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 with traverse of claims 31-40 in the reply filed on 1/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are related and no search burden exists. This is not found persuasive because
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 can be used to continuously monitor and optimize the pressure within the reactor vessel.
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)
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 41-51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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, within a nuclear reactor or relevant art, teach the detail of the purification system comprising the extraction cartridge with its own sorbent (separate from the absorption/dissolution in the carboy), wherein the retained fission products are eluted from the sorbent into a storage generator.
Claim 36 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 best prior art of record is believed to be Cisneros, as cited below, and Cisneros teaches away from the recitations of claim 36 such that the skilled artisan, even if they were aware of the features of claim 36, would not likely modify Cisneros to achieve the limitations of claim 36. Specifically, Cisneros teaches a gas outlet on a lower side of the vessel (Fig. 19: “Gas” conduit leaving lower right side of vessel 1926, and also there will be some mixed gas leaving via arrow at the bottom surface of vessel 1926) and explains that the system uses this design to take advantage of gravity, e.g., ¶ 223, and the fission products, including the gaseous ones, exit via the lower outlets. Taking all the teachings of Cisneros together, Examiner does not find it reasonable that the skilled artisan would re-locate the gas outlet(s) on the vessel 1926 of Cisneros to a top side such that the gaseous fission products ascend towards the outlet(s).
If Applicant wishes to rejoin method claims 41-51 in a future Notice of Allowance, Examiner asks that the method claims be amended to conform to antecedent basis with the apparatus claims, e.g., Claim 41: “A method for extracting fission products from irradiated fueled molten salt of the molten salt reactor system of claim 30 …”
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 31 recites that the volume of the vessel increases. This would presumably mean that the vessel is flexible, e.g., it is inflated. However, the claim also recites that this volume increase occurs when a vessel valve is opened, decreasing the pressure within the vessel, which would imply the opposite of inflation. A review of the Specification shows that the alleged vessel volume increase is not a vessel volume increase at all. The Specification at ¶ 120 instead explains that the claim’s recited pressure decrease and volume increase are only occurring if one mentally combines the volume of the vessel with the volume of the gas transfer assembly. However, the gas transfer assembly is a distinct structure from the vessel: see claim 30, where “a vessel” is recited, and later “a gas transfer assembly” is recited as a subcomponent, not of the vessel, but of “an extraction assembly,” which is a distinct and same-level component as the vessel. Accordingly, the skilled artisan is unable to increase the volume of the vessel, and the Specification does not explain how to do this, because the Specification does not actually support or explain a vessel volume increase.
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 31 and 40 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 31 recites that the volume of the vessel increases; however, it is unclear what this means, structurally or functionally. The skilled artisan would expect a vessel increase would mean the vessel were inflated, e.g., the volume of a balloon increases when it is blown up. However, the Specification does not support this interpretation, and instead explains at the end of ¶ 120 that the volume of the vessel is not actually being increased, but instead, if one mentally combines the vessel’s volume with that of the gas system, then this combined volume is greater than that of the vessel alone. Therefore, it is entirely unclear if the claim is correct (the vessel volume increases) or if the Specification is correct (the vessel volume does not increase, but the combined volume of a gas system and the vessel is greater than the volume of the vessel alone).
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the inert gas" and “the gas”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear which of these limitations corresponds to the “gas” in parent claim 30, or if they both do, or neither.
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 30, 31, 33-35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cisneros (US 20170301413) in view of Long (US 3,105,028).
