DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request for continued examination (RCE) filed 9 March 2026 has been entered. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-27, 31, and 33-37 are pending. Claims 2 and 35-37 are withdrawn. Thus, claims 1, 3, 5-12, 15-27, 31, and 33-34 are further examined herein.
In the amendment, claim 30/29/28/1 was inserted into claim 1. Claims 28-30 were canceled. However, claim 30 was previously examined.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this Action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 15-27, 31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claims contain 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.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the prior Office Action dated 8 September 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. Furthermore, since the claimed invention is an inoperative invention (for reasons further discussed below), it cannot be enabled.
The same issues regarding patentable (and substantially the same claims) that were fully reviewed in the PTAB decision of 26 January 2022 are still pending.
For reasons already of record, the pending claims are broad enough to encompass significant non-enabled subject matter (e.g., low energy/temperature nuclear fusion or “LENR” or “cold fusion”). Federal Circuit precedent has shown that claims which are broad enough to encompass significant non-enabled subject matter will be found non-enabled. For example, note: Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 997-1000 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and Automotive Technologies Intern., Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Reply does not remove the issues considered in the PTAB decision.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 15-27, 31,and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the prior Office Action dated 8 September 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. This application claims an invention that contradicts known scientific principles. An invention that is "inoperative" (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by applicant) is not a "useful" invention in the meaning of patent law (MPEP 2107.01).
The same issues regarding patentable (and substantially the same claims) that were fully reviewed in the PTAB decision of 26 January 2022 are still pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has reviewed Applicant's comparison of the present disclosure with the reference titled “An Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing the Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals, Part 1” (published January 31, 2025) by Wong et al. This reference has been fully considered. Even if the reference contained the features alleged by Applicant, it still does not provide any supporting evidence that overcomes the rejections. For example, it does not provide enablement support for the recited invention. Applicant's arguments do not cure the deficiencies noted by the examiner and affirmed by PTAB.
Furthermore, the present application claims priority to 2013. It is impermissible to use a later reference (which shows the state of the art existing after the effective filing date of the application) to determine whether the present application is enabled. In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 823 n. 5, 204 USPQ 702, 706 n.5 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2124.
Conclusion
All claims are patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). Prosecution on the merits is closed.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and an advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from that advisory action mailing date. In no event will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims and/or the specification.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights