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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner has not required a restriction/election requirement due to the small number of currently presented claims. However, based on claims 1-5, Applicant’s original presentation is directed towards the structure shown in Figure 4 (multiple vessels, claim 3). Examiner reserves the right to issue a future restriction/election requirement if Applicant adds/amends claims at a later date that are distinct and/or mutually exclusive from this original presentation or from each other. Additionally, Examiner reserves the future right under election by original presentation to withdraw claims amended/added to embodiments not originally examined—see MPEP § 821.03.
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.
Claims 1–5 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 is an apparatus claim (“A reactor…”) that recites “…operating by this method.” Therefore, the claim recites a method within an apparatus. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 1 recites “the container stores nuclear fuel or moderator in the form of chains.” This limitation is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. It is unclear if the nuclear fuel/moderator is in the shape of a chain. It is further unclear why “fuel” and “moderator” are singular, but “chains” is plural. It is still further if the fuel/moderator is itself the “chains,” or if the fuel/moderator is connected to “chains.”
Claim 1 recites the limitations “”the interior,” “the exterior,” “the form,” and “this method.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation the reactor core. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "chain-shaped nuclear fuel or moderators.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how this limitation relates to the “fuel or moderator in the form of chains” in claim 1 since different terminology is used.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "moderators". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites that the fuel and moderator are combined into a “single hybrid chain for operation.” This limitation is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. It is unclear if this is a method step wherein two formerly distinct components are actively combined/twisted/braided together, or if their combination is in name only. It is further unclear what is meant by “…for operation.” What operation? It is further unclear what is meant by the term “hybrid.” This term would suggest two or more different species of a feature — is this two or more different kinds of fuel, or moderators, or fuel/moderator vs. something else, or what? It is unclear what item/feature/species comprise the “hybrid” aspect.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "chain nuclear fuel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "reactor’s critical mass". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such critical mass has yet been introduced and defined. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 5 recites “an amount” and then “the amount.” There is s insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, introducing “an amount” followed by “the amount” implies that these are the same amount. However, the context of the claim appears to imply the opposite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "additional chain nuclear fuel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fuel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “long-term” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long-term” 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. It is unclear what amount of time is considered long-term versus short-term or medium-term.
Claim 5 recites “only the amount required to maintain criticality is initially inserted into the reactor.” This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what/when “initially inserted” means/is. No step of “later” inserting components into the reactor has yet been recited, and so it is unclear how/when/if an “initial” insertion was performed. Additionally, it is unclear what the subject is of “only the amount.” Amount of what? Chain? Chains? Fuel? Moderator?
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “the nuclear fuel and moderator.” However, parent claim 1 recited the fuel and moderator in the alternative. Therefore, it is improper for claim 4 to presume both are present. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
A Note from the Examiner about Desired Result-type, Intended Use-type, and Capable-of type Limitations
The claims are replete with statements that are either essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. These include:
“fuel or moderator is inserted into or withdrawn from … operating by
this method,” claim 1
“the chains are inserted into the reactor by loading them into the vessel,” claim 2
“a plurality of vessels surrounding the reactor core are used,” claim 3
“each vessel inserting and withdrawing chain-shaped nuclear fuel or moderators,” claim 3
“fuel and moderator are combined,” claim 4
“an amount … is loaded into the container,” claim 5
“the amount required to maintain criticality is initially inserted,” claim 5
“fuel is continuously inserted,” claim 4
These clauses do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the applied reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the alleged intended use. See MPEP § 2111–2115. MPEP § 2114(II) states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Additionally, case law dictates that “Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions.” In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
It should be noted, as stated in MPEP 2173.06, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
The following rejections are directed to the claims as best understood by the examiner, in light of the numerous significant issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 noted above.
Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kwon (KR20240115466A).
The applied reference has a common inventor/assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1–5, Kwon discloses (figs. 1, 2) a reactor (“Reactor”), comprising: an outlet (port penetrating the wall of the “Reactor”) connected from the interior of the reactor to the exterior, wherein a container (“Outlet” tube) is connected to the reactor via the outlet, and the container stores nuclear fuel or moderator in the form of chains (“Chain Blanket”), and wherein the nuclear fuel or moderator is inserted into or withdrawn from the reactor through the outlet (see the arrows showing insertion/withdrawal of chains), operating by this method; a vessel (“Vessel” and “Vessel,” fig. 2) is provided inside the reactor, and the chains are inserted into the reactor by loading them into the vessel; a plurality of vessels (id.) surrounding the reactor core are used, with each vessel inserting and withdrawing chain-shaped nuclear fuel or moderators (see the arrows showing insertion/withdrawal of chains); the nuclear fuel and moderator are combined into a single hybrid chain for operation (e.g., see single chain “Anchor Chain” in fig. 4 that is a hybrid, i.e., alternating shapes of links); and an amount of chain nuclear fuel exceeding the reactor's critical mass is loaded into the container, and only the amount required to maintain criticality is initially inserted into the reactor, and additional chain nuclear fuel is continuously inserted as the fuel is consumed, enabling long-term continuous operation (this limitation is a statement of intended use—the skilled artisan is capable of taking the chain of Kwon and inserting and withdrawing it as desired based on desired reactivity output; this is done constantly in nuclear reactors via control rods).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights