DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are under examination.
Priority
Claim 1 includes subject matter not found in the parentage of this application (“same frequency,” claim 1). Claim 1 and its dependent claims are therefore treated herein with the earliest priority date for which Examiner could find support for the new matter, which is the date of the original claims of this application, 04/09/2019.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's cancellation of claims 11 and 12 obviate the indefiniteness rejections of these claims, which are withdrawn. Applicant’s deletion of the relative term “high density” in claim 1 obviates the indefiniteness rejection for this limitation, which is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
112 Rejections: Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 6/18/2026, regarding the new matter issue for the limitation “same frequency” are persuasive, and this new matter rejection is withdrawn. The claims are treated with a priority date of 04/09/2019 and do not receive the priority date of the parent applications.
Prior Art Rejections: Applicant's arguments per the 102(b) and 103(a) rejections are unpersuasive because, as explained above, the present application has a priority date of 04/09/2019. Accordingly, the cited prior art references are proper under 35 USC 102(b) and 103(a).
101 and Remaining 112 Rejections:
Regarding the Muir paper,1 Applicant’s submission is noted, but Applicant has included no discussion of the relevance of this paper in their accompanying Remarks. Specifically, Applicant provides no specific arguments or explanations of the relevance of the article with respect to the claimed invention. Applicant acknowledges that this article is “unpublished commentary,”2 and Examiner can find no evidence that this report has been published anywhere, let alone in a reputable scientific journal. Thus, this paper cannot be presumed by Examiner to be representative of a scientific consensus on the claimed invention. Accordingly, this submission is unpersuasive in overcoming the pending rejections.
Regarding the Wong paper3, Applicant’s submission is noted, but Applicant has included no discussion of the relevance of this paper in their accompanying Remarks. Further, this article was authored by Applicants themselves. An article by the Applicant does not counter what contemporary knowledge, accepted by the mainstream scientific community, would otherwise suggest, and it further does not establish that a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider Applicant’s asserted utility credible.
Applicant argues that the instant invention is not cold fusion. The method of the instant invention operates at low temperatures: the method relies on the emission of electrons from the target boron in order to work (“inducing negatively charged electrons … to reduce a Coulomb barrier … to enact a fusion reaction,” claim 1), and the preferred form of boron is “boron nitride” or “lanthanum hexaboride,” Specification at page 20, which have melting points, respectively, of 3246 K4 and 2480 K.5 Therefore, in order for Applicant’s invention to work without melting the boron target, the temperature of the system must be kept under these temperatures. As cited below, the minimum temperature required for nuclear fusion ignition is between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. Therefore, either Applicant’s method melts the boron target—rendering it inoperable—or, the method operates at cold temperatures and is cold fusion—also inoperable.6
Even if Applicant’s invention is hot nuclear fusion, the skilled artisan would still find it more likely than not that Applicant’s claims to produce useful electricity are implausible. This is because, while there are known and scientifically accepted mechanisms for hot nuclear fusion, this application explicitly alleges a “new” kind of fusion: “This invention provides a new approach to the production of fusion energy using neutrals instead of charged particles,” Spec. at page 2. For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting nuclear fusion at odds with established scientific principles, evidence and acceptance by the scientific community is of crucial importance. Examiner does not find evidence for said acceptance by the scientific community.
Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive, and the 101 and 112, first paragraph, rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility.
In Brenner v. Manson, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point—where specific benefit exists in currently available form—the is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.” 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) accordingly explains that the purpose of the utility requirement is “to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of ‘real world’ value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research.” MPEP § 2103, A., I.
Thus USPTO has the initial burden of setting forth a reason to doubt an Appellant's presumptively correct assertion of utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention's asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles.”’ In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, the claims are directed to an approach to nuclear fusion which Applicants identify as enabled from filling an electrode chamber with hydrogen and adding energy. Claim 1, for example, recites:
A method of inducing fusion … inducing negatively charged electrons … and the inducing being configured to reduce a Coulomb barrier ... to enact a fusion reaction.
Applicant asserts that the present invention is for production of useful electricity from nuclear fusion (“produce sufficient fusion reactions … which can be used in a direct conversion to electricity or a source of heat for energy production … without pollution and minimal radioactive wastes … with high efficiency,” Specification, page 4) and acknowledges the difficulties that have prevented previous attempts at doing so (e.g., “Fusion research has been going on since 1950's and the prospect for a commercial reactor is still many years away. The confinement of charged particles, the presence of instabilities and the large amount of energy required to sustain the reacting system at high temperatures all make this into one of the most challenging world-wide efforts .… No simple low-cost reactors have been realized today,” Specification, page 3).
However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have overcome the tremendous barriers known in the art and invented a method for achieving fusion yielding a positive energy output without meeting the accepted and established conditions necessary for fusion to occur, known as the Lawson criterion7. For one, fusion on Earth requires temperatures several orders magnitude greater than 15 million degrees Celsius temperature at the sun’s core8. Mainstream nuclear science reckons that the requisite temperature for fusion on Earth is 100 million degrees Celsius or more. Instead, the instant invention abandons the Lawson criterion, operating differently: “This technology is different from the present day usage of charged particles for fusion,” Specification at page 3.
Applicants acknowledge that no one has yet created a commercially viable fusion reactor (“No simple low-cost reactors have been realized today,” Specification, page 3) but Applicants envisage that the instant invention solves this problem. The disclosed and asserted specific utilities include the following, all of which require useful production of heat/electricity from the alleged new type of nuclear fusion mechanism claimed:
“The advantages of such a fusion reactor are numerous, one of which is the siting of reactors in urban areas. Others are environmental considerations including low amount of nuclear wastes, low cost of fuels and the replacement of hydrocarbons as fuels, thereby eliminating the emission of greenhouse gases,” Specification at page 3
“[The] repeated interactions at high neutral densities combine to make this a system without pollution and minimal radioactive wastes,” Specification at page 4
“The fusion product, energetic doubly-charged helium nuclei, lend themselves to direct conversion to electricity with high efficiency,” Specification at page 4
“… produce sufficient fusion reactions … which can be used in a direct conversion to electricity or a source of heat for energy production…without pollution and minimal radioactive wastes … with high efficiency,” Specification at page 4
“[T]here is almost no fundamental limit to the scale (large and small) at which an Alpha Unit could be implemented … it could be used to provide power to electronic circuitry, or for other purposes; or implemented on a very large scale where it could, for example, satisfy the electricity requirements of entire cities, regions or countries,” Specification at page 14
“[T]he thermal energy could be used directly to supply heat for industrial processes, for space heating in buildings or for water desalination,” Specification at page 18
“[A] device to propel an object attached to the Alpha Unit (e.g., a vehicle, either on Earth or in space) by directing a flow of particles out of the Alpha Unit. The high velocities of particles within the Alpha Unit would result in a large reactive force when those particles are directed outward, propelling the Alpha Unit and the object to which it is attached at a high rate of speed,” Specification at page 23
“The most obvious application of the Alpha Unit is in stationary electricity generation applications, including:
New build power plants, either central (utility-scale) or distributed (e.g., building-scale). These plants may be in rural, suburban, or urban settings on land, or may be applied in sub-sea environments. In distributed generation applications, a building relying on electricity from one or more Alpha Units might choose to avoid connecting to the power grid, since the Alpha Units would be capable of satisfying 100% of the building's electricity need.
Repowering of existing nuclear, coal-fired, gas-fired, and other conventional power plants. In this case, the switchyard, transmission interconnection, generators, and other components of the existing power plant might continue to be used, with only the boiler being removed and replaced with one or more Alpha Units.
Because of its flexible size and relatively simple construction, the Alpha Unit could also be used to generate electricity in non-stationary settings. For example:
Mobile electronic devices (e.g., cell phones, laptop computers, tablets)
Transportation devices/vehicles (cars, buses, trains, planes, lighter-than-air aircraft, helicopters, ships, submarines, satellites, spacecraft, space stations, etc.)
As a replacement for pumps (e.g., self-propelled pigs for pipelines),” Specification at pages 22-23
The Specification estimates theoretical outcomes based on the invention (see formulas in the Spec. at pages 6-10), but does not provide any experimental evidence of a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy or “break-even” fusion, such as for producing useful electricity as asserted. Nor is there a disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion reaction on the scale needed to currently achieve the benefits noted above. The Specification at page 7 simply assumes the break-even fusion condition is fulfilled: “The fusion break-even condition is given by the fusion output being greater than the energy input per unit volume.” The lack of any experimental results, or of any supporting evidence from a third party, also weigh in favor of finding that the claimed subject matter, if even operative, lacks the real-world value required by 35 U.S.C. 101.
Current publications and documents evidence a consensus in the scientific community that there is yet to be a fusion technique—thermonuclear or cold—capable producing an energy gain sufficient for practical applications. As noted Dylla,9 as recently as 2020, the largest nuclear fusion project in the world—the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)—aspired 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.”
