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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 4 along with its parent claim recitations. Examiner notes that, if claim 4 is amended significantly to be broader in scope, it is possible it will no longer be allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “locating” should be “located”. In claim 6, Examiner believes that ”having” should be “have.” 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.
Claims 1–15 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the through holes and the bolt holes. It is unclear if the through holes and the bolt holes are the same holes, or if they are different holes.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the upstanding projections form fastening points for fastening thereto of lifting gear, whereby lifting performed using lifting gear fastened to the fastening points lifts the closure head.” This claim and parent claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationships among the circumferential row of holes and support ring and upstanding projections of claim 1, and the fastening points and lifting gear of claim 2. Claim 1, as best understood by Examiner, recites that the projections mate with the circumferential holes. However, then claim 2 appears to recite that actually the projections are now called “fastening points” which attach to lifting gear. What is the relationship between the projections and the fastening points? It would appear that a “fastening point” is not a concrete object, but rather a location, e.g., the final loop of a chain may be considered the chain’s “fastening point.” Accordingly, it is unclear what structure is directly or indirectly attached to which other structure. Please see all the other claims that also refer to “fastening points.” It is unclear if “points” are physical structures or portions of structures or something else.
Claim 2 is directed towards an apparatus but recites “whereby lifting performed using lifting gear fastened to the fastening points lifts the closure head.” Therefore, the claim also recites methods. 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 3 recites “the fastening points are threaded holes.” This limitation is indefinite because a “point” is not a physical structure and therefore cannot be a threaded hole. This would be akin to saying “a portion is a bolt.”
Claim 3 recites “lifting gear eye bolts.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how/if this limitation is related to the “lifting gear” introduced in parent claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “plural second portions.” Because the term “portion” has no defined boundaries, it is unclear what is meant by “plural second portions.” Is this one large portion that is mentally split into sub-portions? Or are the plural second portions physically separated from each other like spokes on a wheel?
Claim 4 repeatedly recites first and second fastening points. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if these are the same as, different from, partially overlapping with, or something else, the fastening points of claims 2 and 3.
Claim 4 recites “a closure head.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this is a different closure head or the same one as in claim 1.
Claim 4 repeatedly recites “lifting gear.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if these are different lifting gear or the same as in claim 2, and if they are different from or the same as each other. Claim 5 also recites lifting gear and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 4 twice recites “just.” It is unclear what the meaning of “just” is in these limitations. It is unclear what elements are excluded from being fastened/lifted.
The entirety of claim 5 is unclear. Because the lifting gear was never actively recited, it is unclear how two types of lifting gear can be different from each other to the extent that they cannot attach to the same “fastening points.” The term “fastening points” is still unclear for the reasons detailed above. Claim 5 is therefore unclear per the structure of the lifting gear(s), how they are “different,” and the structure of the first and second “fastening points.”
In claim 6, it is unclear how threaded holes can have “different threads” from each other. In what manner are the threads “different”?
In claim 6, it is unclear if all the first threaded holes have a first type of threads/first diameter, and they are all the same as each other, and all the second threaded holes have a second type of threads/diameter, and they are all the same as each other. For example, all first threaded holes have a diameter of 4 cm, and all second threaded holes have a diameter of 6 cm, with 4 and 6 being different.
In claim 8, it is unclear if the use of N twice means that the number of the first projections is the same as the number of second projections. Additionally, it is unclear if “alternating pattern” means first subgroup-second subgroup-first subgroup-second subgroup, or something else.
Claim 9 recites “the underframe is configured to shield control rod guide tubes penetrating through the central section from accidental damage.” This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if the control rod guide tubes are being positively recited, or if this is meant to be an intended use limitation, i.e., the underframe is capable of providing shielding for potential centrally located structures.”
The term “accidental” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “accidental” 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 in the art for what would be considered accidental damage versus other types of damage.
Claim 10 repeatedly recites “the ground.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. If the second fixture holds the first fixture off of, say, a platform up in the air, does this count as “ground”?
Examiner asks that Applicant review all the method claims, as they have substantially the same indefiniteness issues as the apparatus claims. Examiner does not find it useful to repeat all the indefiniteness issues again.
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 § 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)(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 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakashita (US 20150013414).
Regarding claim 1, Sakashita discloses (Figs. 6, 7, and 13) a fixture (3) for mounting a closure head (112) of a nuclear reactor pressure vessel during manufacture of the closure head (Sakashita is capable of mounting the closure head during its manufacture), the closure head having a central section for penetration therethrough by control rod guide tubes (114) and a peripheral section containing a circumferential row of through holes corresponding to positions of bolt holes (shown around the raised base of the lid 112) by which, in use, the closure head is bolted to the reactor pressure vessel, the fixture having: a support ring (32) providing a circumferential row of upstanding projections which are matingly engageable through respective holes of the circumferential row of holes of the peripheral section of the closure head to mount the closure head on the support ring (“the plate-shaped member 32 and the reactor vessel lid 112 are joined and fixed together [see FIG. 6]. On this occasion, the plate-shaped member 32 and the flange portion of the reactor vessel lid 112 are fastened by bolts, whereby the gap between the plate-shaped member 32 and the reactor vessel lid 112 is sealed,” ¶ 55); and an underframe (51) for holding the support ring (32) and closure head (112) mounted thereon off the ground.
Regarding claim 2, Sakashita anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the upstanding projections form fastening points for fastening thereto of lifting gear (the projections as cited in claim 1 are capable of being used as “fastening points” for attachment of lifting gear), whereby lifting performed using lifting gear fastened to the fastening points lifts the closure head (as noted in the above indefiniteness section, this is a method limitation, but, as best understood by Examiner, Sakashita’s apparatus is capable of being lifting via the projections, or portions thereof, thereby lifting the closure head since they are attached to each other as cited above in response to claim 1 and shown in Figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 9, Sakashita anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the underframe (51) is configured to shield control rod guide tubes penetrating through the central section from accidental damage (the underframe 51 would shield centrally hanging guide tubes from damage coming from the lateral direction).
Regarding claim 10, Sakashita discloses a fixture system comprising the fixture according to claim 1 (as cited above in response to claim 1) as a first fixture and further discloses a detachable second fixture (52) which holds the first fixture off the ground (as shown in Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 11, Sakashita anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses a third fixture (3) which fits over the closure head (112) when the closure head is mounted to the first fixture (32, 51), the third fixture [located] on the peripheral portion of the closure head, and projecting upwardly therefrom (as shown in Fig. 13).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakashita in view of “JP799” (JPS6237799U1).
Regarding claim 3, Sakashita anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly suggest that the fastening points are threaded holes.
JP799 does. JP799 is also in the art area of assembling and disassembling nuclear reactor vessel parts and teaches (Fig. 1) fastening points that are threaded holes (23) formed in an upstanding projection (15) for fastening thereto of lifting gear eye bolts (this is an intended use recitation, and JP799 is capable of fulfilling this use via bolt 22).
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the threaded holes of JP799 within the fixture of Sakashita, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in order to provide a mechanism for attaching the upper portions of the vessel head to the ring so that they may be removed simultaneously, and tools for maintenance may be accessed within the body of the vessel: “[T]he retainer ring 15 is lifting together with the inner sleeve 10. Therefore, the through hole 20 … is exposed, and the [tool] can be inserted,” mid-page 3.
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 Examiner could only find a translation for JPS6237799U but Figures for JPH035914Y2, but these are equivalent according to Espacenet. See attachment.
