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 1-15 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, the word “and” is omitted after the semi colon in claim 8 line 4, the word “to” is missing between arranged and receive. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 6 and 7 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.
4. Regarding claim 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
5. Regarding claim 7, PbLi is by definition a metallic composition, not a salt. Therefore, the recitation of claim 7 is unclear because no substance can meet the limitation “wherein the lithium based molten salt is PbLi.” It appears that claim 7 is intended to further limit the lithium-based eutectic alloy introduced in claim 6 to PbLi and the lithium based molten salt introduced in claim 6 to FLiBe.
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 (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 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sedano, EP 0 978 308.
7. Regarding claim 1, Sedano disclose an apparatus for use in tritium extraction and recovery in a fusion power system ([0002]), comprising: a manifold (Fig. 1+[0013]) configured to receive a first fluid comprising a tritium breeding composition (2) and a second fluid ([0013], and output a combined fluid undergoing two phase flow wherein the first fluid is a first, carrier, phase of the two-phase flow and the second fluid is a second phase of the two-phase flow ([0013]); a tritium extraction unit (1) configured to receive the combined fluid and extract tritium from the tritium breeding composition by a combination of tritium permeation across a hydrogen permeable membrane and tritium transfer onto the second fluid ([0006], [0011], [0013]).
8. Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sedano further discloses an apparatus wherein the second fluid comprises at least one of an inert gas having a higher tritium affinity than the first fluid ([0003]).
9. Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sedano further discloses an apparatus wherein the tritium breeding composition is PbLi ([0009]+[0011]) and the second fluid is helium ([0013]+[0003]).
10. Regarding claim 8, Sedano further discloses an apparatus wherein the tritium extraction unit comprises a first channel, a second channel, and the hydrogen permeable membrane therebetween (see Fig. 1), wherein the first channel is arranged to receive the combined fluid undergoing two phase flow, and the second channel is arranged receive tritium, from the first channel, via the hydrogen permeable membrane ([0011]).
12. Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sedano further discloses an apparatus wherein the second channel supports a flow of helium ([0011]).
13. Regarding claim 15, Sedano disclose a method of tritium extraction from a fluid tritium breeding composition, the method comprising: combining the fluid tritium breeding composition with a second fluid to generate a combined fluid undergoing two phase flow, wherein the fluid tritium breeding composition is a first, carrier, phase of the two-phase flow and the second fluid is a second phase of the two- phase flow ([0013]+[0003]); extracting at least some tritium from the breeding composition in the two-phase flow by a process of tritium permeation across a hydrogen permeable membrane ([0011]), and simultaneously extracting at least some tritium from the breeding composition in the two- phase flow by a process of tritium transfer onto the second fluid ([0003]).
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.
14. Claims 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maroni, US 3,957,597 in view of Sedano, EP 0 978 308.
15. Regarding claim 1, Maroni discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) for use in tritium extraction and recovery in a fusion power system (Abs.), comprising: a manifold (25) configured to receive a first fluid comprising a tritium breeding composition and a second fluid (column 3, lines 51-53), and output a combined fluid undergoing two phase flow wherein the first fluid is a first, carrier, phase of the two-phase flow and the second fluid is a second phase of the two-phase flow; a tritium extraction unit (35) configured to receive the combined fluid and extract tritium from the tritium breeding composition by tritium transfer onto the second fluid (column 4, lines 10-23).
Maroni does not disclose tritium permeation across a hydro-gen permeable membrane, but does suggest that “various types of liquid-liquid extraction equipment can be employed as the mixer separator” (column 3, lines 66-67). Sedano teaches a tritium extraction unit (Fig. 1) configured to receive a first fluid comprising a tritium breeding composition and a second fluid ([0013]) and extract tritium from the tritium breeding composition by tritium permeation across a hydrogen permeable membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the membrane separation taught by Sedano in the apparatus of Maroni for the predictable purpose of achieving a high tritium extraction rate without needing to heat (see Sedano at [0014]).
16. Regarding claims 2-5, Maroni as modified by Sedano makes claim 1 obvious. Maroni further disclose an apparatus wherein the second fluid comprises a molten salt having a higher tritium affinity than the first fluid, the molten salt comprising lithium chloride, and the tritium breeding composition being pure liquid lithium (column 3, lines 42-59).
17. Regarding claim 14, Maroni discloses a nuclear fusion power system, comprising: a vacuum vessel (11); a tritium breeder blanket (13) at least partly surrounding the vacuum vessel and comprising a fluid tritium breeding composition (column 3, line 24). The remainder of claim 14 is rejected as explained above with respect to claim 1.
18. Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sedano, EP 0 978 308 in view of Pozio, IT 201800003185.
19. Regarding claims 911, Sedano anticipates the apparatus of claim 8 but does not disclose a planar arrangement of channels. Pozio teaches a similar membrane separator for tritium extraction from tritium breeding composition (see Fig. 9) comprising a first channel, a second channel, and the hydrogen permeable membrane therebetween, wherein the first channel is arranged to receive the tritium breeding composition, and the second channel is arranged receive tritium, from the first channel, via the hydrogen permeable membrane, wherein the first channel and second channel are planar in arrangement and wherein the planar arrangement is perpendicular to gravity (they are arranged in different horizontal planes), and a third channel arranged on an opposite side of the second channel to the first channel, and a second hydrogen permeable membrane between the second and third channels, the third channel also being arranged to receive combined fluid undergoing two-phase flow and the second channel also being arranged to receive tritium from the third channel via the second hydrogen permeable membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the membrane separator arrangement taught by Pozio to the apparatus of Sedano for the predictable purpose of increasing the surface area of contact between the molten lithium composition and the membrane.
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
Prosecution Insights