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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a method, classified in G21C 15/257.
II. Claims 15-17, drawn to a second method, classified in G01F 1/60.
III. Claims 18-20, drawn to an apparatus, classified in G01N 27/82
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I/II and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed may be used to investigate flaws or degradation in welds in non-nuclear piping systems.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
b. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
c. The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
d. The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
e. The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
During a telephone conversation with Garrett Tobin on 09/02/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, corresponding to claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method for measuring a flow parameter and then making a determination.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed towards the collection and manipulation of data on a general purpose computer and do not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or to another technology. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Claim 2 discloses more about the parameter.
Claims 3 and 4 disclose the type of fluid.
Claim 5 discloses more about the parameter.
Claim 6 more about the parameter.
Claim 7 more about the parameter.
Claim 8 more about the parameter.
Claim 9 discloses the instrument used for the measurement.
Claim 10 discloses more about the parameter.
Claim 11 discloses more about the parameter.
Claim 12 discloses controlling an operation.
Claim 13 discloses maintaining a power level.
Claim 14 discloses further controlling the operation.
The determination step performed in claim 1 is merely a well-known mathematical relationship being performed on a generic computer or in the human mind. Claims 3 and 4 merely recite the type of fluid. Claims 2, 5–8, and 10–11 merely further describe the parameter. Claim 9 merely describes a common instrument used for measurement. Claims 12–14 merely disclose vaguely controlling a basic reactor operation.
For example, Noguchi and Arcella, cited below, show these features to be standard in the art and prevalent in virtually all nuclear power plants, i.e., using sensors to measure reactor parameters and make decisions with that information. See the below prior art rejections. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites steps for measuring and determining and is therefore a method.
STEP 2A, Prong One — Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea because it merely recites measuring a parameter and using that to make a determination
Therefore, under the 2019 Subject-Matter Eligibility Guidance, claim 1 falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping because it recites data collection for input into a formula to make a determination. The determining step further falls within the “mental processes” grouping because it may be easily performed in the human mind.
STEP 2A, Prong Two — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the steps of measuring and determining. The step of measuring is a pre-solution activity followed by the use of a generic computer or human mind to process the data and make a decision. There are no additional steps besides the measuring and subsequent mental decision making.
These steps are performed either on a generic computer or in the human mind. These steps do not relate to the improvement of the functioning of a computer or to another technology.
Even though the steps are performed under the umbrella of nuclear technology, the execution of these steps does not result in the improvement of said technology because the only “nuclear”–related aspect of the steps is that the data itself originates from a nuclear reactor.
As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B — Is there an inventive concept?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Apart from the measuring and determining, there are no other significant recitations. The heat pipe used is generic and simply sets the stage for an environment where the measuring occurs. Heat pipes are commonly found in nuclear reactors. As such, these features are “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field and are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
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 1–14 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 the limitation “an amount of thermal energy transferred by the heat pipe.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recited transferring because no such transfer has yet been described. It is further unclear to where the thermal energy is being transferred.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the second operating parameter is a power of the heat pipe.” It is unclear how a heat pipe can have a “power.” Nuclear reactors have a power setpoint, but an individual heat pipe does not have a “power.” Is this power intended to refer to an electricity or wattage produced downstream from the thermal energy produced by the heat pipe? Or does power simply mean “heat”? Or something else?
Claim 11 recites “the amount of thermal energy transferred by the heat pipe.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recited transferring because no such transfer has yet been described. It is further unclear to where the thermal energy is being transferred.
Claim 13 recites “maintaining a power level of the nuclear reactor” followed by a contingent limitation. The contingent limitation is not given patentable weight because it is not required to occur; however, the limitation “maintaining a power level of the nuclear reactor” is unclear because this is not an actively performable step. The nuclear reactor’s power level is maintained by the normal operating state of the reactor. Decreasing or increasing the power would be an actively performable step, but “maintaining” essentially means claim 13 recites “doing nothing.”
Claim 14 recites “controlling the operation of the nuclear reactor in real time with detecting the change in the second operating parameter of the heat pipe.” This limitation does not make sense. What is meant by controlling “with detecting the change”? How does the operator control “with” a change detection?
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 6 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 6 merely recites an implicit feature of all heat pipes, i.e., that the mass flow rate of the working fluid in any given heat pipe is necessarily based on a flow of two phases, liquid and vapor. This is how heat pipes work. There are no performable steps recited in claim 6, nor any recitations that are not already implied by any heat pipe. Accordingly, claim 6 does not recite any steps that further delimit the method of claim 1.
Claim 7 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 7 merely recites an implicit feature of all heat pipes, i.e., that the mass flow rate of the working fluid in any given heat pipe is necessarily based flow going on two different directions. This is how heat pipes work. There are no performable steps recited in claim 7, nor any recitations that are not already implied by any heat pipe. Accordingly, claim 7 does not recite any steps that further delimit the method of claim 1.
Claim 14 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 13 recites a contingent limitation “detecting a change” that does not have to be performed because it is contingent. It is therefore improper for claim 14 to presume that the change has been detected “with detecting the change.”
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.
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (JP S59-198316 A1) in view of Arcella (US 4,067,237).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi discloses a method for operating a nuclear reactor (1), comprising: measuring a first operating parameter (Fig. 1: output voltages e1, e2) associated with a flow of a working fluid (“liquid Na,” abstract) within a pipe (2) of the nuclear reactor (“By calculating the difference between [these] signals e1 and e2, the amount of shift in the magnetic flux distribution, that is, the flow rate or flow rate of liquid sodium can be determined,” page 3); and determining, based on the first operating parameter, a second operating parameter (“the temperature of liquid sodium,” page 3) associated with an amount of thermal energy transferred by the pipe.
Noguchi does not explicitly state that the pipe is a heat pipe.
Arcella does. Arcella is in the same art area of controlling and monitoring parameters within a nuclear reactor (abstract) and teaches measuring parameters on a heat pipe (e.g. “utilizing heat pipe temperature measurements for determining heat-related parameters, such as fluid flow,” col. 1, ll. 34-36).
The use of Arcella’s specific type of pipe, a heat pipe, with Noguchi’s method would have produced a method for measuring a first parameter associated with fluid flow in a heat pipe and then determining a second parameter, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Noguchi, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Arcella’s heat pipe with Noguchi's pipe would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of measuring and determining parameters related to heat and flow on a heat pipe. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as explained by Arcella (col. 2, ll. 36-46), extending “the practical usefulness of the basic heat pipe concept from an uncontrollable passive heat removal device to a simple, general purpose device, capable of measuring the strength of an unknown heat source, controlling the temperature of an unknown heat source, controlling the heat flow to and from an unknown heat source, and developing temperature measurements suitable for calculating parameters such as fluid flow associated with the unknown heat source.”
Regarding claim 2, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Noguchi further discloses wherein the first operating parameter is associated with a flow of the working fluid within the pipe (“By calculating the difference between [these] signals e1 and e2, the amount of shift in the magnetic flux distribution, that is, the flow rate or flow rate of liquid sodium can be determined,” page 3), and Arcella’s heat pipe includes an adiabatic section of the heat pipe (as do all heat pipes). As shown in Figure 1 of Arcella, the flow is throughout the entire pipe, including the adiabatic section. The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s heat pipe for Noguchi’s pipe for the reasons cited above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claims 3-4, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Noguchi further discloses wherein the working fluid comprises an alkali metal that is sodium (“liquid Na,” abstract). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s heat pipe for Noguchi’s pipe for the reasons cited above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Noguchi further discloses wherein the first operating parameter is associated with a mass flow rate of the working fluid (“By calculating the difference between [these] signals e1 and e2, the amount of shift in the magnetic flux distribution, that is, the flow rate or flow rate of liquid sodium can be determined,” page 3) within the adiabatic section of the heat pipe (as combined above with Arcella). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s heat pipe for Noguchi’s pipe for the reasons cited above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination further teaches wherein the mass flow rate of the working fluid is based on flow of a first phase of the working fluid (Noguchi, “liquid Na,” abstract and “By calculating the difference between [these] signals e1 and e2, the amount of shift in the magnetic flux distribution, that is, the flow rate or flow rate of liquid sodium can be determined,” page 3), and Arcella teaches that in a heat pipe, the flow rate of the working fluid (see arrows, Figure 1) includes two phases, vapor sections E1 and E2 and condenser sections C1 and C2. The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s heat pipe for Noguchi’s pipe for the reasons cited above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination further teaches wherein the mass flow rate is based on a first portion of the working fluid flowing in a first direction (Noguchi, Figure 1 and “By calculating the difference between [these] signals e1 and e2, the amount of shift in the magnetic flux distribution, that is, the flow rate or flow rate of liquid sodium can be determined,” page 3) and Arcella teaches that in a heat pipe, the flow rate of the working fluid (see arrows, Figure 1) goes in two different directions. The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s heat pipe for Noguchi’s pipe for the reasons cited above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claims 8-9, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Noguchi further discloses wherein the first operating parameter (output voltages e1, e2) corresponds to an electrical signal produced in response to energizing a portion of the flow of the working fluid (“By this eddy current a shift of magnetic flux distribution in proportion to the flow-velocity of liquid Na is produced in the main magnetic flux of the magnetic exciting coil 31. In an detection coil, a signal corresponding to it is produced and the flow-velocity of liquid Na is calculated,” abstract) within the adiabatic section of the heat pipe (as combined above with Arcella), and measuring the first operating parameter with an eddy current flow sensor (“By this eddy current a shift of magnetic flux distribution in proportion to the flow-velocity of liquid Na is produced in the main magnetic flux of the magnetic exciting coil 31. In an detection coil, a signal corresponding to it is produced and the flow-velocity of liquid Na is calculated,” abstract). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s heat pipe for Noguchi’s pipe for the reasons cited above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claims 10, 13, and 14, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination further teaches wherein a second operating parameter is a power of the heat pipe (Q1 and Q2, Figure 2; “power Q2,” col. 4, l. 49); maintaining a power level of the nuclear reactor (e.g., “power-load operating window, col. 4, l. 43) based on detecting a change in the second operating parameter for the heat pipe (this is a contingent limitation that does not have to be fulfilled; however, Arcella discusses a change in Q: “the Q1 and Q2 vary to maintain T2 constant,” col. 4, ll. 51-52); and controlling the operation of the nuclear reactor in real time with detecting the change in the second operating parameter of the heat pipe (all nuclear reactors are controlled by the reactor operator in real time based on feedback from measurements and determinations, certainly including a change in a power).
The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s power determination in order to find “the power-load operating window for an infinite setpoint heat pipe combination for a conductive heat load … to control the heat source” with a given temperature.
Regarding claim 11, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Noguchi further discloses wherein the first operating parameter is associated with a flow rate of the working fluid through the pipe (“By calculating the difference between [these] signals e1 and e2, the amount of shift in the magnetic flux distribution, that is, the flow rate or flow rate of liquid sodium can be determined,” page 3), the method further comprising correlating the flow rate of the working fluid to the amount of thermal energy transferred by the heat pipe (“By calculating the sum of the output voltages [e1] and e2 … the temperature of liquid sodium can also be detected,” page 3). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s heat pipe for Noguchi’s pipe for the reasons cited above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Noguchi with Arcella teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Noguchi further discloses controlling an operation of the nuclear reactor based on at least one of the first operating parameter or the second operating parameter (the reactor operator uses the transmitted signals from optical fiber 50 indicating “flow rate and flow velocity,” page 2 and temperature of the sodium coolant, pages 2-3, to control the nuclear reactor, as is known in the art). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize Arcella’s heat pipe for Noguchi’s pipe for the reasons cited above in response to claim 1.
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
1 See attached 10-page foreign reference.
Prosecution Insights