Further according to the official ITER10 webpage:
“The world record for fusion power in a magnetic confinement fusion device is held by the European tokamak JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 MW of fusion power from a total input heating power of 24 MW (Q=0.67). ITER is designed to yield in its plasma a ten-fold return on power (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input heating power. ITER will not convert the heating power it produces as electricity, but — as the first of all magnetic confinement fusion experiments in history to produce net energy gain across the plasma (crossing the threshold of Q≥1) — it will prepare the way for the machines that can.”
There currently exist no nuclear fusion reactors, thermonuclear (hot) or cold, capable of producing useful energy gain for practical applications. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest operational fusion system in the US to date that operates at extreme temperatures. In December 2022, the NIF reportedly achieved a “nuclear fusion breakthrough,” producing 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. This was the first ever demonstration in the world of a target producing more energy than was delivered to the target. However, the laser system11 itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced. Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment is far from a demonstration of practical energy production—as stated by experts in the fusion community.12,13
When the most advanced thermonuclear fusion reactors in the world have yet to create more energy than they consume (“net” energy gain), Applicant’s claims to (a) already be in possession of a nuclear fusion method that operates without the extreme temperatures needed for traditional fusion, and (b) that such a method achieves a net energy gain would be questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
To accomplish this feat, Applicant’s method relies on simply supplying electrical and magnetic energy to a neutral (hydrogen) gas in a chamber with electrodes and a Boron target, claim 1, for nuclear fusion-induced element power production.
However, as is known by those having ordinary skill in the art, 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 University14 explains:
“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. With particle energies in the range of 1-10keV, the temperatures are in the range of 107–108 K.”
Applicants have failed to sufficiently disclose how the claimed method for taking advantage of the hydrogen gas is capable of producing or sustaining a fusion reaction. The disclosure provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius/Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion ignition.
To the contrary, the method of the instant invention operates at lower temperatures. The method relies on the emission of electrons from the target boron in order to work (“inducing negatively charged electrons … to reduce a Coulomb barrier … to enact a fusion reaction,” claim 1), and the preferred form of boron is “boron nitride” or “lanthanum hexaboride,” Specification at page 20, which have melting points, respectively, of 3246 K15 and 2480 K.16 Therefore, in order for Applicant’s invention to work without melting the boron target, the temperature of the system must be kept under these temperatures.
As cited above in the quotation from Georgia State University, the minimum temperature required for nuclear fusion ignition is between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. Applicant’s temperatures must be below 2480 – 3246 Kelvin without melting the target responsible for the underlying mechanism of operation. Therefore, Applicant’s invention appears to fit squarely in the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion.
In summary, Applicant’s invention tries to “have it both ways,” citing net-positive “clean” energy for solving the fusion industry’s woes (e.g., see Spec. at page 3) but without any of the consequences (e.g., the necessity of confining an extremely hot nuclear reaction without melting the target).
Applicant’s cold nuclear fusion allegedly occurs due to a reliance on “a space charge effect” that “increases the probability of quantum tunnelling,” as stated on page 19 of the Specification. While the disclosure discusses the necessity of this “space charge effect” and “quantum tunnelling,” no explanation is provided as to how the skilled artisan may practically manipulate or take advantage of these effects. Moreover, a review of the scientific literature finds no support whatsoever for such effects having the alleged intended result of cold nuclear fusion, let alone simply from energizing a hydrogen gas in an electrode chamber, as recited in claim 1.
There are known mechanisms for achieving hot nuclear fusion, but this application explicitly alleges a “new” kind of fusion: “This invention provides a new approach to the production of fusion energy using neutrals instead of charged particles,” Spec. at page 2. For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting nuclear fusion at odds with established scientific principles, evidence and acceptance by the scientific community is of crucial importance because the PTO may meet its burden to establish a prima facie case of lack of utility where the written description suggests an unbelievable undertaking or implausible principles. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d. at 1357.
The claimed invention for generating and maintaining an exothermic fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source via the formation and manipulation of a “rotation of ions and neutrals” (claim 1) is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less reproducibility of results. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864 (“Here the PTO provided several references showing that results in the area of cold fusion were irreproducible. Thus the PTO provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would ‘reasonably doubt’ the asserted utility and operability of cold fusion”). 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 and use the invention. If reproducibility occurs only in one’s own laboratory, errors (such as systematic errors) could reasonably be suspected. Applicant’s disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
The Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers in which the mainstream scientific community (i.e., outside of Applicant’s own laboratory or simulations) has replicated or built upon Applicant’s purportedly revolutionary discovery. Therefore, the Examiner must conclude that the claimed invention has not been independently reproduced.
