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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 9/8/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/8/2025.
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 1–16 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 in the preamble “a molten salt nuclear reactor contained in a closed and preferably leaktight vessel.” The use of the term “preferably” in this context is indefinite. It reads like the term “optionally.” Even if the leaktight vessel is optional, then why not delete “and preferably leaktight vessel” from the preamble?
Claims 2, 7, and 9 are rejected for the same reasons as immediately above.
The term “acceptable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “acceptable” 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. The term “acceptable” is a subjective term, not an objective term. Examiner suggests using a term like “predetermined” or “reference,” as long as these are not new matter. Or, delete the term.
It is unclear what the term “characterized by” is expounding upon. The controller has already been recited as configured to monitor, storing parameter values, and stop operation. Is the controller itself further characterized by, or is the molten salt nuclear reactor system of the preamble further characterized by what follows this phrase?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "all reactor parameters" in the final clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “all” the reactor parameters includes—presumably, this would be every single parameter in a nuclear reactor which, frankly, would be infinite. This term should be standardized to the previously recited reactor parameter limitations.
Claim 10 recites “the one or more thermodynamic conditions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “nuclear reactor operation.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which nuclear reactor operation is being referred to. What action is stopped? Is it a previously recited action, or a new one?
Claim 13 recites “open the circuit breaker to stop nuclear reactor operation by opening the at least one circuit breaker.” It is unclear if there are two circuit breakers or, if not, why the redundancy?
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 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 14 recites that the circuit breaker and the controller are “part of a circuit breaker arrangement.” Both the circuit breaker and the controller have been recited in parent claims. Saying that they are “part” of an “arrangement” conveys no additional meaning, no additional structure, and no additional function. 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 § 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaw (WO2015089665A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shaw discloses (fig. 1) a molten salt nuclear reactor system for supplying heat to a consumer of heat , the molten salt nuclear reactor system comprising a molten salt nuclear reactor (10) contained in a closed and preferably leaktight vessel (12), the molten salt nuclear reactor comprising: a reactor core (18), a liquid loop (18 [Wingdings font/0xE0]32 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 30 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 34 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 18) for circulating a liquid through the reactor core, the liquid being a moderator or a mixture of molten salt and nuclear fuel (¶¶ 23–24), the liquid loop comprises a circulation pump (40) for circulating the liquid, a drain tank (30), and a controller (42) configured to monitor one or more reactor parameters, the controller having stored acceptable operating values or ranges for the one or more reactor parameters (electronic data for normal conditions, ¶ 51), and the controller being configured to: autonomously stop reactor operation by allowing the liquid to drain into the drain tank under the influence of gravity when at least one or a combination of the reactor parameters differs from the acceptable operating values or ranges (electronic data for abnormal conditions, ¶ 51, controller stops circulation pump so liquid falls into the drain tank, ¶ 61) characterized by the controller being configured to: autonomously commence reactor operation by starting the circulation pump to pump liquid from the drain tank to the liquid loop and to circulate liquid in the liquid loop when all reactor parameters and combinations thereof are in conformity with the acceptable operating values or ranges (controller 42 turns pump 40 “on and off,” and, during normal conditions, turns the pump on and pulls liquid fuel from drain tank 30 through recirculation passage 34 and back into the top of the core 18, ¶ 48 and ¶ 51; during abnormal conditions, controller turns pump off and reactor can be shutdown “until the abnormal condition can be corrected,” ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 2, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the reactor parameters comprise one or more thermodynamic conditions of the liquid and/or a parameter indicating whether or not heat is consumed by the consumer of heat (liquid levels are monitored, e.g., see at least ¶ 56; Examiner further notes for the record that all operating nuclear reactors are required by law to monitor thermodynamic conditions of the fuel and coolant liquids as well as heat consumption).
Regarding claim 3, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses one or more sensors (“sensors,” ¶ 51) configured to issue a signal representative or indicative of the one or more reactor parameters to the controller.
Regarding claim 4, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the controller is configured to derive the one or more reactor parameters from the signals from the one or more sensors (¶ 51).
Regarding claim 5, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the one of the one or more sensors comprise one or more of: a temperature sensor configured for sensing the temperature of the liquid, preferably at a position at or near a liquid inlet or outlet of the reactor core, a temperature sensor configured for sensing of the atmosphere in the closed vessel, a gas composition sensor configured for sensing the composition of the atmosphere in the closed vessel, a radiation detection sensor configured for detecting a radiation level in the closed vessel, a leak detection sensor, configured for detecting a leak in the liquid loop, a seismic sensor configured to detect seismic events affecting the molten salt nuclear reactor, a pump speed sensor configured to detect the speed of the circulation pump, a flow rate sensor configured to detect the flow rate of the liquid circulating in the liquid circuit, a liquid level sensor, configured for detecting a liquid level in the drain tank (liquid levels are monitored, e.g., see at least ¶ 56), a door sensor configured for detecting if a door in the closed vessel is open or closed (Examiner notes for the record that all operating nuclear reactors are required by law to monitor temperature conditions of the fuel and coolant liquids, as well as monitoring for leaks, earthquakes/vibrations, pump efficacy, and pressure changes).
Regarding claim 6, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the liquid loop, the drain tank and the circulation pump are configured to allow the liquid to drain to the drain tank under the influence of gravity when the circulation pump is stopped (“Any remaining liquid fuel within the reactor core 18 drains out through the outlet area 26 and the drain passage 32 and into the reservoir 30,” ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 7, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the drain tank is configured to remove heat from any liquid in the drain tank (heat is removed via heat exchanger 44, Fig. 1), preferably decay heat from a liquid containing fissile material, the drain tank preferably comprising passive cooling means for removing heat from the drain tank.
Regarding claim 8, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the circulation pump is of an open type that is open for passage of the liquid when the circulation pump is not operating, and/or wherein the drain tank is fluidically connected to the liquid loop via a normally open valve and/or wherein the drain tank is part of the liquid loop (the circulation pump 40 is open for passage of the liquid when the drain tank 30 is part of the liquid loop—that is how circulation via recirculation passage 34 occurs).
Regarding claim 9, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the liquid loop is either a moderator loop for circulating a liquid moderator, preferably comprising heavy water, or a heat exchange loop for circulating a heat exchange medium, preferably molten salt or a mixture of molten salt and nuclear fuel (¶¶ 23–24).
Regarding claim 10, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses the controller being configured to derive the one or more reactor parameters and/or the one or more thermodynamic conditions from signals from sensors that are arranged inside the vessel (liquid levels are monitored with regard to whether or not the pump is on/off and the reactor is in the active/idle state, e.g., see at least ¶¶ 55–57).
Regarding claim 11, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the controller comprises one or more of: analog electronics, digital electronics, mechanical logic, fluidic logic, a proportional- integral-derivative controller, a model predictive controller, a Boolean controller (the controller necessarily comprises one or more of analog and digital electronics).
Regarding claim 16, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and also discloses wherein the nuclear reactor is configured to end the nuclear reaction and enter a safe state upon the controller ending reactor operation (“Therefore, in the inactive state the liquid fuel is removed from contact with the reactor core 18, eliminating the possibility that the fission reaction will continue and thereby safely shutting down the reactor system until the abnormal condition can be corrected,” ¶ 61).
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.
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.
Claims 12–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw in view of Shaw’s Fig. 5 embodiment, further in view of Shimano (US 5,610,958).
Regarding claim 12, Shaw anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not, in the above-cited Fig. 1 embodiment, explicitly disclose the claimed electric device.
Shaw does teach this in the Figure 5 embodiment. Figure 5 teaches: a source of electrical power in the closed vessel and an electric device (pump motor 78), at least one circuit breaker arranged between the source of electrical power in the closed vessel and the electric device, the electric device being configured to stop a machine (e.g., the pictured pump shaft connected the pump motor 78 to the pump 40) driving the circulation pump (40) and/or to allow a normally open valve to assume its normally open position. Examiner notes that molten salt nuclear reactors such as Shaw’s use electrically powered centrifugal pumps/electromagnetic pumps, and therefore, the presence of “a source of electrical power” is implicit. Examiner further notes that while Shaw’s Figure 1 embodiment does not explicitly show the motor, the motor almost certainly exists because the pump 40 cannot power itself.
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the motor of Figure 5 of Shaw within the Figure 1 embodiment in order to provide power to the pump.
Modified Shaw does not explicitly teach the circuit breaker, although Examiner notes that NRC regulations require circuit breakers for safety and critical equipment, which would likely include the pump responsible for an emergency shutdown, as Shaw’s pump is. That said, a circuit breaker is explicitly taught by Shimano.
Shimano is in the same art area of nuclear reactors and teaches (fig. 1) a source of electrical power (1) and an electric device (the motor for the pump 8), at least one circuit breaker (2) arranged between the source of electrical power (1) and the electric device (motor), the electric device being configured to stop a machine (pump piston, shaft, or could be the converter 11 or power lines leading to pump 8) driving the circulation pump (8).
The skilled artisan would have been modified to utilize the circuit breaker of Shimano in the apparatus of modified Shaw in order to provide an automatic safety switch to protect the reactor following an accident such as a loss-of-coolant accident.
Regarding claim 13, modified Shaw with Shimano teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and modified Shaw further teaches wherein the controller (42) is configured to stop [a] nuclear reactor operation interrupting the supply of electric power to the electric device (pump motor 78) (e.g., “The reactor sustains a fission chain reaction only when the pump is on, and thus the reactor can be shut-down simply by turning off the pump,” abstract, and “the controller 42 is adapted to turn the pump on or off,” ¶ 51). The incorporation of Shimano’s circuit breaker in this system would result in the controller receiving a signal (either from a sensor or the reactor operator) to shut off power to the pump via the pump motor by flipping the circuit breaker. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this arrangement in order to allow the reactor operator, who is remote from the controller, to instruct it to stop the pump immediately following an emergency or accident.
Regarding claim 14, modified Shaw with Shimano teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination further teaches wherein the circuit breaker and the controller are part of a circuit breaker arrangement (as described above, both the circuit breaker and the controller are present in the modification).
Regarding claim 15, modified Shaw with Shimano teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination further teaches wherein the electric device is an electric motor operably coupled to the circulation pump (modified Shaw, pump motor 78 connected to pump 40).
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