DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
A Reply was filed 28 October 2025. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1-28, 30-31, and 34-42 are pending. Claims 1-27 were withdrawn. Thus, claims 28, 30-31, and 34-42 are further 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 28, 30-31, and 34-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 28 the phrase “a weakly-ionized plasma of ions and neutrals resulting in a suppression of radiation losses corresponding to bremsstrahlung” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the claim wording should be interpreted as:
(1) the electrical current generates, from the first reactant, a weakly-ionized plasma of ions and neutrals, wherein the ions and neutrals result in a suppression of radiation losses, wherein the radiation losses are caused by bremsstrahlung;
(2) the electrical current generates, from the first reactant, a weakly-ionized plasma of ions and neutrals, wherein the ions and neutrals result in a suppression of radiation losses, wherein the suppression is caused by bremsstrahlung;
(3) the electrical current generates a weakly-ionized plasma of ions and neutrals from the first reactant, the generation resulting in a suppression of radiation losses, wherein the radiation losses are caused by bremsstrahlung;
(4) the electrical current generates a weakly-ionized plasma of ions and neutrals from the first reactant, the generation resulting in a suppression of radiation losses, wherein the suppression is caused by bremsstrahlung; or
(5) something else.
Since the claim can be differently interpreted, it is prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 28, 30-31, and 34-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the prior Office Action dated 29 April 2025 are herein incorporated by reference. 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. For the many reasons of record, Applicant’s disclosure is deemed non enabling and inoperative.
The pending claims are broad enough to encompass significant non enabled subject matter. 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); Automotive Technologies Intern., Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 905— 09 (Fed. Cir. 2004); and In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 27 USPQ2d 1510 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The RCE does not remove the issues previously reviewed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 28, 30-31, and 34-42 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 29 April 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's remarks mention a newly submitted first article to "An Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing the Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals, Part 1," (published January 31, 2025), and a newly submitted second article to "Steady state rotational dynamics of a weakly ionised hydrogen plasma under cross-field configuration" (unpublished commentary dated May 28, 2025).
It is not seen where these articles were made of record by being listed on an IDS form. These articles have been viewed and considered, but they are not persuasive. For example, they do not provide enablement support for the recited invention. Additionally, the examiner notes that the two articles appear to be by a current inventor or a person associated with the assignee Alpha Ring. Furthermore, the examiner notes that 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.
Applicant's remarks mention the previously submitted articles: "Enhancement of Nuclear Fusion in Plasma Oscillation Systems" (2021); "Dynamically Assisted Tunneling in the Impulse Regime" (2021); and “Physicists Probe Core of Strong Nuclear Interaction between Protons and Neutrons” (2020). However, these articles were already fully considered and addressed in prior Office Actions. Applicant's new remarks do not expand the fixed teachings of these articles.
Other arguments by Applicant are directed to:
Moreover, Applicant notes “Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing the Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals” (2019) (Remarks at page 18)
Finally, Applicant also submitted into the record the Declaration of the present inventor, Alfred Y. Wong Ph.D., dated June 13, 2013 (Remarks at page 18)
Applicant’s embodiments do not regard cold fusion (Remarks at pages 20-21).
The examiner notes that these articles were already fully considered. With regard to the last argument, The examiner notes that “cold fusion” has many names. Some names are: low energy nuclear (fusion) reactions (LENR); low temperature nuclear reactions; chemically assisted nuclear reactions (CANR); lattice assisted nuclear reactions (LANR); and lattice enabled nuclear reactions. Other names may be referred to as part of: condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS); and muon-catalyzed fusion at low temperatures. This is not necessarily a complete list of all names. The prior Office Actions explain why the claims fall under the umbrella of “cold fusion”, regardless of what different name Applicant may use.
Applicant also mentions the articles “Probing the Core of the Strong Nuclear Interaction” (Remarks at page 13) and "Electron Catalyzed Fusion" (Remarks at page 18). It is not seen where these articles were made of record by being listed on an IDS form. Nevertheless, if these articles were provided to the examiner (in any manner), then they were fully considered.
Additional Comment
As discussed in previous Office Actions, US courts have determined that similar claims of “cold fusion” fail to comply with both the enablement requirement and the utility requirement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 the 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 mailing date of the advisory action, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from that mailing date. In no event, however, 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