, and the one or more functional units comprises a deployable produced water treatment unit coupled to the deployable nuclear reactor system, and deployable therewith, and configured to use said heat output therefrom to support, at least partially within or on said deployable produced water treatment unit, (i) treatment of the produced water stream and (ii) repurposing of the produced water stream into a treated water stream. See Fig. 1 and [0038].
With respect to claim 31, TSANG ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the treated water stream comprises a desalinated water stream derived from the produced water stream and suitable, post-treatment from the deployable produced water treatment unit, for municipal use [0025-0027].
With respect to claim 32, TSANG ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the deployable nuclear reactor system is configured to fit entirely on a single truck for transport via public roads and highways [0077-0078].
With respect to claim 33, TSANG ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the single truck comprises a deployable nuclear reactor truck, the deployable nuclear reactor truck is one truck of a fleet of trucks, the fleet of trucks, collectively, is configured to cause said remote deployment and redeployment to said multiple locations, and further comprises a functional unit truck, and the one or more functional units is configured to fit entirely on said functional unit truck for transport via public roads and highways [0077-0078].
Claim(s) 34-36, 38-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL (US 2024/0309665).
With respect to claim 34, TSANG ET AL discloses the deployable plant as stated above. However, TSANG ET AL fails to explicitly teach: a first moveable skid coupled with the deployable nuclear reactor system; and a second moveable skid coupled with the one or more functional unit, wherein the first and second moveable skids are configured to move the deployable nuclear reactor system and the one or more functional units, respectively, to first location, and subsequently, to a second location, using a fleet of trucks as claimed. TSANG ET AL does teach the system being mobile and able to be placed at any number of sites [0077-0078], but does not specify how the movement of such system is accomplished.
BASS ET AL teaches a modular nuclear reactor system that includes skids 102 for transporting nuclear reactor system by truck [0031], as well as functional modules [0058].
It would be considered an obvious expedient to transport the reactor system on a skid as well as a functional unit on another skid in order to transport the parts to the area to be installed/used.
With respect to claim 35, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein at the first location, the waste stream is from a first subsurface hydrocarbon well, and at the second location, the waste stream is from a second subsurface hydrocarbon well (TSANG ET AL: Fig. 1 and [0038]).
With respect to claim 36, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the first subsurface hydrocarbon well is one subsurface hydrocarbon well of a first cluster of subsurface hydrocarbon wells associated with first location, and the second subsurface hydrocarbon well is another subsurface hydrocarbon well of a second cluster of subsurface hydrocarbon wells associated with the second location (TSANG ET AL: Fig. 1 and [0038]).
With respect to claim 38, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein at the first location, the waste stream comprises a first produced water stream from the first subsurface hydrocarbon well, at the second location, the waste stream comprises a second produced water stream from the second subsurface hydrocarbon well, and the one or more functional units comprises a deployable produced water treatment unit coupled to the deployable nuclear reactor system, and deployable therewith, and configured to use said heat output therefrom to support, at least partially within or on said deployable produced water treatment unit, at the first location, (i) treatment of the first produced water stream and (ii) repurposing of the first produced water stream into a first treated water stream, and at the second location, (iii) treatment of the second produced water stream and (iv) repurposing of the second produced water stream into a second treated water stream. (TSANG ET AL: Fig. 1 and [0038])
With respect to claim 39, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the first treated water stream comprises a first desalinated water stream derived from the first produced water stream and suitable, post-treatment from the deployable produced water treatment unit, for a first municipal use associated with the first location, and the second treated water stream comprises a second desalinated water stream derived from the second produced water stream and suitable, post-treatment from the deployable produced water treatment unit, for a second municipal use associated with the second location (TSANG ET AL: [0025-0027]).
With respect to claim 40, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious a method for deploying a deployable plant, the method comprising providing the deployable plant of claim 34 to a first location, and moving the deployable plant from the first location to the second location (see above rejection of claim 34, and additionally TSANG ET AL: [0077-0078]; BASS ET AL: [0031], [0058]).
With respect to claim 41, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the second location is remote from the first location (TSANG ET AL: [0077-0078]; BASS ET AL: [0031], [0058]).
With respect to claim 42, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the method further comprises operating the deployable plant at the first location for a period of time, and the moving of the deployable plant occurs upon conclusion of said period time (TSANG ET AL: [0077-0078]; BASS ET AL: [0031], [0058]).
With respect to claim 43, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the deployable nuclear reactor comprises one of a molten salt reactor, a super critical water reactor, a liquid sodium cooled reactor, a gas cooled reactor, a liquid metal cooled reactor or a pressurized water reactor (TSANG ET AL: [0035]).
With respect to claim 44, TSANG ET AL in view of BASS ET AL teaches or otherwise makes obvious wherein the moving of the deployable plant comprises operating the fleet of trucks to transport each of the first and second moveable skids, including the deployable nuclear reactor system and the one or more functional units, respectively, to the second location using public roads and highways (BASS ET AL: [0031], [0058]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walters teaches a metal fuel system including particulate metal fuel for use in nuclear reactors. The particulate metal fuel may include a plurality of particles of at least one enriched alloy where the particles are compacted into a fuel column. The metal particulate fuel system may also include a cladding and/or a gas-filled plenum.
Sing et al. teaches a nuclear steam supply system utilizing gravity-driven natural circulation for primary coolant flow through a fluidly interconnected reactor vessel and a steam generating vessel. In one embodiment, the steam generating vessel includes a plurality of vertically stacked heat exchangers operable to convert a secondary coolant from a saturated liquid to superheated steam by utilizing heat gained by the primary coolant from a nuclear fuel core in the reactor vessel. In one embodiment, the reactor vessel and steam generating vessel are physically discrete self-supporting structures which may be physically located in the same containment vessel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKIYA W BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-7039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 5712724137. 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.
/ZAKIYA W BATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights