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
1. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and 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.
2. Claims 3, 8-14, and 16 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.
3. Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, the recitations are purely functional and fail to adequately delineate the structure necessary to perform the recited function. See MPEP 2173.05(g): when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d. 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The claim limitations describe a function achieved by the reactor, and not a specific structural limitation thereof. Therefore, there is no clear-cut indication of the scope of the claim and a skilled artisan would be unable to ascertain what falls within the scope of the claim and what is excluded therefore.
4. Regarding claim 8 (and dependents), the recitation “an auxiliary power system configured to support the nuclear reactor” is indefinite because it is purely functional and fails to adequately delineate the structure necessary to perform the recited function. See MPEP 2173.05(g): when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d. 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The claim limitations describe a function achieved by the reactor, and not a specific structural limitation thereof. Therefore, there is no clear-cut indication of the scope of the claim and a skilled artisan would be unable to ascertain what falls within the scope of the claim limitation and what is excluded therefore.
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.
5. Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botha et al., US 2021/0110940 in view of Forrester et al., “Disposition of Beryllium Reflector from Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s High Flux Isotope Reactor-22246.”
6. Regarding claim 1, Botha discloses a nuclear reactor (Fig. 1), comprising: an inner-core region (122) including: liquid fuel (110; [0034]), a moderator/coolant (130), and a hydrogen vapor space (121); and an out-of-core region (124) surrounding the inner-core region, the out-of-core region including: a reflector (132; [0021]) adjacent to the inner-core region.
Botha does not disclose a layered reflector comprising irradiation facilities. Forrester teaches a nuclear reactor (Fig. 1) comprising a core region (“fuel”) an out-of-core region including: an inner reflector (middle “semi-permanent” + inner “removable”) including a first irradiation facility (see the labeled white sections), and an outer reflector (outer “permanent”) adjacent to the inner reflector, the outer reflector including a second irradiation facility (see the labeled colored circles).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the predictable purpose of utilizing the neutron flux produced by Botha’s reactor for test and irradiation purposed such as producing isotopes in targets disposed in the irradiation facilities.
7. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 1 obvious. Botha further discloses a reactor wherein the moderator/coolant includes calcium ([0028]).
8. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 1 obvious. Botha further discloses a reactor wherein reactor power is regulated by a concentration of hydrogen within the hydrogen vapor space ([0028]).
9. Regarding claim 4, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 1 obvious. Forester further teaches a reflector wherein the inner reflector includes beryllium (see Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the reason stated above.
10. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 1 obvious. Forester further teaches a reflector wherein the outer reflector includes magnesium (see Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the reason stated above.
11. Regarding claim 6, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 1 obvious. Botha further discloses a reactor wherein the liquid fuel includes uranium enriched below 20% ([0034]).
12. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 1 obvious. Forester further teaches a reflector wherein the first irradiation facility includes a first flux trap and a second flux trap, wherein the first flux trap has a greater diameter than the second flux trap (see Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the reason stated above.
13. Regarding claim 8, Botha discloses a nuclear reactor system (Fig. 1), comprising: a nuclear reactor (108), including: an inner-core region (122) configured to generate a neutron flux ([0021]), an out-of-core region (124) surrounding the inner-core region, the out-of-core region including: a reflector (132; [0021]) adjacent to the inner-core region and configured to increase the neutron flux (inherent function of a “reflector”1); and an auxiliary power system (150) configured to support the nuclear reactor ([0023]).
Botha does not disclose a layered reflector. Forrester teaches a nuclear reactor (Fig. 1) comprising a core region (“fuel”) an out-of-core region including: an inner reflector (middle “semi-permanent” + inner “removable”) configured to increase the neutron flux (inherent function of a “reflector”2), and an outer reflector (outer “permanent”) adjacent to the inner reflector, the outer reflector configured to reflect a neutron into the inner reflector (inherent function of a “reflector”3)
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the predictable purpose of utilizing the neutron flux produced by Botha’s reactor for test and irradiation purposed such as producing isotopes in targets disposed in the irradiation facilities.
14. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 8 obvious. Botha further discloses a reactor wherein the moderator/coolant includes calcium ([0028]).
15. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 8 obvious. Botha further discloses a reactor wherein reactor power is regulated by a concentration of hydrogen within the hydrogen vapor space ([0028]).
16. Regarding claim 11, the combination of Forrester’s reflector with Botha’s reactor makes claim 8 obvious. Forester further teaches a reflector wherein the inner reflector includes beryllium (see Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the reason stated above.
17. Regarding claim 12, the combination of Forrester’s reflector with Botha’s reactor makes claim 8 obvious. Forester further teaches a reflector wherein the outer reflector includes magnesium (see Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the reason stated above.
18. Regarding claim 13, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 8 obvious. Botha further discloses a reactor wherein the liquid fuel includes uranium enriched below 20% ([0034]).
19. Regarding claim 14, Forester further teaches a reflector wherein the inner reflector includes a first irradiation facility, the first irradiation facility including a first flux trap and a second flux trap, wherein the first flux trap has a greater diameter than the second flux trap (see the numbered white circles in Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the reason stated above.
20. Regarding claim 15, Botha discloses a system (Fig. 1), comprising a microreactor (108; [0004-6]), including: an inner-core region (122) including: a liquid uranium alloy fuel (110, [0034]), a moderator/coolant including calcium (130; [0028]), a hydrogen vapor space (121) configured to receive hydrogen gas ([0028]), and a fission product removal system (170, [0035]); and an out-of-core region (124)surrounding the inner-core region, the out-of-core region including: a reflector (132; [0021]) adjacent to the inner-core region.
Botha does not disclose a layered reflector comprising irradiation facilities. Forrester teaches a system for producing isotopes comprising a nuclear reactor (Fig. 1) comprising a core region (“fuel) and an out-of-core region including: an inner reflector (middle “semi-permanent” + inner “removable”) including a first irradiation facility (see the labeled white sections), and an outer reflector (outer “permanent”) adjacent to the inner reflector, the outer reflector including a second irradiation facility (see the labeled colored circles).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the predictable purpose of utilizing the neutron flux produced by Botha’s reactor for test and irradiation purposed such as producing isotopes in targets disposed in the irradiation facilities.
21. Regarding claim 16, the combination of Forrester’s reflector system with Botha’s reactor makes claim 15 obvious. Botha further discloses a system wherein microreactor power is regulated by a concentration of hydrogen within the hydrogen vapor space ([0028]).
22. Regarding claim 17, the combination of Forrester’s reflector with Botha’s reactor makes claim 15 obvious. Forester further teaches a reflector wherein the inner reflector includes beryllium (see Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the reason stated above.
23. Regarding claim 20, the combination of Forrester’s reflector with Botha’s reactor makes claim 15 obvious. Forester further teaches a reflector wherein the first irradiation facility includes a first flux trap and a second flux trap, wherein the first flux trap has a greater diameter than the second flux trap (see Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to combine the reflector system having irradiation facilities as taught by Forrester with the reactor of Botha for the reason stated above.
24. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botha et al., US 2021/0110940 in view of Forrester et al., “Disposition of Beryllium Reflector from Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s High Flux Isotope Reactor-22246,” in further view of Greebler, US 3,267,001.
25. Regarding claim 18, the combination of Forrester’s reflector with Botha’s reactor makes claim 15 obvious. Forrester does not teach an outer reflector comprising magnesium oxide. Greebler teaches that magnesium oxide is a suitable material for a neutron reflector in a nuclear reactor system (column 3, lines 26-30). It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
26. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botha et al., US 2021/0110940 in view of Forrester et al., “Disposition of Beryllium Reflector from Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s High Flux Isotope Reactor-22246,” in further view of OR-HFIR “High Flux Isotope Reactor Technical Parameters” (cited on the IDS dated 01/28/25).
27. Regarding claim 19, the combination of Forrester’s reflector with Botha’s reactor makes claim 15 obvious. Forrester further teaches a reflector system including a beam port (see Fig. 1: HB-1, 2, 3, 4). OR-HFIR establishes that the reflector system of Forrester also includes a rapid-transfer pneumatically accessed irradiation location (see 6.). It is the examiner’s position that OR-HFI establishes that the pneumatic tube facilities are present in the system described by Forrester because both documents clearly describe the same existing reactor system. Alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to include the pneumatic tube facilities taught by OR-HFIR to the reflector system of Forrester for the predictable purpose of providing an additional slot for inserting and removing samples during reactor operation for neutron activation analysis.
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
1 NRC Glossary at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/reflector/ .
2 NRC Glossary at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/reflector/ .
3 NRC Glossary at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/reflector/ .