In view of the above, it is more likely than not that an ordinarily skilled artisan would doubt the effective obtention of a fusion reaction, i.e., causing and capability to create useful electricity as claimed, as well the benefits asserted by Applicants as of the effective date of the claims. Rather, the preponderance of evidence supports a finding that as of the effective date, the claimed method was at most at starting point for future investigation or research. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1357.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejection, which are incorporated herein. The production of commercial electricity via a net-positive nuclear fusion is considered as being Applicant's specified utility (e.g., “The most obvious application … is in [] electricity generation,” Specification at page 22). Applicant’s invention is disclosed as operating at energy ranges many orders of magnitude below what the scientific community considers conducive to nuclear fusion. The ordinary skilled artisan would find it more likely than not that Applicant’s invention was neither (a) net-energy-producing hot fusion, nor (b) cold fusion because, as detailed above: regarding (a), net-energy-producing hot nuclear fusion has never yet been observed; and regarding (b), cold fusion is considered unworkable by the scientific community. 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. See In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, the invention as disclosed is deemed inoperable, i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the Applicant.
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, first paragraph. 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.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility for the same reasons set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 (which are incorporated herein), one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejections, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because the best mode contemplated by the inventor(s) has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon the disclosure of the Wong (US 20170372801 A1) publication cited herein. Wong discloses a reactor having a hydrogen chamber with electrodes as a source of cold fusion energy, i.e., Applicant’s claimed invention. However, as shown, this method remains unproven and unworkable for the purposes of useful electricity generation. Accordingly, if Applicant's cold fusion device is operative, while Wong’s is not, then the Examiner must conclude that some essential information is missing from Applicant's disclosure that makes Applicant's invention operative.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims 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.
To be enabling, the disclosure, as filed, must be sufficiently complete to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and a use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. It is the Examiner’s position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of the claimed invention.
Applicant asserts they have produced an operative method for achieving controlled nuclear fusion for useful electricity production (claim 1 and Specification at page 3) in a low-temperature environment (Specification at page 20).
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, the evidence weighs in favor of a finding that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the claimed invention, and therefore, a determination that the disclosure fails to satisfy the enablement requirement. Specifically:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims (e.g., see claim 1) are very broad: a hydrogen chamber supplies energy to its electrode, followed by an induced rotation of neutral particles and ions, resulting in the world’s first-ever net-positive nuclear fusion method (“…to enact a fusion reaction,” claim 1).
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of cold (low-energy) nuclear fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy; as currently disclosed by Applicant, cold fusion involves a questionable departure from the accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear and plasma physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism. As such, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science.
(C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who can create and operate nuclear fusion reactors using conventional technology that do not produce net positive energy.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Low-temperature nuclear fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant’s disclosure does not provide the necessary step-by-step guide to actually achieve the claimed end goal of self-sustained/breakeven nuclear fusion. The disclosure simply asserts that the invention operates as alleged due to “a space charge effect” that somehow enables “quantum tunnelling, effectively reducing the Coulomb barrier” (see page 19 of the Specification).
(G) The existence of working examples: The Specification describes theoretical experimental outcomes based on the invention (see Spec. at pages 6-10), but does not provide any experimental evidence of a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy such as for producing useful electricity as asserted. Nor is there a disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion. Nor is there evidence that the provided example has been reliably reproduced or that it enjoys mainstream support.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: The quantity of experimentation needed is unreasonable because the practical guidance provided is insufficient to enable one to build or operate a working prototype of the invention.
Any claim not specifically addressed above that depends on a rejected claim is accordingly also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are rejected under 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are the same as those found missing in the above best mode rejection.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Wong (US 2017/0372801 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses a method of inducing fusion between neutral particles, comprising: providing a target (e.g., boron reactant, “the reactant attached to or embedded in the confining wall includes boron-11,” ¶ 30) in a cylindrical chamber (e.g., Figs. 1a-c), the cylindrical chamber comprising an outer electrode (110) and an inner electrode (120) coaxially located within said outer electrode, and said target comprising at least Boron in which said target is directly attached to an outer surface of said inner electrode (“the reactant attached to or embedded in the confining wall includes boron-11,” ¶ 30); supplying a gas into said cylindrical chamber (“a reactant is provided from an external source such as from a gas supply tank,” ¶ 112); forming a plasma of ions and neutrals from said gas in said chamber by applying energy into said chamber, from a source of energy (“When a sufficient electric potential is applied between the electrodes … a radial plasma current across the annular space is generated,” ¶ 122), said energy being discharged through each of discharge rods comprising, respectively, said outer and inner electrodes (120, 110; “current discharge between electrodes,” ¶ 234); providing, in said chamber, electric and magnetic fields oscillating at a same frequency (“applying an alternating current to the electrodes at the same frequency that the magnetic field oscillates,” ¶ 296), and the providing being configured to yield the oscillating (a) inducing said plasma of ions and neutrals to rotate around an axis of said chamber through ion-neutral coupling (“this process may be referred to as ion-neutral coupling,” ¶ 78) and (b) rotating ions and neutrals synchronously with said fields (“magnetic field … synchronized with the electric field,” ¶ 169); inducing negatively charged electrons to be introduced in said chamber (“the reactor is designed to emit electrons,” ¶ 79), and the inducing, reducing being configured to reduce a Coulomb barrier between positively charged protons inside two approaching nuclei in said rotating plasma (“The presence of excess electrons lowers the Coulomb barrier and thereby increases the probability of fusion,” ¶ 79); rotating neutrals during the rotation (“This force drives them azimuthally into rotation,” ¶ 77); providing a layer of electrons disposed adjacent to said outer electrode (“electrons can be easily produced, and in high density,” ¶ 110; “these electrons may form an electron-rich region 232 near the confining wall 210,” ¶ 79)`; and restricting said negatively charged electrons to a wall of said outer electrode (“these electrons may form an electron-rich region 232 near the confining wall 210,” ¶ 79); wherein, said rotation of ions and neutrals in said chamber is configured to impinge neutral particles in said chamber against said target to enact a fusion reaction between neutral particles in said plasma and said target (“hydrogen atoms rotate in the reactor and impinge on boron or lithium atoms in the reactor wall to undergo fusion,” ¶ 73).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wong (US 2011/0188623 A1) in view of Rostoker (US 2006/0254520 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses a method of inducing fusion between neutral particles, comprising: providing a target (10, fig. 1) in a cylindrical chamber (5), the cylindrical chamber comprising an outer electrode (6/7) and an inner electrode (8) coaxially located within said outer electrode, and said target comprising at least Boron (“Boron target,” claim 1) in which said target is directly attached to an outer surface of said inner electrode (see fig. 1, boron target 10 attached to outer surface of inner electrode 8); supplying a gas (“hydrogen gas,” claim 1) into said cylindrical chamber; forming a plasma of ions and neutrals from said gas in said chamber by applying energy into said chamber, from a source of energy (“an electrical power supply providing DC and pulsed operation … wherein a plasma of ions and neutrals created by said hydrogen gas and Boron target is caused to rotate within said cylindrical chamber by said electric and magnetic fields,” claim 1), said energy being discharged through each of discharge rods comprising, respectively, said outer and inner electrodes (6/7 and 8, respectively; “The plasma impedance between the two concentric cylinders [the electrodes] is lowered such that a radial current flows between the concentric cylinders. This radial discharge current across the magnetic field,” ¶ 28); providing, in said chamber, electric and magnetic fields, and the providing being configured to yield an oscillating (a) inducing said plasma of ions and neutrals to rotate around an axis of said chamber through ion-neutral coupling and (b) rotating ions and neutrals synchronously with said fields (“a plasma of ions and neutrals created by said hydrogen gas and Boron target is caused to rotate within said cylindrical chamber by said electric and magnetic fields,” claim 1 and “the ions and neutrals … rotate together,” claim 2); inducing negatively charged electrons to be introduced in said chamber (“provide electrons and ions for pre-ionization,” ¶ 28), and the inducing being configured to reduce a Coulomb barrier between positively charged protons inside two approaching nuclei in said rotating plasma (Coulomb barrier reduction is necessary for fusion to occur; “This range of energy allows fusion to take place,” ¶ 28); rotating neutrals during the rotation (“the ions and neutrals … rotate together,” claim 2); providing a layer of electrons (“provide electrons and ions for pre-ionization,” ¶ 28) disposed adjacent to said outer electrode (the electrons are inside the chamber 5 by the plasma between 6/7 and 8, which includes the area adjacent the outer electrode 6/7); and restricting said negatively charged electrons to a wall of said outer electrode (at least some of the above-cited electrons are adjacent/inside the plasma, which is the area between 6/7 and 8, which includes some being adjacent a wall of outer electrode 6/7); wherein, said rotation of ions and neutrals in said chamber is configured to impinge neutral particles in said chamber against said target to enact a fusion reaction between neutral particles in said plasma and said target (“a plasma of ions and neutrals created by said hydrogen gas and Boron target is caused to rotate within said cylindrical chamber by said electric and magnetic fields at acceleration levels sufficient to cause fusion between particles in said plasma,” claim 1).
