Patents

Decision Information

Decision Content

                           COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

 

OBVIOUSNESS Controlling Grain Size in Nuclear Fuel

 

Particle modification of uranium dioxide where the relative active

surface area of the fuel particles are reduced by wet attrition

milling while in the green state is shown in the cited art.

 

Final Action: Affirmed.

 

This decision deals with the applicant's request for review by the

Commissioner of Patents of the Final Action on application 293,717 (Class

31-88) filed December 22, 1977, assigned to Canadian General Electric

Company Limited entitled Method of Controlling Grain Size in Nuclear Fuel

Compacts. The inventors are Harvey Robert Lee, Adam Krawczyk and

Arnold K. Koch. The Examiner in charge issued a Final Action refusing to

allow the application on August 18, 1982.

 

The application relates to the preparation of nuclear fuel where uranium

powders originating from a solid and liquid reaction process involving

ammonium are prepared by a particle modification step where the relative

active surface area of the fuel particles are reduced by wet attrition

milling while in the green state.

 

In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1 to 7 in view of the

following references:

 

Publication

A.E.C, document, T.I.D.-7546, Book 2, Nov. 18-23, 1957, pp. 416-419,

453-466.

 

Canadian Patents

634,890                  Jan. 16, 1962                Cope

656,281                  Jan. 22, 1963                Moss

856,695                  Nov. 24, 1970                Masselot

 

Masselot relates a process for manufacturing pellets of sintered nuclear

fuel comprising the steps of grinding uranium oxide into powder, adding a

sintering inhibitor, cold pressing and sintering.

 

Cope describes a method of making ceramic nuclear fuel comprising the steps

of ball-milling a mixture of uranium dioxide powder and gelatinous

plutonium polymer, pressing the mixture to form a green compact and

sintering the compact. Moss describes a process of densification of

uranium dioxide by ball milling and subsequent tumbling to granulate the

material. The publication describes methods for the preparation of uranium

dioxide fuel materials.

 

In the Final Action the Examiner stated (in part):

 

The rejection of claims 1 to 7 is maintained. The claims lack

invention in view of the cited art. The references teach

methods of manufacturing ceramic UO2 nuclear fuel bodies

comprising the step of milling the UO2 powder to obtain the

desired grain sizes. Contrary to applicant's arguments the

problem of obtaining a controlled and uniform grain size after

sintering is fully recognized in the prior art. The

publication on page 454, lines 1-4 and 30-36 discusses the

effects of ball milling on the sintering characteristics of

U02, at line 1 it is stated inter alia that "A more uniform

grain structure in the sintered pellet is achieved" and, at

line 4, that "it was found that wet milling is more efficient a

process than dry milling". Lines 30-36 of the same page also

emphasize the importance of UO2 powder structure in the

sintering characteristics of UO2, such as uniform grain

structure in the sintered material. Further evidence of the

recognition in the prior art of the importance of reducing

variations in grain size after sintering, can be found in the

publication on page 461 lines 5-7, page 463 line 16 and page

466 lines 16-20.

 

In response to the Final Action the applicant cancelled the claims on file

and replaced them with amended claims 1 to 5. That response stated

(in part):

 

The present invention comprises meritorious subject matter,

providing an inobvious solution to an existing problem.

 

In the CANDU R nuclear reactors which comprise Canada's major

contribution to this nuclear age the nuclear fuel is made up of

assemblies of fuel pellets encased in a thin zirconium sheath.

Under operating conditions of high temperature and high pressure

the long residence time of the fuel causes pellet growth to occur

against the wrapping constraint of the fuel sheath which is

collapsed in tight constraining relation against the pellets.

 

In the event that atypical crystal growth takes place there is a

strong likelihood of pellet failure occurring, which can lead

then to rupturing of the sheath and contamination of reactor

coolant by radioactive particles. The improved pellets made

possible by the present invention go a long way towards reducing

this probability. A further advantage of the present invention

is the simplified fuel processing made possible, wherein

preliminary pelletizing and sintering is avoided, and the wet

milling is carried out with powder in the green state. Whilst,

subsequent to the wet milling step for reducing the powder in

particle size and also in active surface area, the improved

powder may be satisfactorily pelletized without the step of

pre-compaction that otherwise would be provided.

 It appears that the prior teachings cited by the Examiner are

 defective, when viewed in light of the teachings of the present

 application, because:

 

      1) there is no recognition therein of the significant role

 played by the reduction of active surfaces, by wet milling,

 in controlling atypical grain growth;

 

      2) the range of grain size obtained in the present process,

 being about one order smaller than the sizes, where taught,

 in the prior art (see Responsive letter of Jan. 16, 1981);

 

      3) the effective cost reduction made possible in the overall

 pelleting process, due to avoidance of having to fabricate

 sintered pellets, prior to crushing and reprocessing the

 material; and to avoidance of pre-compressing the pellets in

 the green state, when pelletizing, by relying upon a single

 compaction, made possible by the improved pouring

 characteristics of the subject powder.

 

 The consideration before the Board is whether or not the latest amended set

 of claims are allowable over the art of record. Amended Claim 1 reads:

 

A process for providing a nuclear fuel green powder of reduced

 susceptibility to atypical grain growth upon compaction, sintering

 and prolonged hot soaking, including the step of diminishing the

 active surface area of the fuel grains by wet milling to achieve a

 grain size in the range substantially less than 25 micrometres.

 

 Applicant maintains the improved pellet made by the present invention has

 the advantage of simplified fuel processing wherein preliminary pelletizing

 and sintering is avoided. Wet milling is carried out with powder in the

 green state thereby reducing the powder in particle size so that it may be

 satisfactorily pelletized without the step of pre-compaction previously

 used. He argues that the cited prior art is defective because there is no

 recognition of the significant role played by the reduction of active

 surfaces by wet milling and the range of grain size obtained in the present

 process being about one order smaller than the sizes in the prior art.

 

 In the Final Action specific portions of the A.E.C. Publication were

 detailed to show support for the refusal of the claims. Reference was made

 to page 454 at lines 1 and 4 where studies of ball milling on the sintering

 characteristics indicate that "a more uniform grain structure in the

 sintered pellet is achieved" and "it was found that wet milling is more

 efficient a process than dry milling". Reference is also made to lines 30

 to 36 of the same page which emphasize the importance of UO2 powder

 structure in the sintering characteristics of UO2 such as uniform grain

 structure in the sintered material.

 

We note from the publication that particle size is detailed in several

locations. On page 417 it is stated that powder agglomerates broken up by

the action of a high-velocity fluid jet have been employed to prepare UO2

with particle diameters less than 1u. At page 454 particle size of less

than 3u are described. Figure 2 on page 416 shows particle sizes of UO2

powders ranging in size from 1 to 3u and figure 3 on page 418 shows similar

sized particles. Clearly then the range of size obtained by the

applicant's process is not smaller than shown in the prior art.

 

Grain size change associated with sintering is described on pages 454 to

466 inclusive of the A.E.C. Publication. Page 455 states there are "marked

differences between the microstructures of compacts sintered from

as-received MCW powder and from wet ball milled powder. The former are

heterogeneous both with respect to the spatial porosity distribution and

grain size, whereas the latter have uniform structures throughout (Figs

7 to 9)". At page 462 grain growth is related to time by a formula

utilizing mean grain diameter, a temperature constant and the exponential

characteristic of the material. Figure 17 on page 465 shows the rate of

grain growth utilizing cold pressed and sintered wet ball milled UO2

compacts. Page 477 states that the growth of grains will be controlled by

the activation energy which controls the disappearance of pores. Therefore

we conclude that the publication does recognize the role played by wet

milling in controlling grain growth.

 

The applicant argues that he has a method of preparing a nuclear fuel

pellet which reduces the probability of atypical grain growth, and provides

an effective cost reduction made possible in the overall process due to

avoidance of having to fabricate the sintered pellets material prior to

recrushing and reprocessing the material. In response to the Final Action

an amended set of claims was submitted but we are unable to find the argued

features in these claims. However, we note in the rejected set of claims

that refused claims 2, 6 and 7 when combined together would contain the

argued features and clear the cited art.

 

In view of the art of record therefore, we find that the amended claims do

not contain patentable subject matter and that the applicant's advance has

not been satisfactorily defined in any single claim of the rejected

claims.

 

We recommend that the decision in the Final Action to refuse the claims be

affirmed.

 

M.G. Brown                                   S.D. Kot

Acting Chairman                              Member

Patent Appeal Board

 

I have reviewed the prosecution of this application and considered the

recommendation of the Patent Appeal Board. I concur with the reasoning and

the findings of the Board. Accordingly I refuse to grant a patent

containing either the amended claims, or the rejected claims as they

presently define the invention. The Applicant has six months within which

to appeal my decision under Section 44 of the Patent Act.

 

J.H.A. Gari‚py

Commissioner of Patents

 

Dated at Hull, Quebec

this 10th day of June 1987

 

 R.A. Eckersley

1420 Dupont Street

Toronto, Ontario

M6H 2B2

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.