METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING CORROSION IN A MOLTEN SALT REACTOR

§103 §112

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 1-10, drawn to an apparatus, classified in G21C 1/30. II. Claims 11-20, drawn to a method, classified in G21C 19/31. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions II and I 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 produce medical radioisotopes. 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 conversation with Dr. Zhengnian Tang on 9/11/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, corresponding to claims 11-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.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 Objections Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a comma in line 6 between “reactors” and “each.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "controlling the generation of the voltage signal for at least one of reducing chemical reaction between the uranium of the target and materials in the molten-salt fuel or reducing accumulation of materials on the target" in claim 17. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not exempt an applicant from compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1195, 29 USPQ2d at 1850; In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486,493 (CCPA 1973) ("[The sixth paragraph of section 112] cannot be read as creating an exception either to the description requirement of the first paragraph ... or to the definiteness requirement found in the second paragraph of section 112. Means-plus- function language can be used in the claims, but the claims must still accurately define the invention."). Whether a claim reciting an element in means- (or step-) plus-function language fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because the specification does not disclose adequate structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function is closely related to the question of whether the specification meets the description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See In re Noll, 545 F.2d 141, 149, 191 USPQ 721, 727 (CCPA 1976) (unless the means-plus-function language is itself unclear, a claim limitation written in means-plus-function language meets the definiteness requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as the specification meets the written description requirement in 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). See MPEP § 2181. Claim 17 recites means-plus-function language (“controlling … for …”). This limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement because the Specification fails to set forth adequate acts for performing the recited function. The best description that Examiner could find in the Specification is at ¶ 56 (see the published application), which discloses: “In various embodiments, the electrode(s) (e.g., target 305 and/or other conductors) can each be connected to voltage source 350 using a wire. The wire is insulated for protection against the MS fuel. The voltage signal applied to the electrode can be adjusted, for example to allow (1) the uranium of the target or other electrode to be kept from being attacked by the chemicals in the MS (e.g. Fluorine) and/or (2) materials that have adhered to the target or other electrode to be reabsorbed by the MS or otherwise separated from the target or other electrode. By cycling in this manner, for example, materials can accumulate on an electrode that protects the target and components and then to be removed from the electrode. Corrosion of the uranium electrode can be controlled using a control scheme for preventing buildup of deposited salt species and can additionally be used to buffer the salt chemistry to prevent corrosion of other reactor components.” Paragraph 56 states that “cycling” the “voltage signal applied” in order to prevent contaminants from accumulating on the target. However, no disclosure is provided as to how voltage cycling prevents accumulation. How does adjusting the voltage prevent the target/electrode “from being attached by the chemicals”? How does adjusting the voltage allow adhered materials “to be separated” or “reabsorbed”? 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 11–20 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 11 recites “a target” (line 3) and then “an electrode” (line 6). Claim 12 further delimits that the target is uranium, and claim 13 further delimits that the electrode is uranium. It is not until claim 14 that it is revealed that the target is the electrode. Claims 11–13 are indefinite because “[w]here a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.1” Because claims 11–13 have the presumption that the electrode and target are distinct elements, and because the language of claim 14 is not read into these claims, then claims 11–13 are indefinite. This rejection may be overcome by clarifying in claim 11 that the target and electrode are the same element. Claims 13 and 14 repeatedly recite the limitation "delivering the voltage signal." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, parent claim 11 recites transmitting the voltage signal, not delivering it. Claim 16 recites “passing helium flows.” This phrasing is awkward and indefinite. Is the passing being actively performed, e.g., is an operator initiating the “passing,” and, if so, what does this actually involve? Is “flows” a plural noun, or is it supposed to be a verb? The term “helium flows” is not well-known in the art. Claim 17: 35 U.S.C. 112(f) states that a claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure ... described in the specification and equivalents thereof." "If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA section 112]." In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en bane). See MPEP §2181. The corresponding structure, material, or acts may be disclosed in the original drawings, figures, tables, or sequence listing. However, the corresponding structure, material, or acts cannot include any structure, material, or acts disclosed only in the material incorporated by reference or a prior art reference. See Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1317, 94 USPQ2d 1261, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (stating, "Simply mentioning prior art references in a patent does not suffice as a specification description to give the patentee outright claim to all of the structures disclosed in those references."); Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Regarding claim 17, Applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because, as detailed in the above 112(f) and 112(a) sections, Applicant has failed to set forth an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by the step-plus-function language (“controlling … for …”). Claim 18 recites the limitation "generating the proton beam." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 recites the limitation "generating the proton beam using a superconducting radio-frequency linear particle accelerator; splitting the proton beam generated by the superconducting linear particle accelerator." There is insufficient antecedent basis for the accelerator limitations in the claim. Parent claim 11 already uses the term “accelerator,” and thus it is unclear if claim 18’s accelerator is the same accelerator as that of claim 11. Additionally, claim 11’s accelerator is recited as driving the nuclear reactor, whereas claim 18’s accelerator is instead recited as generating a proton beam. It is unclear if the “driving” further comprises “generating” the beam, or if the intended meaning is something else. The language in claim 18 that each SMR is “an instance” of the “accelerator-driven subcritical nuclear reactor” is awkward and indefinite. It is unclear what the overlap is between “multiple small modular reactors” and “accelerator-driven subcritical nuclear reactor” is. If these are the same feature, then the same term should be used to describe them. Since a different term is used to describe them, it is unclear if they are different features, or, possibly, is one a subcombination of the other? Claim 19 recites manufacturing reactors remote from the nuclear power generation. This claim conflicts with claim 11 because claim 11 is entirely directed towards the nuclear power generation (“A method for nuclear power generation, comprising …”). Therefore, claim 19 cannot recite a step under the umbrella of claim 11’s generation that explicitly occurs remote from said generation. It appears claim 19 is an entirely distinct method from claim 11. Claim 20 recites producing the fuel that is later used in the nuclear power generation of claim 11. Claim 20 therefore conflicts with claim 11 because claim 11 is entirely directed towards the nuclear power generation (“A method for nuclear power generation, comprising …”), while claim 20 clearly recites a step that occurs prior to the method of claim 11. Therefore, claim 20 cannot recite a step under the umbrella of claim 11’s generation because its fuel production explicitly occurs separately from said generation. It appears claim 20 is an entirely distinct method from claim 11. The term “light” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light” 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. There is no consensus among ordinarily skilled artisans as per a cut-off between “light” fission products versus “other” fission products like actinides, as claimed. The metes and bounds of the claim are therefore unclear. 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. 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 11–14, 16–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (Mu*STAR accelerator-driven subcritical reactors burning spent nuclear fuel at light-water reactor sites) in view of Jiang (US 2020/0243207). Regarding claim 11, Johnson discloses a method for nuclear power generation, comprising: operating an accelerator-driven subcritical nuclear reactor using molten-salt fuel (“The Mu*STAR Accelerator-Driven System includes a 500 MWt subcritical, graphite-moderated, thermal spectrum, molten-salt fueled, reactor design,” Introduction), including striking a target positioned with a proton beam and cooling the target using the molten-salt fuel (“linear proton accelerator … target that is cooled by molten salt fuel,” Introduction); generating a voltage signal (“a superconducting RF [SRF] linear proton accelerator,” Introduction; Examiner notes that these accelerators generate voltage signals to accelerate the protons); and wherein the voltage signal is suitable for controlling corrosion of the target and one or more other portions of the reactor that are in contact with the molten-salt fuel (this is an intended use recitation that is non-limiting; in this instance, the voltage signal of cited prior art is ”suitable” for controlling reactor parameters in at least the following way: if the accelerator is shut off, it no longer generates a voltage signal, the nuclear reactions in the reactor cease, and, thereafter, no more corrosion is caused to the target). Johnson does not explicitly disclose transmitting the voltage signal to an electrode in contact with the molten-salt fuel in the reactor. Jiang does. Jiang is in the same art area of molten salt reactors (abstract) and teaches (fig. 6) transmitting a voltage signal (not pictured but present in fig. 6 as power source 101, shown in figs. 1 and 5) to an electrode (601) in contact with the molten-salt fuel (109) in the reactor. A purpose for this teaching is, as described by Jiang (¶ 45), to monitor the fuel salt chemistry. The combination of the electrode in contact with the molten salt of Jiang that receives a voltage with the method of Johnson would have produced a method for monitoring the corrosion chemistry of a molten salt reactor via an electrode, 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 Johnson, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Jiang’s immersed, voltage-receiving electrode with Johnson's method would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of an MSR with a powered electrode for monitoring the fuel salt. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as detailed by Jiang in ¶ 45, using the voltage data to monitor the corrosion chemistry within the reactor vessel: “Because the response of the potential of a reference electrode 601 to the chemistry of the fuel salt 109, or other operating parameters such as temperature, is unique, the reference electrode 601 provides a mechanism to monitor the fuel salt 109 chemistry and even the safety of the EMMSR 100 based on changes of the reference electrode 601 potential. An array of reference electrodes 601 can be used to improve the reliability of the monitoring of the EMMSR 100. The potential differences between the reference electrodes 601 provide statistical information about the fuel slat chemistry and the operation conditions.” Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected as obvious over Johnson in view of Jiang. Regarding claim 12, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Johnson discloses providing a uranium target to be the target (“solid uranium target that is cooled by molten salt fuel,” Introduction). Regarding claim 13, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim. This combination teaches, as cited above in response to claim 11, wherein delivering the voltage signal to the electrode comprises delivering the voltage signal to a electrode target (Jiang) this is uranium (Johnson). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification for the reasons described above in response to claim 11. Regarding claim 14, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim. This combination teaches, as cited above in response to claim 11, using the target as the electrode, and delivering the voltage signal to the electrode comprises delivering the voltage signal to the target (Jiang teaches delivering the voltage signal to the electrode target, and Johnson teaches the uranium target, as cited above in response to claim 11). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the modification to Johnson for the reasons described above in response to claim 11. Regarding claim 16, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Johnson discloses passing helium flows over the molten-salt fuel in the reactor to remove volatile fission products from the molten-salt fuel (Fig. 2: “He purge + volatile fission products”); and extracting one or more isotopes from the removed volatile fission products using fractional distillation (Fig. 2: fractional distillation column extracting isotopes from other fission products; “This also permits continuous harvesting of valuable isotopes such as tritium and Xe-133 as well as unwanted isotopes like iodine-131 and Xe-135,” Technical Description). Regarding claim 17, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Jiang teaches controlling the generation of the voltage signal for at least one of reducing chemical reaction between the uranium of the target and materials in the molten-salt fuel or reducing accumulation of materials on the target, as already cited above in response to claim 11. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the modification to Johnson for the reasons described above in response to claim 11. Regarding claim 18, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Johnson discloses generating the proton beam using a superconducting radio-frequency linear particle accelerator (“a superconducting RF [SRF] linear proton accelerator,” Introduction); splitting the proton beam generated by the superconducting linear particle accelerator into multiple proton beams (“One accelerator can feed several Mu*STAR reactors,” Features and Advantages”); and operating multiple small modular reactors each being an instance of the accelerator-driven subcritical nuclear reactor, including injecting each proton beam of the multiple proton beams into a reactor of the multiple small modular reactors (“One accelerator can feed several Mu*STAR reactors,” Features and Advantages”). Regarding claim 20, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Johnson discloses producing the molten-salt fuel by processing spent nuclear fuel resulting from operation of one or more light water reactors (Fig. 2: “spent nuclear fuel from light water reactor” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “fuel processing plant” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “molten salt fuel”). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson with Jiang, as combined above, further in view of Woolley (US 2015/0078504). Regarding claim 15, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim. Additionally, Johnson discloses removing volatile radioactive fission products from the molten-salt fuel continuously during operation of the reactor (Fig. 2: “He purge + volatile fission products”), including: producing a side stream (Fig. 2, stream leaving the top of the reactor: “He purge + volatile fission products”) of the molten-salt fuel flowing out of the reactor, the side stream including light fission products and actinides; separating the light fission products from the actinides (Fig. 2: fractional distillation column separating tritium [light] from other fission products [includes actinides]). This combination does not explicitly teach returning uranium actinides to the reactor. Woolley does. Woolley is also in the art area of a molten salt reactor and teaches a stream for removing fission products and then returning the actinides to the reactor, wherein the actinides include uranium (Fig. 1 and ¶ 56). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this return, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in order to, as detailed by Woolley in ¶ 85, to retain the actinides for their fission energy while still removing the undesirable fission products. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson with Jiang, as combined above, further in view of Craig (US 4,508,677). Regarding claim 19, Johnson in view of Jiang teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose where the SMRs may be made. Craig does. Craig is also in the art area of nuclear reactors and teaches manufacturing modular nuclear reactors in one or more factories remotely (abstract). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize Craig’s remote manufacturing, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in order to provide prefabricated modules which can be conveniently assembled on-site in the sequence desired, as detailed in the abstract. 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 Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, 616 F. 3d 1249 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2010 (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).