Regarding claim 31, Cisneros teaches (Fig. 19) a fission product extraction system comprising: a vessel (1926) fluidly connected to a molten salt loop (1902 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1910 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1906 [Wingdings font/0xE0] up thru unlabeled pump [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1926 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1928 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1930 [Wingdings font/0xE0] pump again but left turn back into 1902; summarized as steps 2102 - 2112, Fig. 21) of a molten salt reactor system (1900), wherein the vessel (1926) is configured to receive a flow of fueled molten salt comprising dissolved fission products from the molten salt loop (“fuel salt 1906 from the drain tank 1904 is transferred into a degassing vessel that acts as a helium contactor 1926,” ¶ 227); an extraction assembly fluidly coupled to the vessel and comprising a bypass (e.g., the pathway 1906 [Wingdings font/0xE0] up thru pump [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1934 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1932 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1906) configured to isolate the vessel (1926) from the molten salt loop; a port (entrance for Helium line at top right of 1926) positioned on a top side of the vessel (1926) fluidly connecting a gas transfer assembly (“Gas” line leaving 1926 + 1922) to the vessel (1926) and configured to decrease a pressure of the vessel upon opening of the port (The introduction of helium gas into vessel 1926 may decrease or increase the pressure within said vessel; that said, it is generally well known and accepted that if you take a sealed vessel, and open it up, the pressure within will decrease. Additionally, Cisneros discloses that due at least to its high elevation, the pressure within 1926 is relatively high, ¶ 227); wherein, upon the pressure of the vessel decreasing, the fueled molten salt is degassed and the dissolved fission products are dislodged from the fueled molten salt (Examiner notes that this limitation is contingent. In accordance with MPEP 2111.04 (II), the apparatus must possess the structure for performing this function should the condition occur. In this case, Cisnernos has a vessel 1926 that, if its pressure is decreased, the recited degassing and dislodging can occur. Indeed, the degassing and dislodging occur regardless of pressure: “The helium gas, now a He mixture with 135Xe and other noble gases, would separate from the fuel salt 1906,” ¶ 227); wherein the gas transfer assembly is configured to receive the dislodged fission products from the vessel (see “Gas” line leaving 1926 towards 1922), a gas conduit (“He” helium line) fluidly connected to the gas transfer assembly, and configured to feed a gas (helium “He”) into the gas transfer assembly and move the dislodged fission products therethrough (¶ 227), and a carboy (1932) fluidly connected to the gas transfer assembly (“the UCl4 condenser 1932 is connected so that it receives and treats gas from the filter system 1930,” ¶ 233) and configured to receive the dislodged fission products (“gaseous UCl4,” ¶ 233) and dissolve the dislodged fission products into a liquid solution (the fuel salt stream) contained within the carboy (“collecting gaseous UCl4 that evaporates from the fuel salt and re-condensing it ... Recovered UCl4 condensate is returned to the fuel salt by dissolving it into a fuel salt stream,” ¶ 248).
Cisneros discloses the entry port for helium in the vessel (top right of vessel 1926, Fig. 19) but does not explicitly disclose that it has a valve.
However, Examiner notes that it is likely a valve is present at the port where the helium gas enters the vessel because otherwise, the helium tank would be susceptible to foreign gases from the vessel contaminating the pictured helium tank. Additionally, Cisneros explains that “Ancillary components such as valves, filters, check valves … are not illustrated [because] one of skill in the art who ready recognize how to implement these components to achieve the results described herein,” ¶ 148. Specifically to Fig. 19, Cisneros mentions in ¶ 223 that it was known to control flow rate using valves or a pressure differential.
Long does teach such a valve. Long is also in the art area of fission product removal and treatment for nuclear reactors and teaches (see the Figure) a vessel (13) for processing fission products from a nuclear reactor comprising a valve (15) positioned on a top side of the vessel configured to decrease a pressure of the vessel upon opening of the valve (any pressure buildup within tank 13 will be released upon opening of valve 15).
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the valve as suggested by Long with the tank of Cisneros in order to, as described by Long (col. 2, ll. 39–72), provide a fission product decontamination system connected to a coolant loop of a nuclear reactor that could be utilized when needed (valve open) and dormant when not needed (valve closed): “The coolant, contaminated with fission products, will find its way to the gas-holder [13]…The sodium hydroxide of the absorber 19 absorbs…solid matter such as fragments of fission products…the majority of fission products present can be reduced…their activity is reduced to a tolerable level.”