Wong does not explicitly state that the electric and magnetic fields are oscillating at a same frequency.
Rostoker does. Rostoker is in the same art area of alleged fusion reactors and teaches providing, in a chamber, electric and magnetic fields oscillating at a same frequency (“The magnetic field 720 is adjusted so that the rotation frequency of the ions matches that of the electric potential and associated electric field,” ¶ 211). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the aligned oscillation as taught by Rostoker because this increases the energy of the system: “The ion I is again accelerated, and its energy is further increased. This process is repeated every time the ion crosses the gap 730 provided its rotation frequency continues to match that of the oscillating electric field (see FIG. 24C). If on the other hand a particle crosses the gap 730 when the electric field is in the opposite direction it will be decelerated and returned to the source at the center … Thus, proper phase matching is essential for acceleration,” ¶ 211.
Regarding claim 2, Wong with Rostoker teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Wong further discloses wherein the gas is hydrogen gas (“hydrogen gas,” claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wong with Rostoker teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Wong further discloses wherein the source of energy is a magnetic field source (superconducting magnet 11, fig. 1; “a superconducting magnet,” claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Wong with Rostoker teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Wong further discloses maintaining the number of ions in the chamber according to voltage pulses and the rotation of said plasma of ions and neutrals according to a continuous wave voltage (“a combination of pulses and CW voltages are used to maximize the efficiency between rotating energy and the input electrical energy; pulses are used to sustain the number of ions in the system and CW voltages are used to maintain the rotation,” claim 11).
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wong as modified by Rostoker above, further in view of Greenside (US 4,721,595).
Regarding claim 13, Wong with Rostoker teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination further teaches controlling operating parameters within said chamber including rate of fuel input (Wong, “hydrogen gas is injected into the cylindrical chamber,” claim 10), rate of fusion product removal (Wong, helium is removed for subsequent processing: “The fusion product, energetic doubly-charged helium nuclei, lend themselves to direct conversion to electricity with high efficiency,” ¶ 11), flow of working fluid for thermal energy capture (Wong, “a cooling system capable of conducting heat from said cylindrical chamber,” claim 1), via a control system (implicit in Wong, explicit in Rostoker: control system 810 or “control system,” ¶ 120) integrated with magnetic and optical sensors (Wong, “quadrupole mass spectrometer,” ¶ 38) and heat/temperature sensors (implicit in Wong per the “cooling system,” claim 1, explicit in Rostoker per the measured temperature, e.g., “Temperature ~ 10-20 eV,” ¶ 168, “Average ion temperature,” and “Average electron temperature,” ¶¶ 197-198) but does not explicitly suggest the claimed integration with MRI/NMR.
However, it was already known in the art area at the time the invention was made to integrate a fusion reactor control system with nuclear magnetic resonance, as taught by Greenside at col. 2, ll. 48-55 and col. 3, ll. 15-17. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to integrate NMR techniques into the control system of modified Wong in order to use a well-known and widely available technique to easily measure the spin-lattice relaxation time and depolarization rates, col. 3, ll. 2-20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
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.
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.
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
1 23-page NPL (“Steady state…”) in the file 06/17/2025.
2 Remarks dated 06/17/2025, end of page 5.
3 13-page NPL (“An Approach…”) in the file 06/17/2025.
4 wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron_nitride
5 wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanthanum_hexaboride
6 Cold fusion devices have been to the federal circuit and lost twice. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir.
2000) and In re Dash, No. 04-1145, 08/439,712 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
7 “Plasmas must meet three conditions for fusion to occur, including reaching sufficient temperature, density, and [confinement] time.” The Science of Fusion Where triple product reigns supreme”, https://usfusionenergy.org/science-fusion (last visited October 27, 2025).
8 Id.
9 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86.
10 What will ITER do? <iter.org/fusion-energy/what-will-iter-do>
11 https://lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition
12 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598. <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7>.
13 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article. <https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal#>.
14 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>.
15 wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron_nitride
16 wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanthanum_hexaboride
Prosecution Insights