DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 1-12 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
It is unclear whether the reactor is a nuclear reactor or some other type of reactor. It is uncertain whether the specification has support for a generic reactor.
It is unclear whether the containment is a containment vessel or some other type of containment. It is uncertain whether the specification has support for a generic containment.
The phrase “detachably and fixedly connected” (plural times) is unclear. Being fixedly connected and being detachably connected appear to be opposites of each other. Thus, said phrase has conflicting wording.
The phrase “the upper containment and the lower containment are . . . connected” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the upper containment and the lower containment are connected to each other, or connected to some other component.
The phrase “the upper pressure vessel and the lower pressure vessel are . . . connected” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the upper pressure vessel and the lower pressure vessel are connected to each other, or connected to some other component.
The phrase “the upper pressure vessel and the upper containment are fixedly connected to form an integrated hoisting structure” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how a lifting hoist can be formed by an upper pressure vessel and upper containment.
Claim 2
The phrase “the reactor core . . . is provided with a reactor core hoisting structure for hoisting the reactor core” is unclear. It is unclear how a reactor core can lift itself.
Claim 5
The phrase “the reactor core hoisting structure” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the reactor core” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6
The phrase “the out-of-reactor guide device” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7
The phrase “the in-reactor guide device” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8
The phrase “the nuclear fuel assembly” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 11
The phrase “for placing the removed integrated hoisting structure” is unclear. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “for storing the removed integrated hoisting structure”.
Claim 12
The phrase “enabling the first guide part of the reactor core hoisting tool to cooperate with the out-of-reactor guide device” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how a tool can be enabled. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “causing the first guide part of the reactor core hoisting tool to cooperate with the out-of-reactor guide device”.
In the above phrase, “the first guide part of the reactor core hoisting tool” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In the above phrase, “the out-of-reactor guide device” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “enabling the second guide part of the reactor core hoisting tool to cooperate with the in-reactor guide device” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how a tool can be enabled. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “causing the second guide part of the reactor core hoisting tool to cooperate with the in-reactor guide device”.
In the above phrase, “the second guide part of the reactor core hoisting tool” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In the above phrase, “the in-reactor guide device” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In the above phrase, it is unclear what constitutes a “slow lowering”. The dividing boundary between “slow” and non-slow with regard to lowering velocity is unknown and unclear.
The phrase “enabling the reactor core hoisting tool to drive the reactor core to move out of the integrated reactor” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how a tool can be enabled. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “causing the reactor core hoisting tool to lift the reactor core out of the integrated reactor”.
The phrase “the refueling machine” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the reactor core hoisting structure” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Final Safety Evaluation Report related to the certification of the NuScale small modular reactor design (Docket No. 52-048)", Washington, DC: US NRC, Chapter 1, Accession Number: ML20023B603 (22 July 2020)), hereafter “NRC”.
NRC teaches a nuclear reactor. An upper containment and a lower containment are detachably connected. An upper pressure vessel and a lower pressure vessel are detachably connected. The upper pressure vessel and the upper containment are fixedly connected to form an integrated hoisting structure.
During a refueling operation, the containment vessel and pressure vessel are hoisted as a whole. The lower containment is then separated from the whole. Next, the upper containment and upper pressure vessel are separated from the lower pressure vessel (which contains the reactor core). A nuclear fuel assembly is then replaced. Particularly note NRC at pages 1-9 and 1-15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 8, and 9-11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NRC as applied to claims 1 and 5 above.
The skilled artisan would understand that it is well known in the art to employ a nuclear reactor plant with the beneficial conventional features of: reactor internals;
a reactor core storage rack; a refueling machine; a spent fuel pool; a refueling pool; a gate for isolating the reactor cavity from the refueling pool; and a gate for isolating the refueling pool from the spent fuel pool. Modification of NRC to have included these conventional features for their well-known benefits, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objections to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83 because it is unclear how Figure 2 differs from Figure 1.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83 because the reference numerals in Figure 3 and Figure 4 are unclear.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
the upper containment and the lower containment are detachably connected (claim 1).
the upper pressure vessel and the lower pressure vessel are detachably connected (claim 1).
the upper pressure vessel and the upper containment are fixedly connected to form an integrated hoisting structure (claim 1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because it includes an unclear long rambling sentence. It is unclear where one feature ends and another feature begins. It is suggested that the long rambling sentence be broken into several shorter clear sentences.
The Abstract is further objected to because it includes unclear wording discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections (e.g., “detachably and fixedly connected”).
An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it refers to multiple different inventions. The following Title is presented for consideration: “Nuclear Reactor Refueling Arrangement That Allows For Lifting A Separable Multi-Part Containment Vessel While A Separable Multi-Part Pressure Vessel Is Detachably Connected Thereto”.
Additional Comment
It should be understood that claims not rejected based on prior art is not an indication of allowability. Rather, the claims are too unclear to permit further review.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Application Status Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights