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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 02/06/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application with claims 6 and 17-20 withdrawn. Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to provide an adequate written description of the invention and further for failing to provide an enabling disclosure.
The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claims of the particular application (in this case, claims 1-5 and 7-16). A patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling disclosure.
Applicant’s claims are directed towards “[a] system for the controlled fusion reaction of materials” and “[a] device for inducing and controlling nuclear fusion reactions” (claims 1 and 8, respectively).
The asserted utility of the present invention is “creating, controlling, conducting, and optimizing fusion activities … for energy production, propulsion, formation of material, and generation of directed energetic beams and particles” ([0002]), “modifying the Coulomb barrier” ([0017]), and “achieving economically viable controlled fusion” ([0018]).
There is no reputable evidence of record to support the claim that the present invention is capable of achieving nuclear fusion or providing an energy output. A skilled artisan would have cause to doubt the asserted utility of the present invention based on the following factors.
As is known by those having ordinary skill in the art, and as admitted by the Applicant ([0009]-[0012]), overcoming the Coulomb barrier to achieve critical ignition for nuclear fusion is only known to occur at extremely high kinetic energies, i.e., extremely high temperatures, such as those present on the sun. Georgia State University1 summarizes:
The temperatures required to overcome the coulomb barrier for fusion to occur are so high as to require extraordinary means for their achievement. Such thermally initiated reactions are commonly called thermonuclear fusion … the temperatures are in the range of 107-108 K.
Applicant’s device is not capable of producing or sustaining such reactions as the device provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion.
Furthermore, as noted by the previously cited current state-of-the-art reference Dylla1, as recently as 2020, the largest nuclear fusion project in the world (ITER) hopes to achieve a successful fusion demonstration “for several minutes duration” by 2026 at the absolute earliest. This is with a projected cost of “greater than $10 billion.” According to the official ITER2 webpage:
The world record for controlled fusion power is held by the European tokamak JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 MW of fusion power from 24 MW of power injected into its heating systems…. ITER will not capture the power it produces as electricity, but as the first of all fusion experiments in history to produce net energy … it will prepare the way for the machine that can.
ITER … will be the first of all fusion experiments in history to produce net energy.
When the most advanced nuclear fusion reactor in the world is only hoping to be the first such experiment to create more energy than it consumes (“net” energy gain), Applicant’s claims to a nuclear fusion device that can be a commercially viable source of electricity ([0002], [0018], [0019], [0031]-[0033], [0077]) appear to be wishful thinking at best. The international community will have spent $10 billion on a nuclear fusion reactor that, at best, is hoped to sustain a nuclear fusion reaction for “several minutes.” The skilled artisan would therefore be skeptical of Applicant’s claim to have a simple and easy fusion reactor capable of a net energy gain.
The presumption that nuclear fusion processes are capable of producing more energy than is input ([0031]-[0033]) is wholly unsupported by modern nuclear and plasma physics. Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers published in which the Applicant's fusion devices have been substantiated. It is the Examiner’s conclusion that Applicant’s theories are based on scientific theory that is both unproven and implausible.
Regarding Applicant’s Declaration submitted 09/08/2021, directed towards application number 12/850,633 (“the ’633 application”), the evidence presented in the Declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejection as the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. See MPEP 716. There is no nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the invention described in the Declaration. The apparatus described in the Declaration requires a superconducting magnet, a discharge rod, a cooling system, a supply of hydrogen gas, and a boron target, none of which are recited in the claimed invention.
Applicant further submitted in support of the instant application the paper “Electron Catalyzed Fusion”. Examiner notes this paper was not published in any online peer-reviewed journal. This paper is only published at arxiv.org, whose homepage states that “Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv.” This is not by coincidence. This paper is directed towards subject matter that lies outside the realm of established science. As evidenced in the attached paper3 also authored by Applicant, “electron catalyzed fusion” is a term coined by the Applicant to describe their purported nuclear fusion scheme. This paper describing Applicant’s “electron catalyzed fusion” cannot therefore be accepted as evidence that Applicant’s underlying theory of Coulomb barrier lowering is a technology recognized by mainstream scientists.
Regarding Applicant’s submission of the paper “Enhancement of Nuclear Fusion in Plasma Oscillation Systems” in support of the instant application, Examiner notes the paper was authored by the Applicant. A single published paper, authored by the Applicant’s themselves, does not suggest a scientific consensus that the present invention is capable of achieving nuclear fusion at temperatures magnitudes lower than those known to be required for fusion reactions or providing a net energy output. Further, as acknowledged by Applicant, the paper merely presents the concepts in terms of theoretical analysis and does not provide support that Applicant’s claimed fusion devices have been substantiated. Accordingly, this paper also cannot be used to support Applicant’s assertion that the disclosed fusion process is accepted by mainstream scientists.
Applicant further submitted in support of the instant application the article “Observation of Proton-Boron Fusion Products from Rotating Plasma Device,” also authored by the Applicant. Examiner can find no evidence that this paper has been published anywhere, let alone published in any reputable journal. Accordingly, this article also cannot be used to support Applicant’s assertion that the disclosed fusion process is accepted by mainstream scientists.
Applicant additionally submitted two CR-39 reports which allegedly provide supporting experimental results of Applicant’s fusion process. Again, Examiner can find no evidence that these papers have been published in any reputable journal. Accordingly, these reports cannot be used to support Applicant’s assertion that the disclosed fusion process is accepted by mainstream scientists.
If Applicant has truly achieved the claimed breakthroughs in nuclear fusion research after an admitted 70+ years of failed attempts, where are all the supporting papers published by scientists in the nuclear fusion community? A skilled artisan would expect there to be press releases, third-party publications, literature reviews and critiques, etc. if Applicant has achieved nuclear fusion power output with the claimed system and device after nearly a century of failed attempts. Such publications could lend weight to the asserted utility. Without such evidence, however, the asserted utility of the present invention remains incredible.
Applicant’s disclosure therefore lacks adequate teachings to enable the skilled artisan to “creat[e], control[], conduct[], and optimiz[e] fusion activities of nuclei,” “modify[] the Coulomb barrier,” “utiliz[e] the energy and materials created by those [fusion] reactions,” “achieve a predetermined energy balance of the fusion reaction,” or “create sustained functioning fusion reactions and fusion reaction devices … to commercial power generation scale” ([0002], [0017], [0019], [0032]-[0033]).
Reproducibility
The amount of guidance or direction necessary to enable an invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art, as well as to the predictability of the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03. The art of the present invention, a device initiating and sustaining fusion reactions for net energy production ([0002], [0018], [0019], [0031]-[0033], [0077]), is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less predictability of results. Reproducibility must go beyond one's own laboratory. One must produce a set of instructions – a recipe – that would enable a skilled artisan to produce the same results.
Reproducibility of net gain fusion results is a critical feature in determining if a disclosure adequately teaches other practitioners how to make and use an invention. Applicant's disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
Applicant has provided unsupported theory and speculative embodiments based upon questionable science. Therefore, such theories and the experimental results attributed to them are also questionable until such a time that Applicant rigorously proves that the suggested concepts are plausible and the calculations performed statistically sound. Since Applicant has not yet established the operability of the presently claimed invention, it is considered that the invention is lacking in utility. Given the state of the art as here discussed, it would be unreasonable to expect one skilled in the art to be able to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Undue Experimentation
It is the Examiner's position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of Applicant's invention.
In its present form, the disclosure is completely devoid of useful instruction that might enable a person skilled in the art to follow Applicant's methods, account or control for any necessary assumptions, or manipulate the input data with any expectation of how the outcome may be affected.
Applicant admits that “conventional thinking holds that high temperatures and a strongly ionized plasma are required, it was further believed that inexpensive physical containment of the reaction was impossible” ([0014]), “at least one source in the prior art expressly acknowledges the believed impossibility of containing a fusion reaction with a physical structure” ([0015]), and “there has been a long-standing and unfulfilled need for a controlled fusion reaction” ([0018]). Even so, Applicant believes they have produced a successful apparatus for achieving nuclear fusion for commercial energy production using physical confinement ([0017], [0018], [0089], claims 1, 8).
To determine whether a given claim is supported in sufficient detail (by combining the information provided in the disclosure with information known in the art) such that any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention as of the filing date of the application without undue experimentation, at least the following factors should be included: (A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
This standard is applied in accordance with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989).
Reviewing the aforementioned Wands factors, Examiner summarizes the above elaborated explanations as to why Applicant's invention fails to satisfy the enablement requirement:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims are directed towards a system “for the controlled fusion reaction of materials using localized electric fields” (claim 1) and a device “for inducing and controlling nuclear fusion reactions” (claim 8). The scope of the claims includes producing these fusion reactions at low temperatures which are significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion, as discussed above. The details for producing such a reaction at any temperature is not well-known and a skilled artisan would therefore be unable to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2164.08.
(B) The nature of the invention and state of the prior art: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy ([0002], [0018], [0019], [0031]-[0033], [0077]). The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it. As discussed above, fusion reactions require temperatures (107-108 K) many orders of magnitude greater than those encompassed by the scope of Applicant’s claims. Further, there are currently no known fusion reactors for producing net energy at extremely high temperatures, let alone at the temperatures disclosed by Applicant. See MPEP 2164.05(a).
(C) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of ordinary skill in the art cannot be ascertained because the art encompassing low-temperature nuclear fusion research lies within the realm of fringe science and subsequently does not possess a recognizable standard level of associated skill. See MPEP 2164.05(b).
(D) The level of predictability in the art: There is no predictability for energy-producing fusion reactors, as none yet exist, as discussed above, and the specification does not provide an explanation as to how one would achieve energy production at any temperature with the disclosed fusion reactor. See MPEP 2164.03.
(E) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability of the art. As discussed above, there are currently no known fusion reactors capable of producing net energy. As such, the specification would need more detail as to how to make and use the invention in order to be enabling. However, Applicant's underlying theory is speculative at best and Applicant fails to provide a detailed explanation as to how to achieve energy production with the disclosed fusion method. See MPEP 2164.03.
(F) The existence of working examples: Examples are defined as and explained by theoretical possibilities and are not reliably-reproducible working examples. See MPEP 2164.02.
(G) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: In view of the above factors, the quantity of experimentation needed is infinite. Viable fusion reactors for producing net energy gain at any temperature have not yet been demonstrated and the disclosure does not provide sufficient guidance that would enable a skilled artisan to make and use the invention. See MPEP 2164.06.
As evidenced above, the specification, in its present state, fails to teach a person having ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the invention, and the specification is therefore inadequate. The disclosed invention is not, as required by 35 U.S.C. 101, supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility. In view of the above evidence, a skilled artisan would doubt the credibility of the utility of the present invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
As set forth in MPEP 2107.02(IV), examination requires a review of the claims and the supporting written description to determine if the application has asserted for the claimed invention any specific and substantial utility that is credible. If no assertion of specific and substantial utility for the claimed invention made by the applicant is credible, and the claimed invention does not have a readily apparent, well-established utility, the claim(s) should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the grounds that the invention as claimed lacks utility. A prima facie showing of no specific and substantial credible utility must establish that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider credible any specific and substantial utility asserted by the applicant for the claimed invention. The prima facie showing must contain the following elements: (i) an explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible; (ii) support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and (iii) an evaluation of all relevant evidence of record including the closest prior art.
As discussed above, the asserted utility of the claimed invention is directed towards reactors for initiating and sustaining fusion reactions that can be a commercially viable source of electricity ([0002], [0018], [0019], [0031]-[0033], [0077]).
A skilled artisan would view this asserted utility as incredible based on the following considerations: 1) the disclosed invention is a type of net energy output fusion reactor; 2) the operation and effects of the present invention are inconsistent with scientific literature; 3) there is no evidence in the specification that the present invention achieves a fusion reaction; and 4) there are no alternative utilities in the closest prior art.
(1) The present invention is net energy fusion: The apparatuses of the present invention are devices for achieving nuclear fusion reactions to produce a net energy output. Moreover, they bear no similarity to the thermonuclear fusion systems known to achieve nuclear fusion by inputting sufficient (high) energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. All known viable fusion reactors to date produce fusion reactions at extremely high temperatures and operate at an energy deficit; they require much more energy to achieve fusion conditions than is given off by the fusion process. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would doubt the present invention possesses a credible utility.
(2) The purported results of the present invention are inconsistent with scientific literature: There exists no evidence in the scientific literature that nuclear fusion reactions of the present invention can be achieved with the apparatuses described in the present disclosure. While fusion energy has been achieved in some reactors, as discussed above and as admitted by Applicant, there has yet to be a demonstration of any fusion reactions at any temperature, including temperatures significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion, or net energy production from fusion reactions at any temperature.
(3) There is no evidence of operability: The present specification does not include any credible results of nuclear reactions. According to MPEP 2107.02(VII), there is no predetermined amount or character of evidence that must be provided by an Applicant to support an asserted utility, therapeutic or otherwise. Rather, the amount and character of evidence needed to support an asserted utility will vary depending on what is claimed (Ex parte Ferguson, 117 USPQ 229 (Bd. App. 1957)), and whether the asserted utility appears to contravene established scientific principles and beliefs. Evidence will be sufficient if, considered as a whole, it leads a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not to be true. As has been established above, the claimed invention is directed towards nuclear fusion providing a net energy output, and the asserted utility of the claimed invention does not agree with the prevailing view of the mainstream scientific community. Consequently, the evidence that must be provided to establish a credible utility for the present invention must be sufficiently strong to overcome the weight of the mountain of evidence that underpins the conclusion of the mainstream scientific community.
(4) Utilities taught in the closest prior art: The closest prior art is cited in the previously attached PTO-892. None provide support for an alternative, well-established utility for the claimed invention.
Based on the forgoing analysis, the examiner concludes that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider credible the utility asserted by the applicant for the claimed invention. The examiner’s analysis includes: (i) an explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible; (ii) support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and (iii) an evaluation of all relevant evidence of record including the closest prior art.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility.
As discussed above, the asserted utility of the claimed invention is directed towards reactors for initiating and sustaining fusion reactions and producing output energy from fusion that is larger than the input energy ([0002], [0018], [0019], [0031]-[0033], [0077]). Based on the above analysis, the apparatuses of the claimed invention are not able to produce the nuclear fusion reactions and the resulting net energy output as claimed. The examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence as to why the asserted operation and utility of Applicant’s invention is inconsistent with known scientific principles, making it speculative at best as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility are actually present in the invention. As set forth in the objection to the specification above, there is currently no reputable evidence of record to indicate the invention has been reduced to the point of providing an operative apparatus for producing fusion reactions with a net energy output. See In re Sichert, 556 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
The present invention is, therefore, not useful because one cannot make and use the claimed “system for the controlled fusion reaction of materials” (claim 1) and “device for inducing and controlling nuclear fusion reactions” (claim 8) to produce a net energy output. See MPEP 2107.01(II).
As set forth in MPEP 2107.01(IV), a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as discussed further below. See In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Citing In re Brana, the Federal Circuit noted, “Obviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the specification cannot enable one to use it.” Because the invention as claimed does not have a specific and substantial utility that is credible, a person skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) 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, for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the specification, which are accordingly incorporated herein. In view of the above presented Wands factors, it is the Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention. Given the overly broad claims for producing a fusion reaction at any temperature (including temperatures significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion), the fact that there currently exists no viable fusion reactors producing net energy, the unpredictability of the art, and the lack of guidance provided by the inventor as to how to achieve the claimed results, the Examiner has determined that the disclosure does not contain sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims so as to enable a skilled artisan to make and used the claimed invention without undue or unreasonable experimentation.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Applicant had actual or constructive possession of the claimed method at the time of filing. As discussed above, there is no evidence that the method of the present invention is capable of causing a fusion reaction at any temperature, including temperatures significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion, or that the invention is capable of producing a net energy output. There exist no fusion reactors to date that are capable of such reactions and the specification fails to describe distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are still further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the specification as well as in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, which are accordingly incorporated herein; as such, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “wherein the first and second materials comprise materials selected from the group consisting of boron nitride lanthanum hexaboride, hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium, argon, neon, xenon, nitrogen, oxygen, vaporized solids, hydrogen-1, boron-11, lithium-6, lithium-7, helium-3, lithium-6, and nitrogen-15”. Parent claim 1 previously recites “a second material comprising a solid ... wherein the solid comprises boron”. It is unclear the relationship between the boron of the second material recited in parent claim 1 and the materials listed in claim 7. For example, it is unclear if the second material comprises boron (as recited in parent claim 1) in addition to the materials recited in claim 7, if the second material comprises boron (as recited in parent claim 1) and claim 7 is intending to further limit the materials of the first material only, or something else. Additionally, it is unclear what “boron nitride lanthanum hexaboride” is referring to in the claim. While there exists boron nitride (BN) and lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6), Examiner is unaware of a material known as “boron nitride lanthanum hexaboride”. It is therefore unclear if the claim is intending to refer to two different materials (e.g., “boron nitride, lanthanum hexaboride”), if the claim requires the first and second materials comprise both materials (e.g., “boron nitride and lanthanum hexaboride”), or something else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2008/0095293 (“Hacsi”) in view of US Publication No. 2007/0280398 (“Dardik”).
Regarding claim 1, Hacsi (previously cited) (see FIG. 2) discloses a system for the alleged controlled fusion reaction of materials using localized electric fields comprising:
a. an annular chamber (2) having an inner surface (the inner annular surface forming space 5) and an outer surface (the inner surface of chamber 2 defining an outer surface forming space 5) that define an annular space (5);
b. a first plurality of pairs of electrodes (4) disposed on the inner surface of the annular chamber;
c. a second plurality of pairs of electrodes (4) disposed on the outer surface of the annular chamber;
d. a first material (e.g., deuterium, tritium) for forming an ionized plasma located within the annular chamber ([0012], [0032]);
f. a plasma creation device (1, 3, 4), the plasma creation device operably associated with the first material, whereby the plasma creation device is capable of ionizing a component of the first material and thereby creating a weakly ionized plasma resulting in a suppression of radiation losses due to bremsstrahlung ([0011]-[0012], [0032]);
g. wherein the first plurality of pairs of electrodes and the second plurality of pairs of electrodes are configured to generate localized electric fields to accelerate the first material azimuthally to cause the weakly ionized plasma to rotate in the annular chamber ([0032]; Hacsi discloses applying a voltage across electrode, generating localized electric fields and creating a stream of ionized plasma flowing in the direction of the arrows within space 5 of Figure 2, which would induce rotation of the plasma as described in [00099]-[00102] of the instant application); and
h. the annular chamber being configured to provide for the fusion reaction during the rotation of the weakly ionized plasma ([0032]).
Hacsi appears to be silent as to the material/composition of the second plurality of pairs of electrodes. Dardik (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS dated 09/20/2024) is similarly directed towards a system for the alleged controlled fusion reaction of materials comprising a pair of electrodes (Abstract). Dardik teaches a material comprising solid boron is disposed on the pair of electrodes ([0011], [0014], [0016], [0018], [0051], [0053], [0120]), a material of the pair of electrodes being different than boron ([0015], [0018], [0035], [0050]). Dardik further teaches the boron material provides the advantages of trapping various forms of hydrogen to allegedly stimulate and enhance fusion reactions ([0011], [0014], [0016], [0018], [0051], [0053]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to use Dardik’s boron coated electrodes in Hacsi’s system for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Hacsi in order to allegedly enhance fusion reactions, as suggested by Dardik, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 5, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the system of claim 1. The limitation “wherein the fusion reaction is aneutronic” is an intended result-type clause. In view of [0082]-[0083] of the instant specification, Examiner is interpreting this claim to mean that specific combinations of materials, such as those recited in [0083] and claim 7 of the instant application, produce aneutronic fusion reactions. Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the system of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first material and the second material are such that the fusion reaction is aneutronic (Hacsi, [0012], [0032]; Dardik, [0011], [0014], [0016], [0018], [0051], [0053], [0120]).
Regarding claim 7, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the system of claim 1. Hacsi discloses the first material comprises deuterium or tritium ([0012], [0032]). Dardik teaches the second material comprises boron, boron nitride, hydrogen, helium, argon, neon, xenon, nitrogen, or oxygen, ([0053]-[0116], [0120]). Thus, Hacsi, modified to include electrode materials as taught by Dardik, would have resulted in the features of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Hacsi (see FIG. 2) discloses a device for allegedly inducing and controlling nuclear fusion reactions comprising:
an annular chamber (2) having an inner surface (the inner annular surface forming space 5) and an outer surface (the inner surface of chamber 2 defining an outer surface forming space 5) that define an annular space (5), the chamber including a rotation device comprising a plurality of pairs of electrodes (4), said plurality of pairs of electrodes being mounted on at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface of the chamber;
the chamber being configured to introduce a first working material (e.g., deuterium) into the chamber, wherein the first working material comprises a first fusion reactant ([0012]);
said plurality of electrodes being mounted on at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface of the chamber;
a plasma creation device (1, 3, 4) operatively coupled to the chamber and configured to induce ionization of at least the first working material to create a weakly ionized plasma resulting in a suppression of radiation losses due to bremsstrahlung ([0011]-[0012], [0032]);
wherein the rotation device is configured to induce rotation of the weakly ionized plasma comprising at least the first working material within the annular space of the chamber such that fusion reactions between the first fusion reactant and a second fusion reactant take place ([0032]; Hacsi discloses applying a voltage across electrode, generating localized electric fields and creating a stream of ionized plasma flowing in the direction of the arrows within space 5 of Figure 2, which would allegedly induce rotation of the plasma as described in [00099]-[00102] of the instant application).
Hacsi appears to be silent as to the material/composition of the plurality of pairs of electrodes. Dardik is similarly directed towards a system for the alleged controlled fusion reaction of materials comprising a pair of electrodes (Abstract). Dardik teaches a material comprising solid boron is disposed on the pair of electrodes ([0011], [0014], [0016], [0018], [0051], [0053], [0120]), a material of the pair of electrodes being different than boron ([0015], [0018], [0035], [0050]). Dardik further teaches the boron material provides the advantages of trapping various forms of hydrogen to allegedly stimulate and enhance fusion reactions ([0011], [0014], [0016], [0018], [0051], [0053]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to use Dardik’s boron coated electrodes in Hacsi’s device for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Hacsi in order to allegedly enhance fusion reactions, as suggested by Dardik, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 11, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the device of claim 8. Hacsi discloses the plurality of pairs of electrodes are mounted to the outer surface of the chamber (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the device of claim 8. Hacsi discloses the plurality of pairs of electrodes include a first plurality of pairs of electrodes disposed on the inner surface of the annular chamber and a second plurality of pairs of electrodes disposed on the outer surface of the annular chamber (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the device of claim 8. Hacsi discloses a power source (1) configured to supply a voltage between the electrodes in each pair of the plurality of pairs of electrodes to generate localized electric fields (FIG. 2, [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the device of claim 14. Hacsi discloses the power source includes a power device configured to provide one or more voltage pulses ([0032]).
Regarding claim 16, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the device of claim 14. Hacsi discloses the power source includes at least one energy storage capacitor (1) (FIG. 2).
Claims 2-4, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacsi in view of Dardik, further in view of EP Publication No. 0772203 (“Marie”).
Regarding claim 2, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the system of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the electric fields are oscillating electric fields. Marie (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) teaches a system for generating a plasma and producing fusion reactions comprising a chamber (1) having a plurality of electrodes (9, 15), wherein the electrodes are configured to generate oscillating electric fields ([0080]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to generate an oscillating electric field as taught by Marie with the electrodes of the modified Hacsi because Marie teaches that “[i]t is by working against this [oscillating] electric field that the electrons launched by the thermonuclear explosion provide electrical energy ([0080]).
Regarding claim 3, Hacsi in view of Dardik and Marie teaches the system of claim 2. Hacsi discloses a power source (1) configured to supply a voltage between each pair of electrodes in the first plurality of pairs of electrodes and the second plurality of pairs of electrodes to generate the oscillating localized electric fields (FIG. 2, [0032]).
Regarding claim 4, Hacsi in view of Dardik and Marie teaches the system of claim 3. Hacsi discloses the power source includes a power device configured to provide one or more voltage pulses ([0032]).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 13, Hacsi in view of Dardik teaches the device of claim 8. Hacsi discloses the plurality of pairs of electrodes are configured to generate localized electric fields to accelerate the first working material azimuthally within the annular chamber (FIG. 2, [0032]), but does not disclose the electric fields are oscillating electric fields. Marie (see FIG. 1) teaches a system for generating a plasma and producing fusion reactions comprising a chamber (1) having a plurality of electrodes (9, 15), wherein the electrodes are configured to generate oscillating electric fields ([0080]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to generate an oscillating electric field as taught by Marie with the electrodes of the modified Hacsi because Marie teaches that “[i]t is by working against this [oscillating] electric field that the electrons launched by the thermonuclear explosion provide electrical energy ([0080]).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objections to the specification and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a), Applicant does not appear to provide any new arguments (Response, pp. 7-8) and instead relies upon Applicant’s arguments previously filed on 07/29/2025. As discussed in the prior Office actions, these arguments are not persuasive. Examiner’s prior responses to these arguments are therefore repeated herein (see Final Rejection dated 08/06/2025, paras. 31-37).
Applicant argues “the Examiner refuses to consider [the CR-39 report]” and “[i]t is simply improper for the Examiner to assume that the Applicant is lying and not telling the truth solely because the report has not been published by a ‘reputable’ journal” (emphasis in original) (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 8). However, Examiner has never claimed that Applicant is lying. Rather, after evaluation of all documents submitted by Applicant (including the CR-39 report) and the totality of the record, Examiner has concluded that Applicant’s provided evidence, considered as a whole, does not suggest a scientific consensus or provide objective evidence that the present invention is capable of achieving nuclear fusion (at temperatures including those which are magnitudes lower than the temperatures known to be required for fusion reactions) or capable of providing a net energy output. Applicant has not established a probative relation between the submitted evidence and the originally disclosed properties of the claimed invention and Examiner maintains that it is more likely than not that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a legitimate basis to doubt the credibility of the asserted utility.
Applicant argues the claims do not require that production of energy be achieved (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, pp. 8-11) and “[t]here can be no question that the invention as disclosed operates as indicated since it provides a detailed explanation of the physical mechanisms underlying the disclosed apparatus” (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 11).
As discussed in the prior Office actions and further above, examination requires a review of the claims and the supporting written description to (1) determine what Applicant has claimed, (2) identify Applicant’s asserted utility or a well-established utility, and (3) determine if Applicant’s asserted utility is useful for any particular practical purpose (i.e., it has a “specific and substantial utility”) and would be considered credible by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2107.01(II).
(1) The claims are directed towards “[a] system for the controlled fusion reaction of materials” (claim 1) and “[a] device for inducing and controlling nuclear fusion reactions” (claim 8). The claims do not limit the temperatures or energies at which the fusion reactions may occur, and thus encompass systems and devices for inducing and controlling fusion reactions at any temperature. In other words, the scope of the claims includes producing fusion reactions at temperatures which are significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion4 (see also [00137]).
(2) The function of the invention, when used as disclosed, is to initiate and control fusion reactions (see claims 1, 8). In the specification, Applicant asserts that the claimed fusion reactions are useful for the purposes of “energy production, propulsion, formation of material, and generation of directed energetic beams and particles” ([0002]). For example, the specification explicitly states:
“energy may also be produced; ... the high energy particles may be used to create electricity; ... energy may be produced which is then used to create electricity; the high energy particles are alpha particles and energy is produced; and, the high energy particles have an energy of at least about 2 MeV” ([0031]);
“the device or method may be configured and operated to ... to create sustained functioning fusion reactions and fusion reaction devices from a microscale ... to commercial power generation scale” ([0033]);
“Thus, there is further provided readily and easily accessible means to extract the energy created from the fusion reaction for use” ([00125]);
“the overall efficiency of such a system is greater, making it easier to attain a large Q factor and the corresponding energy gain” ([00139]);
“This embodiment may have advantages for large-scale applications, such as large-scale electrical power generation units” ([00157]);
“Fusion reactions ... result in a release of energy, which can be subsequently captured and used for electricity generation, heating, or other useful purposes” ([00175]);
“The control system may control any and all parameters of the fusion reaction, the heat energy gathering or utilization processes, and conversion to electrical or other useful forms of energy. Preferably the control system maintains a predetermined and preselected balance between heat generation and heat extraction” ([00195]); and
“The device of example 24 is fueled with fusion materials to provided for aneutronic fusion, and is used to power an electric automobile” ([00207]).
Thus, the disclosure clearly establishes that the asserted utility of the claimed invention is reactors for initiating, controlling, and sustaining fusion reactions which could be used as a commercially viable source of electricity.
(3) An asserted utility is credible if a person of ordinary skill in the art would accept that the recited or disclosed invention is currently available for such use. In the prior actions and further below, Examiner has provided evidence and analysis supporting the conclusion that it is more likely than not that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not consider Applicant’s asserted utility to be a credible, specific, and substantial utility. It is known in the art that fusion reactions have only been successfully produced in thermonuclear fusion systems which create (or attempt to create) the extreme conditions known to be required for these reactions1. However, the present invention bears no similarity to these thermonuclear fusion systems (e.g., no mechanisms for producing the extreme conditions) and further, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims allow for the initiation and control of fusion reactions at any temperature, including temperatures significantly lower than those known to be required. To date, there have been no fusion systems which have been able to generate fusion reactions, let alone control and sustain these reactions, in low temperature environments. There is also no evidence in the specification or of record which demonstrates that achieving controllable fusion reactions using the claimed system and device, in any and all conditions, is credible. In view of the contemporary knowledge, a skilled artisan would conclude that Applicant’s fusion mechanism operates contrary to established and verified scientific principles. Therefore, the asserted utility is not credible.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is not totally incapable of achieving a useful result and “from the language of the Office action, the examiner appears to recognize and acknowledge that the claims also allow for embodiments that achieve nuclear fusion for utilities other than ‘net energy product’ such as production of helium” (emphasis in original) (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 10). However, as stated by Applicant, the production of helium would first require “achiev[ing] nuclear fusion”. Since the claimed invention is unable to produce fusion reactions, the claimed invention would also be unable to produce helium.
Further, as acknowledged by Applicant (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 9), the courts have previously found cold fusion processes for producing energy to be inoperative and therefore lacking utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000). See MPEP 2107.01(II). Examiner also notes similar utility rejections for another application by the same inventor, USAN 16/757,941 (“the ’941 application”), were affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See Ex parte Alfred Y. Wong, Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Application No. 16/757,941. The claim language of the fusion apparatus of the ’941 application shares similarities with the system and device of the present invention. For example, the claims in both applications require generating an electric field using a plurality of electrodes in order to induce rotational movement of particles and cause fusion (see also, e.g., FIG. 10 of the present application and FIGS. 7a-7b of the ’941 application). The reasons by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for upholding the Examiner’s rejections apply the same to this application. Specifically, this application is also directed towards cold fusion, i.e., nuclear fusion happening at temperatures well below those at which it is known to occur.
Applicant argues that “no portion of the claims is directed to cold fusion” (emphasis in original) (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, pp. 11-12). However, claims 1 and 8 explicitly recite (emphasis added): “[a] system for the controlled fusion reaction of materials” (claim 1), “the annular chamber being configured to provide for the fusion reaction of the first material and the second material during the rotation of the weakly ionized plasma” (claim 1), “[a] device for inducing and controlling nuclear fusion reactions” (claim 8), and “wherein the rotation device is configured to induce rotation of the weakly ionized plasma ... such that fusion reactions between the first fusion reactant and the second fusion reactant take place” (claim 8) . As discussed in the prior Office actions and above, fusion reactions are known to require temperatures of 107-108 K in order to overcome the Coulomb barrier. Fusion reactions which occur at these extreme conditions are thermonuclear (or “hot”) fusion reactions. By contrast, fusion reactions which are hypothesized/alleged to occur at conditions other than these extreme conditions are cold fusion reactions. In other words, “cold fusion” describes any nuclear reaction which purportedly occurs at energies (i.e., temperatures) much lower than those known to be required. Applicant’s device is not capable of producing or sustaining such reactions as the device provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion. Further, the scope of the claims includes producing fusion reactions at low temperatures which are significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion, as discussed above. Thus, Applicant’s claimed “fusion reaction[s]” include cold fusion reactions.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are directed towards newly added and/or amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the above rejections.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85-86
2 What will ITER do? iter.org/sci/Goals
3 See p. 2 of Wong, A. Y., et al. "Influence of Electromagnetic Fields on Nuclear Processes." arXiv preprint arxiv:2011.05385 (2020); available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.05385. “We have named this process of lowering the Coulomb barrier as ‘Electron Catalyzed Fusion’ (ECF).”
4 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html