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 Cisneros, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Long’s valve with Cisneros's molten salt coolant processing tank would have produced Applicant's claimed invention. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Long (col. 2, ll. 39–72), providing a fission product decontamination system connected to a coolant loop of a nuclear reactor that could be utilized when needed (valve open) and dormant when not needed (valve closed): “The coolant, contaminated with fission products, will find its way to the gas-holder [13]…The sodium hydroxide of the absorber 19 absorbs…solid matter such as fragments of fission products…the majority of fission products present can be reduced…their activity is reduced to a tolerable level.”
Regarding claim 31, modified Cisneros teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination further teaches wherein the pressure of the vessel (Cisneros, 1926) decreases upon the opening of the valve (Cisneros as modified above), thereby fluidly connecting a volume of the gas transfer assembly to a volume of the vessel and causing the volume of the vessel to increase (per the Specification at ¶ 120, the fluid connection between the vessel 1926 and the gas conduit “He” of Cisneros in Fig. 19 causes the recited volume increase and pressure decrease).
Regarding claim 33, modified Cisneros teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Cisneros additionally discloses (Fig. 19) wherein the bypass includes piping configured to divert the flow of fueled molten salt (e.g., the pathway 1906 [Wingdings font/0xE0] up thru pump [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1934 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1932 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1906), such that the flow of fueled molten salt continues throughout the molten salt loop upon isolation of the vessel (1926) (the flow may proceed in the above-identified loop, without involving vessel 1926).
Regarding claim 34, modified Cisneros teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Cisneros additionally discloses (Fig. 19) wherein the bypass is configured to selectively isolate the vessel (1926) from the molten salt loop (the flow may proceed in the above-identified loop [see claim 33], without involving vessel 1926). Additionally, Long teaches a bypass valve (valve 9) that is configured to selectively isolate a vessel (13) from the fluid loop of the reactor (when valve 9 is closed, fluid leaving the top of the reactor 2 turns downward to go through heat exchanger 6 and be routed via line 4 back into the reactor, thus avoiding the vessel 13). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this valve of Long in order to, as already noted above in response to claim 30, only connect the fluid flow of the reactor to the fission product removal system when desired/needed.
Regarding claim 35, modified Cisneros teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Cisneros additionally discloses (Fig. 19) wherein the fission products are dislodged from the fueled molten salt in a gaseous phase (“The helium gas, now a He mixture with 135Xe and other noble gases, would separate from the fuel salt 1906,” ¶ 227) by a reduction of a partial pressure of a volume above the fueled molten salt within the vessel (per the Specification at ¶ 120, the fluid connection between the vessel 1926 and the gas conduit “He” of Cisneros in Fig. 19 causes the recited pressure decrease).
Regarding claim 37, modified Cisneros teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Cisneros additionally discloses (Fig. 19) wherein the gas conduit (“He” helium line) is configured to feed the gas throughout piping of the gas transfer assembly and wherein the gas conduit is configured to feed the gas in the direction (leftwards in Fig. 19) of the carboy (1932) to facilitate receipt of the dislodged fission products by the carboy (much of the helium added to vessel 1926 is removed via its outlet Gas line, but some of the remaining helium goes into 1928 and 1930, exiting the top of 1930 “Gas” to go into carboy 1932).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over above-modified Cisneros, further in view of Schenter (US 2006/0023829).
Regarding claim 40, modified Cisneros teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Cisneros additionally discloses (Fig. 19) the dissolved fission products comprise molybdenum (Cisneros uses a uranium-based fuel, of which molybdenum is necessarily a fission product), wherein the inert gas comprises helium gas (“He,” Fig. 19). Modified Cisneros does not explicitly teach wherein the gas comprises nitrogen trifluoride.
Schenter does teach this. Schenter is also in the art area of extracting molybdenum and teaches using a helium gas to which nitrogen trifluoride has been added (¶ 44). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this additive suggested by Schenter in the apparatus of modified Cisneros because, as described by Schenter (¶ 9), fluoridation produces molybdenum complexes that are less volatile and thus easier to isolate.
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